I N F O R M A T IO N T O USE RS

Thi s d is s e r ta ti o n w as p r o d u c e d f r o m a m ic r o f i lm c o p y of t h e original d o c u m e n t .
While t h e m o s t a d v a n c e d te ch n o l o g ic a l m e a n s to p h o t o g r a p h a n d r e p r o d u c e this
d o c u m e n t have b e e n used, t h e qu a li ty is heavily d e p e n d e n t u p o n t h e qu a li ty of
t h e original s u b m i t t e d .
T h e fo ll o w i n g e x p l a n a t i o n o f t e c h n i q u e s is p r o v id e d t o h e lp y o u
m a rk in gs o r p a t t e r n s w h ic h m a y a p p e a r o n th is r e p r o d u c t i o n .

understand

1.

T h e sign o r ' t a r g e t " fo r pages a p p a r e n t l y lacking f r o m t h e d o c u m e n t
p h o t o g r a p h e d is "Missing Page(s)''. If it was possible to o b t a i n t h e
missing page(s) o r sectio n, t h e y are spliced i n t o t h e film al ong with
a d j a c e n t pages. Thi s may have n e c e s s i t a t e d c u t t i n g t h r u an image a nd
d u p l i c a t i n g a d j a c e n t pages t o ins ure y o u c o m p l e t e c o n t i n u i t y .

2.

When
m a rk ,
copy
image.

3.

W h e n a m a p, dr a w in g or char t, etc., was p a rt of t h e mate ria l being
p h o t o g r a p h e d t h e p h o t o g r a p h e r f o ll o w e d a d e f i n i t e m e t h o d in
" s e c t i o n i n g " t h e material. It is c u s t o m a r y t o be gin p h o t o i n g a t t h e
u p p e r le ft h a n d c o r n e r of a large s h e e t a n d t o c o n t i n u e p h o t o i n g f r o m
left t o right in eq ual s e c t i o n s w it h a small overlap. If necessary,
s e c t i o n i n g is c o n t i n u e d again — begin ning b e l o w t h e first r o w a n d
c o n t i n u i n g o n until c o m p l e t e .

4.

T h e m a j o r i t y of users indi ca te t h a t t h e te x tu a l c o n t e n t is o f greatest
value, ho w e v e r, a s o m e w h a t hi g h e r q u a l i t y r e p r o d u c t i o n c ould be
m a d e f r o m " p h o t o g r a p h s " if essential to t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e
d i s s e r t a t i o n . Silver p r i n t s of " p h o t o g r a p h s " m a y be o r d e r e d at
a d d i t i o n a l c h a r g e by w ri ti n g t h e O r d e r D e p a r t m e n t , giving t h e catalog
n u m b e r , title, a u t h o r a n d specific pages y o u wish r e p r o d u c e d .

an image
it is an
m a y have
Y o u will

o n t h e film is o b l i t e r a t e d w it h a large r o u n d black
in d ic a tio n t h a t t h e p h o t o g r a p h e r s u s p e c t e d t h a t t h e
m o v e d d u r in g e x p o s u r e a n d t h u s c au s e a b lu rr ed
f i n d a g o o d image of t h e page in t h e a d j a c e n t frame.

U niversity Microfilms
300 N orth Z e e b R o a d
Ann A rbor. M ichigan 43106
A Xerox E d u c a ti o n C o m p a n y

7 3 -5 4 3 5
MARTIN, W illia m D o n a ld , 1929RECREATION RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION AND PROGRAMING
NEEDS OF THE INNER-CITY: A COMPARISON OF
RESIDENT AND CCM4LJNITY LEADER OPINIONS IN
LANSING, MICHIGAN.
M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , P h .D ., 1972
U rb a n a n d R e g io n a l P la n n in g

U niversity M icrofilm s. A XEROX C om pany , A n n Arbor, M ichigan

THIS D I S S E R T A T I O N HAS BEEN M I C R O F I L M E D E X A C T L Y AS R E C E I V E D

RECREATION RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION AND PROGRAMMING
NEEDS OF THE INNER-CITY:

A COMPARISON OF

RESIDENT AND COMMUNITY LEADER OPINIONS
IN LANSING, MICHIGAN
By
W illiam D onald M a rtin

A THESIS

S ubm itted t o
M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u lf illm e n t o f th e requirem ents
fo r the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
D e p a rtm e n t o f R e s o u rc e D evelopment
1972

PLEASE NOTE:

Some p a g e s may h a v e
i nd i s t i nc t p r i n t .
Filmed as

University

Microfilms,

received.

A Xerox E d u c a t i o n

Company

ABSTRACT
RECREATION RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION AND PROGRAMMING
NEEDS OF THE INNER-CITY: A COMPARISON OF
RESIDENT AND COMMUNITY LEADER OPINIONS
IN LANSING, MICHIGAN
By
W i l l i a m Donald M a r t i n

Much o f t h e c u r r e n t

lite ra tu re h ig h lig h ts

c o r e -c e n te rs o f th e c o u n tr y 's urban a re a s.
u n r e s t and f r u s t r a t i o n s
fa c t th a t th e

c ities'

the c itiz e n s '

needs,

to

and a r e n o t a l l o c a t i n g

am ount,

le isu re -tim e needs.

is

th at

of p ro v id in g adequate r e c r e a t i o n

t h e d e c i s i o n m a k e r s r e l y on t h e r e c r e ­
rep resen tativ es

and l o c a t i o n o f f a c i l i t i e s
Very l i t t l e

stu d y :

th e author proposed th e

T here is

o f th e re s id e n ts
leaders

to

and program s

survey re se a rc h has been
facto rs.

la c k o f r e s e a r c h and t o t h e a p p a re n t p ro b le m s t h a t e x i s t

urban a re a s ,

the

im proving th e q u a l i t y

used to g et th e r e s i d e n t s ’ o p in io n s concerning th e se
th is

is

resources necessary

and t h e community o r g a n i z a t i o n

r eco m m en d t h e t y p e s ,
t o meet

in th o se a re a s

the

One o f t h e c o n c e r n s i n

In most c a s e s ,

atio n p ro fessio n als

Some r e a s o n s g i v e n f o r t h e

o f t h e p e o p l e who l i v e

o f th e urban r e s i d e n t

o p p o rtu n ities.

in th e

d e c i s i o n m akers a r e n o t a d e q u a t e l y p e r c e i v i n g

s o lv e th e problem s.

of life

th e problem s

fo llo w in g h y p o th e sis

Due t o
in th e

fo r h is

a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e betw een th e s t a t e d needs
an d t h e o p i n i o n s o f t h e c o m m u n i t y o r g a n i z a t i o n

concerning

le isu re -tim e o p p o rtu n ities

in th e " i n n e r - c i t y "

area.

W i l l i a m Donald M a r t i n
The g e o g r a p h i c a l s c o p e o f t h e s t u d y was
o r i g i n a l M o d el C i t i e s

lim ite d to the

a r e a o f L a n s in g , M ic h ig a n w h ic h c o m p ris e d an

e s tim a te d 4,516 r e s i d e n t i a l d w e llin g u n i t s or h o u seholds.
number,

159 c o m p l e t e d i n t e r v i e w s w e r e o b t a i n e d

mary a d u l t s

in each h o u sehold,

From t h i s

from one o f t h e p r i ­

and an a d d i t i o n a l

70 i n d i v i d u a l

in ter­

v i e w s w e r e o b t a i n e d f r o m o t h e r h o u s e h o l d member s f o r s u p p l e m e n t a r y
data.

A to tal

o f 40 c o m m u n i t y o r g a n i z a t i o n

leaders

adm inistered q u e s tio n n a ire w ith d a ta r e l a t in g
cerning th e

w elfare,

to t h e i r opinions con­

l e i s u r e - t i m e n e e d s i n t h e Model C i t i e s

represented o rg an izatio n s
ed u catio n al,

or

area.

The l e a d e r s

in th e C i t y o f L a n sin g w hich s e r v e d s o c i a l ,
le isu re -tim e fu n ctio n s.

le a d e rs were in v o lv ed to

some d e g r e e

ties

area.

i n t h e Model C i t i e s

returned a s e l f ­

Tw enty-seven o f th e

in p r o v i d i n g r e c r e a t i o n a l

activ i­

Q u e s t i o n s w e r e d e s i g n e d t o g a t h e r d a t a on t w e n t y - f o u r c r i ­
terio n v ariab les
organization
1.

l e a d e r s b a s e d on t h e

A ra tin g

Ways t o
C ities

4.

i n t h e Model

area.
of leisu re-tim e

serv ices

as com pared t o o t h e r a r e a s
3.

an d o f t h e

follow ing c a te g o r ie s :

T he a d e q u a c y o f l e i s u r e - t i m e o p p o r t u n i t i e s
C ities

2.

r e l a t in g to th e opinions o f th e r e s id e n ts

im prove t h e

i n t h e Model C i t i e s a r e a

of th e C ity.

leisu re-tim e

o p p o rtu n ities

i n t h e M ode l

area.

T he e x i s t e n c e a n d t y p e s o f p r o b l e m s t h a t
p a t i o n b y Model C i t i e s

resid en ts

in

in h ib it p a r tic i­

l e i s u r e - t i m e program s.

Wi l l i a m D o n a l d M a r t i n

5.

Types o f a c t i v i t i e s

need ed or p r e f e r r e d

by Model C i t i e s

resid en ts.
6.

C ertain

sele cted fa c to rs

i n t h e Model C i t i e s
R esu lts
parison s:
to tal

(1)

about n e ig h b o rh o o d r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r s

area.

from t h e d a t a w e re u sed t o make t h e
opinions o f th e o rg a n iz a tio n

s a m p l e o f Model C i t i e s

resid en ts;

le a d e r s w ith th o se o f th e

(2)

the

opinions of th e

le a d e r s w ith th o se o f a sam ple o f b la c k r e s i d e n t s
of w hite re s id e n ts ;

and

(3)

th o se of w hite r e s id e n ts .
sig n ifican t

The c h i- s q u a r e

t e s t was u sed t o d e t e r m i n e

c o n t i n g e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t was c o m p u t e d

to m easure t h e d e g re e o f a s s o c i a t i o n betw een t h e

com parative g ro u p s

v ariab les.

The d a t a i n d i c a t e d
the

lead ers

the

tw enty-four c r ite r io n

evidence

and w i t h a s a m p l e

th e opinions o f th e b lack r e s id e n ts w ith

d i f f e r e n c e s and th e

b a s e d on t h e c r i t e r i o n

f o l l o w i n g com­

and t h e t o t a l

sig n ifican t d ifferen ces
sam ple o f r e s i d e n t s
v ariab les,

supported h is h y p o th e s is .

and t h e
A lso,

o f opinion betw een

b a s e d on s i x t e e n o f
a u t h o r concluded t h a t

the

d a t a showed t h a t

(1)

t h e r e w ere s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s of o p in io n betw een th e o r g a n i ­
zation

lead ers

and t h e s a m p l e o f b l a c k r e s i d e n t s b a s e d on f i f t e e n

out o f tw e n ty - tw o c r i t e r i o n
d ifferen ces

v ariab les;

(2)

t h e r e w ere s i g n i f i c a n t

o f o p in io n b etw een th e le a d e r s and t h e

sample o f w h i t e

r e s i d e n t s b a s e d on t w e l v e o u t o f t w e n t y - t w o c r i t e r i o n

v ariab les;

and

(3) t h e r e w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s o f o p i n i o n b e t w e e n t h e s a m p l e s
o f b l a c k and w h ite r e s i d e n t s
crite rio n

b a s e d on t h i r t e e n

v ariables.

O th e r c o n c lu s io n s r e a c h e d were:

out o f tw enty-tw o

W i l l i a m Donald M a r t i n
T he o r g a n i z a t i o n

l e a d e r s do n o t a d e q u a t e l y p e r c e i v e t h e n e e d s

o f the " in n e r - c ity "

resid en ts

and, th e r e f o r e ,

th e policy

m akers s h o u l d n o t r e l y e n t i r e l y upon t h e i r re co m m en d atio n s
i n t h e p l a n n i n g an d a l l o c a t i o n
C itizen s'

of recreatio n

o p in io n s should be o b ta in e d th ro u g h

resources.
survey r e s e a r c h

m ethods.
The w h i t e r e s i d e n t s o f t h e M odel C i t i e s a r e a p e r c e i v e t h e i r
le isu re -tim e o p p o rtu n ities

a s b e i n g more a d e q u a t e t h a n t h e

black r e s id e n ts .
The o r g a n i z a t i o n

le a d e r s p e r c e i v e th e need s o f th e w hite

re s id e n ts b e t t e r th an th o se o f th e black r e s id e n ts .
There i s
an d w h i t e

a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e betw een t h e b l a c k r e s i d e n t s
r e s i d e n t s b a s e d on t h e

types o f a c t i v i t i e s

f e r r e d a t neighborhood r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r s ,
they a re w i l l i n g

to tra v e l

to

such c e n te r s .

pre­

and th e d is ta n c e s

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would

l i k e t o g i v e s p e c i a l r e c o g n i t i o n anda p p r e c i a t i o n

Dr. M i c h a e l C h ubb, my c o m m i t t e e c h a i r m a n a n d t h e s i s d i r e c t o r , f o r
w ise c o u n s e l,
p ro ject*
for the

assistan c e,

and e n c o u r a g e m e n t t h r o u g h o u t t h i s

I t was t h r o u g h h i s e f f o r t s
stu d y ,

th at

to
his

research

f u n d i n g was made a v a i l a b l e

and due t o h i s s u p e r v i s i o n t h a t

a most w o r t h w h i l e

l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e w as o b t a i n e d .
I am i n d e b t e d t o D r .
the

sta tistic a l

D a n i e l E. C h a p p e l l e f o r h i s a d v i c e i n

treatm en t of data,

a n d t o my o t h e r c o m m i t t e e me mber s

f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e and co u n sel in a l l
gram.

They w ere:

L e w i s W. M o n c r i e f ,

D r . J a m e s L.
and Dr.

I would l i k e t o

B risto r,

p h a s e s o f my d o c t o r a l p r o ­
D r . H a r r y L. C a s e , Dr.

M i l t o n H. S t e i n m u e l l e r .

e x p r e s s a p p r e c i a t i o n t o t h e L a n s i n g Model

C i t i e s D em o n stratio n Agency fo r s p o n so rin g th e r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t
an d e s p e c i a l l y t o
Tubbs,

s t a f f m e m b e r s , Mr.

R o b e r t McKenna a n d Mr.

f o r t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n and a s s i s t a n c e .

t e n d e d t o o t h e r s u p e r v i s o r y and c l e r i c a l

Thanks a r e a l s o e x ­

s t a f f and to th e

who w o r k e d w i t h

me on t h e

study.

I would

also lik e

to give r e c o g n itio n

Alan

t o Mr.

in terv iew ers

Theodore H a s k e ll

o f t h e L a n s i n g P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t a n d t o Mr. G e o r g e
Mayer o f t h e L a n sin g P l a n n i n g D ep artm en t f o r t h e i r c o o p e r a t i o n i n
s u p p l y i n g much o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n n e e d e d f o r t h e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n .

A ppreciation is

a l s o extended t o

the

f o l l o w i n g p e r s o n s who

p artic ip a te d

i n th e p r e t e s t o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n and l e a d e r q u e s t i o n ­

n aires:

R i c h a r d L. C a i n ,

Mr,

D e p a r t m e n t ; Mr. H e r b e r t E.

C ity o f P o n tia c Parks and R e c re a tio n

K ipke, form er R e c re a tio n D ir e c to r ,

o f L a n s in g P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t ;

a n d Mr. Thomas B.

C ity
L atim er,

C i t y o f F l i n t P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n D e p a r tm e n t.
I would l i k e t o ack n o w led g e t h e

assistan c e th a t

I received

fr o m t h e C o m p u t e r C e n t e r a t C e n t r a l M i c h i g a n U n i v e r s i t y a n d e s p e c i a l l y
fr o m t h e p r o g r a m m e r , M r s .

Sandra W arriner.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF T A B L E S ....................................................................................................................
LIST OF FIGURES*

*

vi

.....................................................................................................

x

.......................................................................................................

1

C hapter
I.

INTRODUCTION

P roblem S ta te m e n t
Study O b je c tiv e s
II.

REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E .......................................................................

12

III.

RESEARCH PROCEDURES .......................................................................................

22

Th e Mode 1
Sam pling D esign
Survey In stru m e n ts
D ata C o l l e c t i o n
D ata P r o c e s s in g
IV,

SURVEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

........................................................

H ousehold P o p u l a t io n C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f I n d iv id u a l H ousehold R espondents
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f C om m un ity O r g a n i z a t i o n s an d
Leaders
S t a t i s t i c a l T r e a tm e n t o f D ata
Adequacy o f L e is u re -T im e O p p o r t u n i t i e s in th e
Model C i t i e s A r e a
R ating of L eisure-T im e O p p o r tu n itie s
S u g g e s tio n s f o r Im proving L e is u re -T im e
O pp o rtu n it ies
Problem s T h a t I n h i b i t P a r t i c i p a t i o n in
L e isu re-T im e Program s
T y p e s o f A c t i v i t i e s P r e f e r r e d b y M odel C i t i e s
R esidents
O p in io n s C o n cern in g N eighborhood R e c re a tio n
C enters

IV

40

Chapter
V.

Page
SUNWARY AND CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................

100

Procedure
G en eral F in d in g s and C o n c lu s io n s
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and Recom m endations
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................................

Ill

APPENDIX A...................................................................................................................................

114

L e tter
Q u e s tio n n a ir e f o r H ousehold Survey
F la s h c a r d s fo r H ousehold Q u e s t io n n a ir e
APPENDIX B....................................................................................................................................

136

L etter
L i s t s o f Community O r g a n i z a t i o n s a n d C h u r c h e s
Q u e s tio n n a ir e f o r O r g a n iz a tio n Survey
APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................................
L e tter
L i s t o f Leaders
Q u e s tio n n a ir e f o r L ead er Survey

v

147

LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
2.
3.
4.

Page
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Sample by E t h n i c O r i g i n o f
H o u s e h o l d ' s P r i m a r y R e s p o n d e n t ......................................................
M arital S tatus

o f H o u s e h o ld 's P rim ary R esp o n d en t.

P r i m a r y S o u r c e a n d T o t a l Amount o f H o u s e h o l d I ncom e
B efore Taxes
. . . .

A v a ila b ility of F rien d s'

6.

Use o f C i t y Bus S y s t e m b y H o u s e h o l d Members

8.

.
.

Number o f C a r s Owned b y t h e H o u s e h o l d .......................................

5.

7.

.

V e h ic le to H ousehold.
.

.
.

.
.

41
42
43
45

.

45

.

46

T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Used O t h e r Than H o u s e h o l d 's o r
F r i e n d ' s V e h i c l e o r B u s ......................................................................

46

T o t a l Number o f M a l e s a n d F e m a l e s i n S a m p l e
H o u s e h o l d s i n E i g h t Age C l a s s e s ......................................................

48

9.

Sex o f R e s p o n d e n ts t o

In d iv id u al Q u estio n n aire

.

.

.

50

10.

Age o f R e s p o n d e n t s t o

In d iv id u al Q u estio n n aire

.

.

.

50

11.

12.
13.
14.
15.

D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Age G r o u p s b y R e s p o n d e n t s t o
H ousehold Q u e s t io n n a ir e and by R esp o n d en ts t o
I n d i v i d u a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ......................................................................

51

O c c u p a tio n a l S ta tu s o f R espondents to I n d iv id u a l
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ....................................................................................................

53

S h i f t Worked b y R e s p o n d e n t s t o I n d i v i d u a l
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .....................................................................................................

53

Number o f H o u r s a Week Worked b y R e s p o n d e n t s t o
I n d i v i d u a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ......................................................................

54

L e n g th o f V a c a t i o n w i t h Pay R e c e iv e d by R e s p o n d e n ts
t o I n d i v i d u a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ..............................................................

54

vi

Table
16.

Page
O c c u p a t i o n s o f Employed I n d i v i d u a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
R e s p o n d e n t s ....................................................................................................

55

17.

D istrib u tio n

56

18.

Areas Served by R espondent O r g a n iz a tio n s

..............................

57

19.

O p in io n s C o n c e rn in g Adequacy o f O v e r a l l L e is u r e -T im e
O p p o r t u n i t i e s i n t h e Model C i t i e s A r e a ...............................

62

Adequacy o f L e is u r e - T im e O p p o r t u n i t i e s : A
Com parison o f O p in io n s o f O r g a n i z a t i o n L e ad ers w ith
T h o se o f R e s i d e n t G ro u p s and O p i n i o n s o f B lack
R e s i d e n t s w i t h T h o s e o f W h i t e R e s i d e n t s ...............................

63

O p i n i o n s C o n c e r n in g Adequacy o f Com m ercial
R e c r e a t i o n O p p o r t u n i t i e s ......................................................................

64

O p i n i o n s C o n c e r n i n g Adequacy o f C i t y P a r k s and
R e c r e a t i o n Program s
.............................................................................

65

O p in io n s C o n c e rn in g Adequacy o f Q u a s i - P u b l i e and
P r i v a t e O r g a n i z a t i o n S e r v i c e s ......................................................

66

O p in io n s C o n c e rn in g Adequacy o f Board o f E d u c a tio n
A f t e r - S c h o o l P r o g r a m s .............................................................................

67

O p in io n s C o n c e rn in g Adequacy o f R e c r e a t i o n Program s
f o r C h i l d r e n U n d e r 12 Y e a r s o f A g e .......................................

69

26.

R a t i n g o f Commercial R e c r e a t i o n O p p o r t u n i t i e s

71

27.

R a tin g s o f L e is u r e -T im e O p p o r t u n i t i e s : A C om parison
o f O p in io n s o f O r g a n iz a tio n L eaders w ith Those o f
R e s i d e n t Groups and O p in io n s o f B lack R e s i d e n t s
w i t h W h i t e R e s i d e n t s .............................................................................

72

28.

R a tin g o f C i t y P a rk s and R e c r e a tio n P ro g ram s.

73

29.

R a t i n g o f Q u a s i - P u b l i c and P r i v a t e O r g a n i z a t i o n
P r o g r a m s .............................................

74

S u g g e s tio n s f o r Im proving O v e ra ll L e isu re -T im e
O p p o rtu n ities
.............................................................................................

76

20.

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

30.

o f R e s p o n s e s b y T ype o f O r g a n i z a t i o n

vi i

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Table
31.

32.
33.
34 .
35.

36.

37.

38.
39.

40.

41.

42.

rage
S u g g e s tio n s f o r Im proving L e is u re -T im e O p p o r t u n i t i e s :
A Com parison o f O p in io n s o f O r g a n i z a t i o n L e a d e rs
w i t h R e s i d e n t G ro u p s and O p i n io n s o f B la c k R e s i ­
d e n t s w i t h W h i t e R e s i d e n t s ..............................................................

77

S u g g e s ti o n s f o r Im p ro v in g Commercial R e c r e a t i o n
O p p o r t u n i t i e s .....................................................................

78

S u g g e s t i o n s f o r I m p r o v in g C i t y P ark and R e c r e a t i o n
F a c i l i t i e s a n d P r o g r a m s .....................................................................

80

S u g g e s t i o n s f o r I m p r o v in g Q u a s i - P u b l i c and P r i v a t e
O r g a n i z a t i o n P r o g r a m s .............................................................................

81

O p in io n s C o n c e rn in g E x i s t e n c e o f Problem s t h a t
I n h i b i t P a r t i c i p a t i o n by C h i l d r e n and A d u l t s in
.......................................
C i t y P a rk s and R e c r e a t i o n Program s

83

Problem s I n h i b i t i n g P a r t i c i p a t i o n in L e is u re -T im e
Program s:
A C om parison o f O p in io n s o f O r g a n i z a t i o n
L e a d e r s w i t h T h o s e o f R e s i d e n t G roups and O p i n i o n s
o f B l a c k R e s i d e n t s w i t h W h i t e R e s i d e n t s ...............................

84

O p in io n s C o n c e rn in g E x i s te n c e o f Problem s I n h i b i t i n g
P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Q u a s i-P u b lic and P r i v a t e
O rg a n iz a tio n Program s.
. . . .

85

O p in io n s C o n c e rn in g t h e Types o f Problem s I n h i b i t i n g
P a r t i c i p a t i o n in C ity P ark s and R e c r e a tio n Program s.

85

O p in io n s C o n c e rn in g th e Types o f Problem s I n h i b i t i n g
P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Q u a s i-P u b lic and P r iv a te
O r g a n i z a t i o n P r o g r a m s .............................................................................

86

O p in io n s C o n c e rn in g th e Types o f R e c r e a tio n
A c t i v i t i e s and F a c i l i t i e s Needed f o r C h i l d r e n
U n d e r 12 Y e a r s o f A g e .............................................................................

88

O p in io n s C oncerning th e Types o f A c t i v i t i e s P r e f e r r e d
by T e e n a g e r s and A d u l t s i n a N e ig h b o rh o o d
R e c r e a t i o n C e n t e r .....................................................................................

90

A c t i v i t i e s P r e f e r r e d b y Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s :
A
Com parison o f O p in io n s o f O r g a n i z a t i o n L e a d e rs
w i t h T h o s e o f R e s i d e n t G r o u p s and O p i n i o n s o f
B l a c k R e s i d e n t s w i t h W h i t e R e s i d e n t s .......................................

91

vi i i

Page

Ta ble
43.
44.
45.

46.

47 .

48.
49.

O p in io n s C o n ce rn in g D is ta n c e t h a t T e e n a g e rs W ill
T r a v e l t o a R e c r e a t i o n C e n t e r ......................................................

93

O p in io n s C o n c e rn in g D i s ta n c e t h a t A d u l t s W ill
T r a v e l to a N eighborhood R e c r e a tio n C e n te r.

94

.

.

.

S e l e c t e d F a c t o r s About N eig h b o rh o o d R e c r e a t i o n
C enters:
A Com parison o f O p in io n s o f O r g a n iz a tio n
L e a d e r s w i t h T h o s e o f R e s i d e n t G roups and O p in io n s
o f B l a c k R e s i d e n t s w i t h W h i t e R e s i d e n t s .....................

95

O p i n i o n s C o n c e r n in g t h e D e s i r a b i l i t y o f Having Both
I n d o o r and O u td o o r R e c r e a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s a t
t h e Same L o c a t i o n ...........................................................................

96

O pinions C oncerning th e D e s i r a b i l i t y o f O ffe rin g
O th e r S o c ia l S e r v i c e s a t N eighborhood R e c re a tio n
C enters
.
..........................................................................................

96

O p in io n s C o n c e rn in g t h e Type o f Agency t h a t Should
O p e r a t e N e i g h b o r h o o d R e c r e a t i o n C e n t e r s .....................

98

nummary o f C o m p a r i s o n s o f O r g a n i z a t i o n L e a d e r s w i t h
R e s i d e n t G roups and B lack R e s i d e n t s w i t h White
R e s i d e n t s B a s e d on T w e n t y - F o u r C r i t e r i o n V a r i a b l e s

ix

.

102

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1.
2.
3.

Page
Map o f C i t y o f L a n s i n g S how ing O r i g i n a l Model
C i t i e s Area I n c l u d e d
in R e c r e a t i o n a l Needs S urvey

.

4

Map S h o w i n g t h e L a n s i n g Model C i t i e s A r e a
I n c l u d e d i n t h e R e c r e a t i o n a l N e e d s S u r v e y ...................................

28

Map S h o w i n g t h e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f D w e l l i n g U n i t s w i t h
C o m p l e t e d I n t e r v i e w s .....................................................................................

37

x

.

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

V ery l i t t l e

d o cum entation i s needed th e s e days to convince

most a u d i e n c e s t h a t s e r i o u s p r o b l e m s e x i s t
esp ecially

in th e c i t y

the n a ti o n 's

c e n t e r s w hich c o n t a i n a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f

d isad v an tag ed p o p u la tio n .

tu re in v a rio u s

in our urban a re a s ,

C ursory p eru sal of th e

s u b j e c t a r e a s d e a l i n g w i t h u r b a n i s s u e s an d e x p o s u r e

t o a n y f a c e t o f c u r r e n t new s m e d i a q u i c k l y i n d i c a t e s
and c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e s e p r o b l e m s .
focus d u rin g th e

rio ts

agencies r e s p o n s ib le
"in n er c ity "
effo rts

T he y w e r e e s p e c i a l l y b r o u g h t

o f th e m id -1 9 6 0 's,

tow ard i d e n t i f y i n g

ing th e q u a l i t y o f l i f e

into

a n d s i n c e t h a t t i m e many

f o r p l a n n i n g and p r o v i d i n g

or "disadvantaged"

th e m agnitude

serv ices

in th e

urban a r e a s have in c re a se d

and s o lv i n g t h e s e p ro b le m s .

t h e s e a g e n c i e s t h a t have b e e n g iv e n m a jo r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

out the

litera­

th eir

A group o f
f o r im prov­

i n t h e g h e t t o s o f a number o f c i t i e s

through­

c o u n t r y a r e th e C i t y D e m o n s tr a tio n A g e n c ie s fu n d e d by t h e

f e d e ra l governm ent under T i t l e
M e t r o p o l i t a n D evelopm ent Act o f

I o f th e D e m o n s tr a tio n C i t i e s and
1966.

Some o f t h e a r e a s o f c o n c e r n

to these agencies

in c lu d e unem ploym ent, h o u s in g c o n d i t i o n s ,

p o rtatio n ,

education,

crim e,

and r e c r e a t i o n

h e a l t h and w e l f a r e n e e d s .

1

tran s­

to g e th e r w ith o th e r

2
The C i t y D e m o n s t r a t i o n A g e n c y o f L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n w h i c h was
o r g a n iz e d u n d er t h e above A c t,
form ation th a t w ill
conditions
h o o d s."

sponsoring re s e a rc h

One o f t h e p r o b l e m a r e a s

residen ts

is

to g ath er in ­

a s s i s t t h e d e c i s i o n m akers in im p ro v in g e x i s t i n g

in th e d isa d v a n ta g e d a r e a s

research p ro je cts
o f th e

is

the q u estio n

id en tified

as "model n e i g h b o r ­

inclu d ed w ith in th e scope o f th e s e
o f l e i s u r e - t i m e n e e d s and r e s o u r c e s

in th o s e n e ig h b o rh o o d s.

o f i n t e r e s t t o t h e w r i t e r due t o h i s

T h is p a r t i c u l a r problem i s

fifte e n years

o f e x p e rie n c e in

u r b a n p a r k and r e c r e a t i o n p ro g ra m m in g and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
need t o

im p ro v e p a r k and r e c r e a t i o n

was p o i n t e d o u t

services

in th e

A lso,

in n er-city

the

areas

i n t h e R e p o r t o f t h e N a t i o n a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i s s i o n on

C i v i l D i s o r d e r s by t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t :
G r ie v a n c e s c o n c e r n in g m u n ic ip a l r e c r e a t i o n p ro g ram s were found in
a l a r g e m a j o r i t y o f t h e 20 c i t i e s a n d a p p e a r e d t o b e o n e o f t h e
m ost s e r io u s c o m p la in ts in a lm o st h a l f .
Inadequate r e c re a tio n
f a c i l i t i e s in t h e g h e t t o and t h e la c k o f o r g a n i z e d p r o g ra m s w ere
common c o m p l a i n t s . !
A lack o f r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s
l i k e l y be a c o n t r i b u t i n g
w hich th e
su lts

leisu re-tim e

from r e s e a r c h

m akers in

fie ld

o f in q u iry could very

fa c to r to the d e te rio ra te d

a g e n c i e s a r e now f a c e d .

stu d ie s

id en tify in g ,

in th is

such as t h i s

u nderstanding,

s itu a tio n w ith

H opefully,

on e w i l l

assist

the r e ­

the p o lic y

an d s o l v i n g t h e s e p r o b l e m s .

Problem S t a t e m e n t
One o f t h e m a j o r p r o b l e m s

f a c i n g t h e L a n s i n g Model C i t i e s

D e m o n s t r a t i o n Agency i s t h a t o f d e t e r m i n i n g

le isu re -tim e needs,

^R e p o r t o f t h e N a t i o n a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i s s i o n o n C i v i l D i s ­
o r d e r s , O t t o K e r n e r, chairm an (N e w York:
B antam B o o k s , I n c . , 1 9 6 8 ) ,
p. 144 .

3
p referen ces, behavio r,

an d r e s o u r c e s o f t h e m o d e l n e i g h b o r h o o d r e s i ­

d e n t s an d f o r m u l a t i n g p l a n s o f a c t i o n t o i m p r o v e t h e q u a l i t y o f s e r ­
v ice

in th o se a re a s o f th e C ity .

ju risd ictio n

The b o u n d a r ie s

o f t h e Agency a r e o u t l i n e d on t h e map i n F i g u r e 1.

C i t y D e m o n s t r a t i o n Agency e n t e r e d
c o n tr a c t w ith th e
cial

a i d f o r p l a n n i n g an d r e s e a r c h t h r o u g h f e d e r a l

arrangem ent,
co n tracts

the

in th e

and p r o v i d e s f i n a n ­
funding under th e

in tro d u c to ry rem arks.

P l a n n in g Board a s a l e g a l e n t i t y

for tech n ical a ssista n c e ,

inform ation

The

i n t o a c o n tin u in g p la n n in g program

L a n sin g P l a n n i n g Board i n 1971,

A c t o f 1966 a s s t a t e d

gain

of th e area under

U nder t h i s
of city

includ ing re s e a rc h

governm ent

stu d ies,

to

f o r t h e f o r m u l a t i o n and i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f p o l i c i e s

by a g e n c i e s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s e r v i n g t h e model n e i g h b o r h o o d s .
One s u c h r e s e a r c h s t u d y w h i c h was a u t h o r i z e d t o g a i n i n f o r ­
m a t i o n on l e i s u r e - t i m e p r o b l e m s w a s a r e c r e a t i o n a l b e h a v i o r a n d
d e s i r e s su rv ey w hich in c lu d e d t h e fo rm u la tio n o f r e c r e a t i o n a l p l a n ­
ning

g oals,

an a n a l y s i s o f p r o b a b l e

recrea tio n al o p p o rtu n ities,
selectio n
hensive

of r e c r e a tio n a l

fu tu re s p a tia l

an d t h e d e f i n i t i o n

fa c ilitie s.

survey o f th e r e s id e n ts

and w e l f a r e

explained in th e
From t h e

serv ices

for s i t e

i n t h e model n e i g h b o r h o o d s a s w e l l

in th a t

resp o n sib le

fo r providing

area of the C ity .

T his is

fu rth er

c h a p t e r on r e s e a r c h m e t h o d s .
above b ro ad s tu d y th e w r i t e r c h o s e a s p e c i f i c

problem a r e a t o o b t a i n in f o r m a tio n
what " i s "

of c rite ria

of

T h is s tu d y r e q u ir e d a com pre­

as a s u rv e y o f community o r g a n i z a t i o n s
so cial

d istrib u tio n

in helping b rid g e

t h e gap b e t w e e n

b e i n g d o n e and what " s h o u l d " be done t o m eet t h e l e i s u r e ­

tim e needs o f i n n e r - c i t y r e s i d e n t s .

It

i s e v i d e n t from t h e c u r r e n t

F i g u r e 1 . —Map o f C i ty o f L a n s in g Show ing O r i g i n a l Model
C i t i e s A re a I n c l u d e d i n R e c r e a t i o n a l N eeds S u rv e y .

5
literatu re

th a t p a st procedures

p lanning are not s a tis f y in g
makers r e s p o n s i b l e

in re c re a tio n

those needs.

fa c ility

and p ro g ra m

One p r o b l e m f a c i n g d e c i s i o n

for a llo c a tin g re c re a tio n

resources

i s how b e s t t o

d e t e r m i n e t h e n e e d s and p r e f e r e n c e s o f t h e i r c o n s t i t u e n t s
le a st co st.

In t h e p a s t , m ost

upon t h e i r p l a n n e r s

a t the

le is u r e - tim e o r g a n iz a tio n s have r e l i e d

and l e a d e r s

t o provide the n e c e s s a r y in fo rm a tio n

t o d e t e r m i n e t h e k i n d s an d a m o u n t s o f r e c r e a t i o n
by t h e p e o p l e in t h e i r s p h e r e o f j u r i s d i c t i o n .

o p p o r tu n itie s needed
V e r y few h a v e u s e d

any t y p e o f r e c o g n i z e d s u r v e y r e s e a r c h t e c h n i q u e s t o o b t a i n
t o th e s e p ro blem s, e s p e c i a l l y
su b stan tiate th is ,

N esb itt,

in th e core c i t i e s

Brown,

book d e a l i n g w i t h r e c r e a t i o n an d
vantaged,

answ ers

o f urban a re a s.

and Murphy, e d i t o r s

leisu re services

To

of a recent

fo r the d isa d ­

stated :

I t should be noted t h a t th e p r o f e s s io n a l r e c r e a t i o n re s e a r c h
l i t e r a t u r e s h o w s n o more t h a n 15 r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s h a v i n g b e e n
c o m p le te d t o d a t e in r e c r e a t i o n and l e i s u r e s e r v i c e f o r t h e d i s ­
advantaged.
A s e a rc h by t h e S c ie n c e I n f o r m a tio n Exchange tu r n e d
up s i x o t h e r p r o j e c t s .
C o n s i d e r i n g t h a t t h e r e c r e a t i o n and
l e i s u r e s e r v i c e p r o f e s s i o n s r e p r e s e n t some 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 w o r k e r s and
th e p o p u l a t i o n o f d i s a d v a n ta g e d com m unities r e p r e s e n t betw een
20 a n d 30 m i l l i o n A m e r i c a n s , i t may b e s t a t e d t h a t i n s u f f i c i e n t
a t t e n t i o n has been g iv en t o t h i s a r e a . 2
It

is

th en ev id en t t h a t

r e c r e a t i o n r e s o u r c e p l a n n e r s and

program m ers h a v e n o t had o r u t i l i z e d
te ch n iq u es in d eterm in in g the
dents.

resu lts

from s u r v e y r e s e a r c h

le is u re -tim e needs o f in n e r - c ity r e s i ­

They have r e l i e d t o a l a r g e e x t e n t upon t h e i r

experience along w ith in p u ts
agency em p lo y ees,
2

from s p e c i a l

in tere st

and community o r g a n i z a t i o n

own p r o f e s s i o n a l

groups,

other

rep resen tativ es.

Due

J o h n A. N e s b i t t , P a u l D. B r o w n , an d J a m e s F. M u r p h y , e d s . ,
R e c r e a tio n and L e is u r e S e r v ic e f o r t h e D is a d v a n ta g e d ( P h i l a d e l p h i a :
Lea § F e b i g e r , 1 9 7 0 ) , p . 305 .

6
to the e x is tin g

situ atio n ,,

w ell th e o r g a n iz a tio n
services

in th e

lead ers re sp o n s ib le for provid in g so c ia l w elfare

in n er-city

of the r e s i d e n t s .

t h e a u t h o r r a i s e d t h e q u e s t i o n a s t o how

a re a could p e rc e iv e th e

(The w o r d " p e r c e p t i o n "

synony mous w i t h " o p i n i o n . " )

le isu re -tim e needs

as u sed in t h i s

study

is

The h y p o t h e s i s p r o p o s e d i s t h a t t h e r e

is a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e betw een th e s t a t e d need s o f th e r e s i d e n t s
and t h e o p i n i o n s o f t h e com m unity o r g a n i z a t i o n
leisu re-tim e o p p o rtu n itie s

in th e

hypothesis,

know t h e

o n e must f i r s t

le a d e rs concerning

in n e r-c ity area.
leisu re-tim e

To t e s t

th is

needs as s t a t e d

p e rs o n a lly by th e r e s i d e n t s and;

s e c o n d l y , how t h o s e n e e d s a r e p e r ­

c e i v e d by com m unity o r g a n i z a t i o n

lead ers.

are explained

i n m ore d e t a i l

P ro c e d u re s fo r doing t h i s

in C h a p te r I I I .

S i n c e t h e r e h as b e e n no s u r v e y r e s e a r c h o f t h i s
C ity of L ansing,

type in th e

th e r e s u l t s o f t h e s tu d y sh o u ld be h e l p f u l t o th e

d e c is io n m akers r e s p o n s ib le

fo r p ro v id in g re c re a tio n o p p o rtu n itie s

i n t h e model n e i g h b o r h o o d s .

The f a c t t h a t t h e C i t y D e m o n s tra tio n

Agency h a s f u n d e d r e s e a r c h o f t h i s
m ation n e c e s s a r y f o r d e c i s i o n s
provide
th is

type i n d i c a t e s

in the a l l o c a t i o n

le isu re -tim e o p p o rtu n ities.

a need fo r i n f o r ­
of resources to

A l s o , t e c h n i q u e s d e v e l o p e d from

s t u d y s h o u l d be b e n e f i c i a l t o t h e Agency in c o n d u c t i n g f u t u r e

research in r e l a t e d
effo rts

areas.

in o th e r c i t i e s

H opefully,

i t would s t i m u l a t e r e s e a r c h

fa c e d w ith s i m i l a r problem s.
Study O b je c tiv e s

T h e p r i m a r y s t u d y o b j e c t i v e w h i c h was d e v e l o p e d f r o m t h e
above p r o b le m s t a t e m e n t and h y p o t h e s i s i s
the

as fo llo w s:

l e i s u r e - t i m e needs as s t a t e d by " i n n e r - c i t y "

t o compare

r e s id e n ts w ith t h e i r

7
needs

as p e r c e i v e d by community o r g a n i z a t i o n

determ ine i f a s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e
The g e o g r a p h i c a j
Model C i t i e s

scope o f th e study

a r e a as o u t l i n e d

in o rd e r to

e x i s t s b e t w e e n t h e tw o g r o u p s .

is

lim ited to the o r ig in a l

in f i g u r e

L ansing P la n n in g D epartm ent r e c o r d s ,

leaders

1.

A ccording to th e C ity o f

the p opulation

included

study c o n s is t s of ap p ro x im a te ly 5,400 d w e llin g u n i t s .
econom ic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

o f th is

d isad v an tag ed " i n n e r - c i t y "
of a c i t y w ith the

a r e a met t h e g e n e r a l

a r e a w hich i s

Lansing

in the

The s o c i o ­
c rite ria

of a

c o n s id e re d to be th e s e c t io n

lo w e s t income, d e t e r i o r a t e d h o u s in g c o n d i t i o n s ,

h ig h e s t c o n c e n tr a tio n o f m in o rity g ro u p s, high d e n s ity o f p o p u la tio n
w ith above a v e ra g e h e a l t h
dro p o u ts,

and w e l f a r e p r o b le m s s u c h as c r i m e ,

and u n em p lo y m en t.

a re a according to th e

I t w ould a l s o q u a l i f y

fo llo w in g d e f i n i t i o n

school

as a "d isad v an tag ed "

p ro p o s e d by N e s b i t t ,

Bro wn,

and M urphy:
T h e t e r m d i s a d v a n t a g e d d e n o t e s i n d i v i d u a l s who b y v i r t u e o f t h e i r
r a c e , r e l i g i o n , e t h n i c b ackground o r socioeconom ic c o n d i t i o n
have been d enied o p p o r tu n itie s to develop to t h e i r f u l l e s t
p o te n tia l e d u c a tio n a lly , c u ltu r a lly , em o tio n ally , s o c ia lly
o r e c o n o m ic a lly .3
The c o m m u n i t y o r g a n i z a t i o n s
o r g a n iz e d gro u p w hich p r o v id e s
the r e s id e n ts

surveyed in clu d ed

any t y p e o f s o c i a l w e l f a r e

o f t h e model n e i g h b o r h o o d s .

o f l e i s u r e - t i m e opportune t i e s

A lso,

These were p e r s o n s w orking w i t h

resp o n sib ility

fo r p ro v id in g

5 I b i d . , p.

12.

s e rv ic e to

leaders or planners

were i n c l u d e d in t h e s u r v e y t o g e t t h e i r

o p in io n s o f th e need s and o p p o r t u n i t i e s e x i s t i n g
area.

any a g e n c y o r

i n t h e Mod el C i t i e s

t h o s e a g e n c i e s w h i c h h a v e some

leisu re-tim e serv ices.

A list

of

8

organizations

and

l e a d e r s was c o m p i l e d

from i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d b y t h e

L a n s i n g U n i t e d Community C h e s t , b y t h e Model C i t i e s
Agency,

and from t h e L a n sin g C i t y D i r e c t o r y .
The te r m s " l e i s u r e ti m e "

in t h i s

study s in c e acco rd in g

D em onstration

4

and " s p a r e t i m e "

a r e used synonym ously

t o Mr. W h i t n e y M. Y o u n g , J r . , p a s t

H x e c u tiv e D i r e c t o r o f th e N a t i o n a l Urban League,
is not included

in th e v o c a b u la ry

purpose of t h i s

stu d y " sp a re -tim e "

t h e w ord " l e i s u r e "

o f most m in o r ity groups.*’
activ ity

refers

For th e

to anything t h a t

i s n o t a b o d i l y n e c e s s i t y , work o r p r e p a r a t i o n

f o r work

education),

I t may t a k e p l a c e

a duty,

or a p erso n a l o b lig a tio n .

t h e h om e, n e i g h b o r h o o d ,
of p riv a te ,

at parks,

to the

t h e d e c i s i o n m a k e r s who w i l l
o bjective

use th e

concentrated p rim a rily

community l e i s u r e - t i m e a g e n c i e s

of the r e s id e n ts

ty p e s and q u a l i t y

of serv ice

The p r i m a r y f a c t o r s
betw een th e n eeds

on t h o s e f a c t o r s

re­

in r e l a t i o n

th e study

relatin g

to the

to e f f e c t change in th e

c o n s id e r e d in com paring th e r e l a t i o n s h i p s

as p e r c e iv e d by t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
are

^ L ansing C ity D ir e c to r y
R ecreation

is

in th e s p e c i f i e d a r e a o f the C ity .

s ta te d needs of th e r e s id e n ts

^ N esb itt,

It

In c o n s i d e r i n g

research fin d in g s,

in a p o s itio n

at churches,

as used in t h i s

lack o f l e i s u r e - t i m e o p p o r t u n i t i e s .

l e is u r e - tim e s e r v ic e s b e in g p rovided.

in

estab lish m en ts

agencies,

The term " n e e d s "

f l e c t e d by t h e demands ( o r p r e f e r e n c e s )
to e x is tin g

cen ters,

v o l u n t a r y o r com m ercial r e c r e a t i o n

schools o r o th e r s im ila r p la c e s .
study r e f e r s

recrea tio n

(in clu d in g

lead ers

and t h e

as f o llo w s :

(D etro it:

R. L.

and L e i s u r e S e r v i c e ,

(’o i k ti C o . ,
p.

20.

1970).

9

1.

Th e a d e q u a c y o f l e i s u r e - t i m e o p p o r t u n i t i e s
resid en ts

2.

A ratin g

av ailab le to

i n t h e Model C i t i e s n e i g h b o r h o o d s .
of the e x is tin g

le is u r e - tim e agencies

s e r v i c e s p ro v id e d by s e l e c t e d

i n t h e Model C i t i e s

a r e a as co m pared

to o th er areas of the C ity .
3.

Ways t h a t

leisu re-tim e o p p o rtu n ities

in

t h e Model C i t i e s

a r e a can b e im proved.
4.

The e x i s t e n c e o f p r o b l e m s

and t h e t y p e s o f p ro b le m s t h a t

i n h i b i t p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y Model C i t i e s

resid en ts

in

leisu re­

tim e p ro g ram s.
5.

T he t y p e s o f a c t i v i t i e s

n e e d e d o r p r e f e r r e d b y Model C i t i e s

area re sid e n ts.
6.

S elected fa c to rs

about neighborhood r e c r e a t i o n

centers

such a s ;
a.

D istan ce re s id e n ts w i l l

b.

Types o f f a c i l i t i e s

c.

Types o f a g e n c ie s t h a t
recrea tio n

Using t h e s e

d esired at cen ters.
sho u ld o p e r a te neighborhood

centers.

facto rs

as a g u i d e , q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d e v e lo p e d

to g a th e r d a ta to determ ine th e
1.

t r a v e l to such c e n te r s .

fo llo w in g r e la tio n s h ip s :

The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f
n e e d s by t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
o p p o rtu n ities
C ities

area.

lead ers

leisu re-tim e

compared to th e n e e d s and

as s t a t e d by t h e r e s i d e n t s

i n t h e Model

10
2.

The r e l a t i o n s h i p
stated

3.

of the e th n ic o r ig in

le isu re -tim e needs.

T he r e l a t i o n s h i p
zation

4.

leaders

o f t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f n e e d s by t h e o r g a n i ­

according to e th n ic o r ig in

T he r e l a t i o n s h i p

of the p e rc e p tio n

according to s e le c te d
organizations

personal

is,

t o compare th e

were

reasons

stu d y .

Very

as s t a t e d

little

in item s tw o, t h r e e ,

d istrib u tio n
req u irin g

r e s e a r c h h a s b e e n d o n e on t h e

There were

relatio n sh ip

yet race r e la tio n s
A lso,

of

are o fte n

from a v a i l a b l e

appeared fe a s ib le to

use race

(esp ecially

in t h e s tu d y b e c a u s e o f th e p o p u l a t i o n

i n t h e Model C i t i e s

By a n a l y z i n g

p lanning

it

as a v a r ia b le

an i n c r e a s e

o b jectiv es,

an d f o u r

s i n c e t h e y w ould p r o v i d e u s e f u l

a s a m a j o r p r o b l e m i n many c i t i e s .

and w h i t e )

by t h e r e s i ­

t h a t r a c e was c h o s e n a s a v a r i a b l e t o u s e i n t h e

p relim in ary in fo rm atio n ,
black

leaders.

i n t o th e prim ary o b j e c t i v e .

race to types of r e c r e a tio n needs,
cited

and t y p e s o f

th e prim ary o b j e c t i v e o f th e s tu d y ;

in c lu d e d as a u x i l i a r y o b j e c t i v e s

in f o r m a tio n and w ould f i t

leaders

o f t h o s e n e e d s by community o r g a n i z a t i o n

The r e l a t i o n s h i p s

several

o f n e e d s by t h e

l e i s u r e - t i m e n eed s as s t a t e d

d ents w ith the p e rc e p tio n
lead ers.

o f the r e s i d e n t s .

c h aracteristics

r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e

Item number one above i s
th at

of the re sid e n t to his

area.

T h i s c o u l d be done w i t h o u t

in t h e s a m p le s i z e .
the v a rio u s

re la tio n sh ip s as

t h e d e c i s i o n m a k e r s w o u l d h a v e m o re

and d i s t r i b u t i o n

of resources

stated

in t h e

inform ation

above

fo r the

t o meet t h e r e s i d e n t s *

11

re c r e a tio n needs.
are explained
sta tistical

The m easuring

instrum ents

for these

relatio n sh ip s

i n t h e c h a p t e r on r e s e a r c h m e t h o d s a l o n g w i t h t h e

tr e a tm e n t used.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW Oh THE LITERATURE

Dr .

G e n e v i e v e W. C a r t e r , D i r e c t o r o f t h e D i v i s i o n o f R e s e a r c h ,

W elfare A d m in is tra tio n ,
W elfare,

U .S.

sums up t h e c u r r e n t

Departm ent o f H e a lth ,

E d u c a t i o n and

statu s of re c re a tio n research

f o r the

econom ically deprived as fo llo w s:
The c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h i n p o v e r t y i s i t s e l f a " p i o n e e r i n g " e f f o r t
an d f o l l o w s t h e n a t i o n ' s r e c e n t , b u t d e t e r m i n e d , c o m m i t m e n t t o
r e c o g n i z e e c o n o m i c d e p r i v a t i o n and m e e t i t h e a d - o n .
In t h i s
s e n s e o f " p i o n e e r i n g , " r e s e a r c h i n s o c i a l w e l f a r e and i n t h e
r e c r e a t i o n p r o f e s s i o n s i s bound b y t h e p r o b l e m s t y p i c a l l y im­
p o s e d b y new u n d e r t a k i n g s .
R e s e a r c h i n p o v e r t y g o e s on a m i d s t
th e m u ltitu d e o f m e th o d o lo g ic a l p roblem s f a m ilia r in r e c r e a t i o n
r e s e a r c h - - p r o b l e m s in t h e c l a r i t y o f i t s te r m in o lo g y and p r e ­
c i s i o n o f i t s c o n c e p t s , problem s i n b u i l d i n g h y p o t h e s e s w hich
a r t i c u l a t e w ith g e n e r a l t h e o r y , and p r o b l e m s in t h e c o n g r u e n c e
of t h e o r e t i c a l g e n e r a liz a tio n s w ith e m p iric a l o b s e r v a tio n s .6
O ther authors such as N e s b itt,
cited ,

have po in ted out th e

generally

fie ld

lack of r e s e a r c h

a n d more s p e c i f i c a l l y

po p ulation.

J a y S. S h i v e r s

of recrea tio n

B r o w n , an d M u rp h y ,

serv ices

in th e a r e a o f th e d i s a d v a n ta g e d

and George H j e l t e ,

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , made t h e

cern in g r e s e a r c h in t h e i r

in l e i s u r e

previously

noted a u th o r s

in the

follow ing s ta te m e n t con­

r e c e n t book:

T h e r e i s n e e d f o r r e s e a r c h in u r b a n a r e a s t h a t m i g h t i n f l u e n c e
s t a n d a r d s f o r f a c i l i t i e s an d s p a c e s o f a r e c r e a t i o n a l n a t u r e .
Of n e c e s s i t y , a c o n t i n u a l s t u d y o f r e c r e a t i o n a l s e r v i c e a g e n c i e s

6 I b i d . , p.

30 9.
12

13
and t h e a r e a s a n d f a c i l i t i e s
must be m a d e .?
Therefore,

resp ectively

a d m i n i s t e r e d by them

t h i s s t u d y was c o n d u c te d w i t h i n

encouragem ent fo r s tu d io u s

in q u iry to so lv e th e

a t t h e same t i m e w i t h a d e a r t h

a settin g

o f much

c u r re n t p roblem s,

o f previous r e c r e a tio n

an d

research e f fo r ts

to supply background in fo r m a tio n .
In r e v ie w in g th e

literatu re,

s e v e r a l p r o b l e m s be com e e v i d e n t

when c o n s i d e r i n g r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s

in th e d is a d v a n ta g e d urban a r e a s

o ften

or "in n er c i t y ."

referred

to as the " g h e tto "

the n ecessary d a ta
an d r e l a t e d
technique
lim ited

for fa c to rs

ch ara c te ristic s

such as a t t i t u d e s ,

o f th e p o p u la tio n ,

i s p r e f e r a b l e b u t a t t h e same t i m e

funds f o r r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s ,

p rio ritie s

That i s ,

preferences,

th e personal

is

to gain
needs,

in terv iew

q u ite co stly .

W ith

many a g e n c i e s h a v e g i v e n h i g h e r

in a re a s of s o c ia l w e lfa re o th e r th a n

leisu re

tim e o r

have u sed a p p r o a c h e s which p r o v i d e l i m i t e d i n f o r m a t i o n in a l a r g e
n u m ber o f a r e a s

such as g e n e r a l

In o t h e r c a s e s ,

the e n t i r e m e tro p o lita n a re a

w ith sam ples b e in g to o

lim ited

attitu d es

or s o c ia l
is

to get r e lia b le

c h a ra c te ristic s.

in clu d ed in th e s tu d y
r e s u lts w ithin

sub­

sectio n s or c a te g o rie s.
Two s t u d i e s c o n d u c t e d w i t h i n t h e C i t y o f D e t r o i t i l l u s t r a t e
these p o in ts .

One was a s u r v e y o f a t t i t u d e s

t h e C i t y c o n d u c t e d by A r t h u r K o r n h a u s e r i n
o f t h e D e t r o i t B o a r d o f Commerce.
interview ed concerning t h e i r

o f the

residents

about

1951 u n d e r t h e s p o n s o r s h i p

A ra ndo m s a m p l e o f 593 a d u l t s w e r e

attitu d es

tow ards th e

fo llo w in g a c t i v i t i e s :

J a y S. S h i v e r s a n d G e o r g e H j e l t e , P l a n n i n g R e c r e a t i o n a l
P la c e s (R u th e rfo rd , N . J . : K a irle ig h D ickinson U n iv e r s ity P r e s s ,
1971) , p . 2 2 3 .

14
1.

A ttitudes

concerning the housing s it u a t i o n .

2.

A t t i t u d e s towards n e g ro -w h ite r e l a t i o n s .

3.

A ttitudes

in regard to c i t y

4.

A ttitudes

concerning in d u s tr y ,

gov e rn m e n t and c i t y
labor unions,

services.

and l a b o r -

management r e l a t i o n s .
5.

A ttitudes pertaining to D etroit
recreational

schools,

newspapers,

and

opportunities.

The o n e q u e s t i o n
o p p o r t u n i t i e s was s t a t e d :

in the

interview p ertain in g

"How do y o u f e e l

for spare-tim e a c tiv itie s --p la y g ro u n d s

to

recreational

about t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s

and p a r k s ,

sports,

music,
g

theatre,

neighborhood meeting p l a c e s ,

Th e r e s p o n d e n t
very good,

indicated h is

ranked

th a t kind of thing?"

f e e l i n g on a r a t i n g s c a l e

a n d was g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y

t o improve t h e s i t u a t i o n .
ties

and a l l

In t h e

from bad t o

fo r open-ended su g g estio n s

findings,

recreational

opportuni­

f rom t o p among t h e f o u r t e e n e l e m e n t s o f t h e C i t y ' s
9
l i f e t h a t p e o p l e c o n s id e r e d most f a v o r a b l e .
P l a y g r o u n d s and p a r k s

were l i s t e d

fifth

a s b e i n g t h e mo s t n e e d e d t y p e s o f s p a r e - t i m e

facilities

a nd t h e s e w e r e e m p h a s i z e d m o r e f r e q u e n t l y b y r e s p o n d e n t s

from lower

i ncome g r o u p s .
It

is

t h a t gr ew o u t

interesting

t o n o t e one o f t h e g e n e r a l

conclusions

of the survey f in d in g s :

G r e a t numbers o f D e t r o i t c i t i z e n s f e e l h e l p l e s s and i n d i f f e r e n t
about changing t h e i r c i t y .
T h e y h a v e few i d e a s how t h i n g s c a n
be made b e t t e r and l i t t l e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f how t h e y p e r s o n a l l y
g

A r t h u r K ornhauser, D e t r o i t as t h e
Wayne U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 5 2 ) , p. 187.
9 I b i d . , p.

169.

People See

It

(D etroit:

15
can p l a y a p a r t .
zons and l a c k o f
opportunity here
schools to b u ild
and more f e e l i n g
f u t u r e . 10

A n s w e r s t o many q u e s t i o n s r e v e a l l i m i t e d h o r i ­
aroused c iv ic i n t e r e s t .
There i s a c h a lle n g in g
f o r c o m m u n i t y l e a d e r s , o r g a n i z a t i o n s , a nd
mo r e e n t h u s i a s t i c o u t l o o k s i n D e t r o i t ' s c i t i z e n s
of personal r e s p o n s ib ility for D e tr o it's

A review o f the
twenty y e a rs
dents,

ago i n d i c a t e s t h a t

especially

confidence in the
situation

is

that there

literature

since th is

this

s t u d y wa s d o n e some

a p a t h y on t h e p a r t

in th e c o r e - c i t y a r e a s ,

still

community a g e n c i e s and t h e i r

a t a low e b b .

This

lends

exists

of the r e s i ­
and t h a t t h e i r

leaders

to b e tte r the

support to the w r i te r 's

i s a gap b e t w e e n wh at t h e p e o p l e "w an t" and what t h e

leaders feel

they "need."

A n o t h e r s u r v e y i n t h e C i t y o f D e t r o i t was c o n d u c t e d i n
and i n c l u d e d t h e p o p u l a t i o n

study.

inform ation

as t h a t o f t h e L a n s in g a r e a in

Th e D e t r o i t s t u d y a s r e p o r t e d b y Zv i Maimon g a t h e r e d
about the

tudes of people

living

social

and e c o n o m ic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

i n t h e Model N e i g h b o r h o o d A r e a .

by t h e C e n t e r f o r U r b a n S t u d i e s

o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Michigan u s in g

cen tag e sample o f p o p u l a t i o n in any o f t h e r e l a t e d

attitudes

located to date.

The f i n d i n g s

race,

an a n a l y s i s

in

R i c h a r d Kraus in 1967,

176.

**Zvi Mai mon, " T h e I n n e r - C i t y
Q u a r t e r l y , VI ( D e c e m b e r , 1 9 7 0 ) , 2 4 6.

of

and sex f a i l e d t o

The r e s u l t s b a s e d on r a c e a r e

c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e s t u d y b y Dr .

10I b i d . , p.

largest per­

research th at the

showed t h a t

and b e h a v i o r by income, e d u c a t i o n ,

show any m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e s . * *

and a t t i ­

T h i s was d o n e

a 4 p e r c e n t r a n d o m s a m p l e o f h o u s e h o l d s , w h i c h wa s t h e

w r i te r has

1968

i n t h e Model N e i g h b o r h o o d A r e a w h i c h h a d

s im i l a r socioeconomic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
this

opinion

I m p a c t , " Urban A f f a i r s

16
c i t e d by N e s b i t t ,
p a t i o n by b l a c k s

Br own,

and Murphy, c o n c e r n i n g r e c r e a t i o n p a r t i c i ­

a n d w h i t e s i n t h e New Yor k m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a .

c o n c l u s i o n s showed t h a t N e g r o e s t e n d e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e
t h a t v a r i e d w i d e l y from t h o s e o f w h i t e r e s i d e n t s ,
activities

12

and a g e g r o u p i n g s .

However,

it

s h o u ld a l s o be n o t e d t h a t

the conclusions

on i n t e r v i e w s w i t h p u b l i c r e c r e a t i o n

in p a tte r n s

in terms both o f

was p o i n t e d o u t

p a r t o f t h i s wa s o b v i o u s l y a m a t t e r o f s o c i a l

His

that

class differences.

from t h i s

adm inistrators

Tt

stu d y were based
and d i d n o t i n ­

clud e a surv ey of a sample o f t h e g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n .
These s t u d i e s
auxiliary objectives

are cited

here since they

liste d previously;

the race of the r e s id e n t to h is
A research project

stated

This

the re la tio n sh ip of

le isu re -tim e needs.
study

is

in th e Urban Impacted Areas o f

included surveys

m a t i o n on r e c r e a t i o n p r o b l e m s ,
barriers

is,

t o one o f t h e

a l l i e d most c l o s e l y w i t h t h i s

one e n t i t l e d " R e c r e a t i o n P r o b l e m s
C alifornia."

that

relate

in those a reas

use o f spare tim e,

to gather

infor­

l e i s u r e n e e d s and

t o t h e u s e o f l o c a l p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r s .

An i m­

p a c t e d u r b a n a r e a was d e f i n e d a s o n e h a v i n g " a n a b n o r m a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n
of vario u s s o c ia l m aladies:

h ig h unemployment,

low i n c o m e s , h i g h r a t e s o f d r o p o u t
attainm ent,

high r a t e s o f p u b lic

family i n s t a b i l i t y ,
housing,

high r a te s

substandard
12

13

N esbitt,

from s c h o o l ,

high underemployment,
low e d u c a t i o n a l

h e a lth problems,

high r a t e s o f

of juv enile delinquency,

governmental

services,

etc."

13

R e c r e a t i o n a n d L e i s u r e S e r v i c e , p.

substandard

T here were

2 30 .

W illiam J . Lmrie, R e c r e a t i o n Problems in Urban Impacted
A r e a s , R e p o r t t o t h e G o v e r n o r , S a c r a m e n t o , C a l i f . , O c t o b e r 15, 1970,
p . 5.

17

sixteen

impacted urban a r e a s in c lu d e d

435,354 family u n i t s .

in the study c o n s is t i n g o f

A m u l t i * s t a g e a r e a s a m p l i n g t e c h n i q u e wa s u s e d

whereby s i x t e e n sample c e n s u s t r a c t s were s e l e c t e d a t
465,

random from

a n d 200 d w e l l i n g u n i t s w e r e s e l e c t e d a t r a n d o m w i t h i n e a c h o f

t h e s i x t e e n sample census t r a c t s .
obtained

A total

o f 2,815 i n t e r v i e w s were

f r om t h e s e d w e l l i n g u n i t s u s i n g an o p e n - e n d e d t y p e o f

questionnaire.

In a d d i t i o n t o t h e h o u s e h o l d s u r v e y ,

were s e n t to t h e p u b l i c r e c r e a t i o n

agencies

questionnaires

in each o f the s ix te e n

impacted urban a r e a s .
One o f t h e m a j o r f i n d i n g s o f t h e s t u d y w a s :
The i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d from r e s i d e n t s o f u r b a n i m p a c t e d a r e a s
on p r e s e n t u s e o f s p a r e t i m e , o n d e s i r e f o r a d d i t i o n a l l e i s u r e
p a r t i c i p a t i o n a n d on d e s i r e d new a c t i v i t i e s a l l p o i n t s t o s p o r t s
and o u t d o o r a c t i v i t i e s as t h e p r e d o m i n a n t t y p e s o f a c t i v i t i e s
f o r which more o p p o r t u n i t i e s a r e n e e d e d ,
" I n s t r u c t i o n a nd
t r a i n i n g " a n d " c r a f t s and h o b b i e s " a l s o r a n k e d h i g h f o r c e r ­
t a i n segments o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n .
The m o s t common t h i n g s
i d e n t i f i e d by r e s i d e n t s o f t h e s e n e i g h b o r h o o d s as needed t o
p r o v i d e a d e q u a t e l e i s u r e o p p o r t u n i t i e s w e r e s wi mmi ng f a c i l i t i e s ,
mor e p a r k s , a n d i m p r o v e d p a r k s . I 4
Other r e p o rts

in the

literature

t o be r e l e v a n t t o t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h i s
1.

s u rv e y which t h e w r i t e r found
subject

a r e a were:

"A P l a n n i n g S t u d y o f U r b a n R e c r e a t i o n C o n c e p t s ,
De ma n ds ,

Facilities

Behavior,

ar.d P r o g r a m s L e a d i n g t o t h e D e v e l o p m e n t

o f New P l a n n i n g G u i d e l i n e s " b y t h e U r b a n S t u d i e s
Morgan S t a t e C o l l e g e .
survey in

This

Institute

consisted of a recreational

1969 f o r t h e C i t y o f B a l t i m o r e u s i n g t h e

method i n a .5 p e r c e n t s a m p l e o f h o u s e h o l d s .

needs

interview

The p u r p o s e

o f t h e s t u d y was t o d e t e r m i n e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n t h e

1 4

T L

-

J

I b i d . , p.

xi.

of

18
attitudes

and demands o f t h e r e s i d e n t s

facilities
The s m a l l

and p ro g ra m s a v a i l a b l e

recreation

in t h e C i t y a s a whole.

sample would n o t be s u f f i c i e n t

r e c r e a t i o n b e h a v i o r b a s e d on d i f f e r e n t
lation.

and t h e

f o r an a n a l y s i s o f

segments o f t h e popu­

A p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e was t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f a p l a n ­

n i n g and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g g u i d e u t i l i z i n g
survey.

The f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u d i n g

relates

in p a r t

trators

to adequately perceive the

residents,

the r e s u l t s

statement

from t h e

of the
study

to the i n a b i l i t y o f urban r e c r e a tio n adm inis­
r e c r e a tio n needs of the

and has r e l e v a n c y t o t h e a u t h o r ' s p r o p o s e d

hypothes i s :
In t h e c o u r s e o f t h e p a s t y e a r s s t u d y t h a t l a r g e r p r o b le m has
made i t s e l f i n c r e a s i n g l y v i s i b l e .
The l a r g e r u rb a n r e c r e a t i o n
p r o b le m can be a r t i c u l a t e d as f o l l o w s :
Because o f t h e l i m i t e d
v i s i o n o f w h a t r e c r e a t i o n i s , b o t h on t h e p a r t o f u r b a n r e c r e ­
a t i o n d e s i g n e r s a n d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a n d on t h e p a r t o f t h e p e o p l e
t h e m s e l v e s , an a c r o s s - t h e - b o a r d d e f i c i e n c y e x i s t s i n o u r c i t i e s .
T h i s d e f i c i e n c y has e v o l v e d from a c o m b i n a t i o n o f s o c i a l e v e n t s
whic h i n c l u d e s u c h e l e m e n t s as t h e f a i l u r e o f h i g h l y b u r e a u c r a ­
t i z e d and p o l i t i c i z e d u r b a n r e c r e a t i o n d e p a r t m e n t s t o e n v i s i o n
t h e n o n - w o r k i n g a c t i v i t i e s o f u r b a n r e s i d e n t s i n t e r m s o f human
needs.
Perhaps in response to such poor q u a l i t i e s o f p e rc e p tio n
as t h i s , t h e p r o b l e m i s r e i n f o r c e d by t h e i n c r e a s i n g p a s s i v i t y
and f r u s t r a t i o n o f t h e u r b a n d w e l l e r d u r i n g t h o s e h o u r s a v a i l a b l e
f o r l e i s u r e and r e l a x a t i o n . I 5
2.

" E x p l o r i n g Urban P r i o r i t i e s :
Ge o r g e H.

F r e d e r i c k s o n , 196 9.

The Case o f S y r a c u s e " by
T h i s was a s t u d y o f S y r a c u s e

m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a - w i d e p u b l i c p r i o r i t y p r e f e r e n c e s b a s e d on
social,

economic,

and d e m o g r a p h i c c i r c u m s t a n c e s .

I t was t h e

o n l y s t u d y f o u n d w h e r e c o m p a r i s o n s w e r e made b e t w e e n t h e

Mor gan S t a t e C o l l e g e U r b a n S t u d i e s I n s t i t u t e a n d S t r a t e g i c
P l a n n i n g C o r p o r a t i o n , A P l a n n i n g S t u d y o f Urban R e c r e a t i o n C o n c e p t s ,
B e h a v i o r , Demands , F a c i l i t i e s and P r o g r a m s L e a d i n g t o t h e D e v e l o p m e n t
o f New P l a n n i n g G u i d e l i n e s , B a l t i m o r e , 1 9 7 0 , I , i i .

19
attitudes

of the c itiz e n s

The c i t i z e n s '

attitudes

toward p r i o r i t i e s

i n t e r v ie w in g a sample o f
lation

and t h e c i t i e s '

1,036 p e rso n s

were g a i n e d by

from t h e

county popu­

o f 423,000 and t h e s e a t t i t u d e s were c o n t r a s t e d w ith

th e r e a l urban p r i o r i t i e s
A comparison of p r i o r i t i e s
criteria:
and sex.
priority
that

d e c i s i o n makers.

a s mea sured by p u b l i c
was made b a s e d on t h e

urban and suburban a r e a s ,
Parks and r e c r e a t i o n

income,

facilities

spending.
following

education,

ranked

last

l i s t w i t h o n l y 25 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e s i d e n t s

i t e m a s an i m p o r t a n t p r o b l e m . ^ 6

given in percentages

age,

on t h e
listing

Th e c o m p a r i s o n s w e r e

and no s t a t i s t i c a l

t e s t was c i t e d t o

show i f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t .
3.

"Low I nco me a n d O p p o r t u n i t y :

Leisure-Time A c t i v i t i e s

F a m i l y L i v i n g " by F r a n c e s Kwong,

1966.

This

and

i s an unpub­

l i s h e d M a s t e r 's t h e s i s w ith t h e p rim a r y o b j e c t i v e o f examin­
i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f low i n c o me t o
R esults of the

s t u d y s howed t h a t

in

leisure-tim e a c tiv itie s.

low-income h o u s e h o ld s

(th o se w ith annual

incomes o f $3,000 t o $6,000)

popular

a c t i v i t y was w a t c h i n g t e l e v i s i o n

individual

m o s t p o p u l a r f a m i l y a c t i v i t y was p i c n i c k i n g .

17

t h e mo s t

These f i n d ­

i n g s s h o u l d b e r e l e v a n t t o t h e L a n s i n g Model C i t i e s
since both include populations

and t h e

study

a t t h e low i n c o m e l e v e l .

^ G e o r g e H. F r e d e r i c k s o n , " E x p l o r i n g U r b a n P r i o r i t i e s :
The
C a s e o f S y r a c u s e , " U r b a n A f f a i r s Q u a r t e r l y , V ( S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 6 9 ) , 35.
17

F r a n c e s Kwong, "Low I nco me a n d O p p o r t u n i t y :
Leisure-Time
A c t i v i t i e s and Family L iv in g " (u n p u b lis h e d M a s t e r ' s t h e s i s , Uni­
v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o , 1 9 6 6 ) , p . 79.

20

4.

" L e i s u r e and O c c u p a t i o n a l
1956.

Prestige"

The p u r p o s e o f t h i s

by A l f r e d C. C l a r k e ,

s t u d y was t o d e l i n e a t e t h e n a t u r e

of th e r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t i n g between d i f f e r e n t o c c u p a tio n a l
prestige
adults

levels

in the

and l e i s u r e

styles.

lowest p r e s t i g e

playing with c h ild re n ,

activities:

fishing,

than b rid g e , d r iv in g fo r p le a s u re ,
and s p e n d i n g t i m e i n t a v e r n s .
i n mo d e l c i t i e s
levels,

it

areas

s h o we d t h a t

l e v e l s p a r t i c i p a t e d most f r e ­

q u e n tly in the fo llo w in g l e i s u r e
vision,

Results

18

watching t e l e ­

playing cards other

a tte n d in g auto t h e a t e r ,

S i n c e many o f t h e r e s i d e n t s

have o cc u p a tio n s a t th e

may b e o f i n t e r e s t

lower p r e s t i g e

t o compare t h e i r

leisure-tim e

preferences with those o f the respondents in C la rk e 's
5.

"Social Class D ifferen ces
White,
ships

1955.

In t h i s

in four s o c ia l

study.

i n t h e Us e s o f L e i s u r e " b y R.

Clyde

s t u d y t h e a u t h o r examined t h e r e l a t i o n ­
c la sse s with ra te s of p a r tic ip a tio n

leisure-tim e a c tiv itie s .

R e s u l t s s h o we d t h e

in

following:

The r a t e o f u s e o f p a r k s a n d p l a y g r o u n d s b y c l a s s r i s e s s h a r p l y
from t h e u p p e r - m i d d l e - c l a s s r a t e t h r o u g h o t h e r c l a s s e s f o r b o t h
m a l e s and f e m a l e s .
T h e same r e g u l a r p r o g r e s s i o n i s shown i n
atte n d a n c e at church s e r v i c e s and, with s l i g h t v a r i a t i o n s , f o r a
s i n g l e c l a s s i n r a t e s f o r c o m m u n i t y - c h e s t s e r v i c e s , m u s e u m s , a nd
eth n ic-racial organizations.
F o r l i b r a r i e s , home a c t i v i t i e s , a n d
l e c t u r e - s t u d y c o u r s e s t h e t r e n d i s r e v e r s e d and d e c r e a s e s f r o m
t h e u p p e r m i d d l e downward.
The r a t e s f o r co m m e r c ia l amusements
differ:
low f o r u p p e r - m i d d l e - c l a s s m a l e s a n d on a h i g h e r l e v e l
fo r the o th e r th re e c l a s s e s ; f o r females e x a c t l y the r e v e r s e ,
i n d i c a t i n g a h i g h r a t e f o r u p p e r - m i d d l e - c l a s s f e m a l e s and a lo wer
a n d a l m o s t e v e n r a t e f o r t h e o t h e r s . 19
18

A l f r e d C. C l a r k e , " L e i s u r e a n d O c c u p a t i o n a l P r e s t i g e , "
i n Mass L e i s u r e , e d . b y E r i c L a r r a b e e a n d R o l f M e y e r s o h n ( G l e n c o e ,
111.:
The F r e e P r e s s , 1 9 5 8 ) , p . 2 0 8.
Leisure,"
(Glencoe,

R. C l y d e W h i t e , " S o c i a l C l a s s D i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e U s e s o f
i n Mass L e i s u r e , e d . b y E r i c L a r r a b e e a n d R o l f M e y e r s o h n
111.:
T h e F r e e P r e s s , 1 9 5 8 ) , p . 2 00 .

21

Th e N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k A s s o c i a t i o n h a s c o n d u c t e d
recent studies

concerning l e is u r e - tim e needs

census t r a c t s

in tw e n ty - fiv e of the c o u n t r y 's

r e p o r t has n o t been p u b l i s h e d .

20

reveal

problems f o r

recreation
C ities

largest

cities,

but the

These s t u d i e s d id not u t i l i z e

random samp le o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n a n d ,
in d r a w in g c o n c l u s i o n s

in s e le c te d c o r e - a r e a

therefore,

from t h e f i n d i n g s .

future research

a

one must b e c a u t i o u s

However,

the r e s u l t s

may

in the area of " in n e r - c ity "

s i m i l a r t o t h o s e w h i c h e m e r g e d i n t h e L a n s i n g Model

study.

20

D i a n a R. D u n n , " 1 9 7 0 U r b a n R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k . . . D a t a
Bench Mark Y e a r , " P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n , VI ( F e b r u a r y , 1 9 7 1 ) , 33 .

CHAPTER

III

RESEARCH PROCEDURES
Th e Model
From p a s t e x p e r i e n c e
from r e v i e w o f t h e

literature

the i n n e r - c i t y a r e a s ,
the

cities'

in t h e f i e l d

of public

agencies are not

the

upon i t s

pr ogr am and p l a n n i n g

These

in

Ea c h a g e n c y

s t a f f t o make t h e n e c e s ­

s a ry recommendations as t o th e ty p e s o f s e r v i c e s
w ill provide.

leaders

in

adequately p e rc e iv in g the

needs of the d isa d v a n ta g e d p o r tio n of th e p o p u la tio n .
usually re lie s

a nd

d e a lin g w ith l e i s u r e - t i m e problems

the w rite r hypothesized th at

leisure-tim e

recreation

and f a c i l i t i e s

it

r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a r e u s u a l l y b a s e d on p r o f e s s i o n a l

e x p e r i e n c e and on l i m i t e d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s w i t h c u r r e n t u s e r g r o u p s .
Without the b e n e f i t o f survey r e s e a r c h d a t a t h e p r e f e r e n c e s
non-users are not considered.
sons

From p r e v i o u s o b s e r v a t i o n s ,

of the
the p er­

i n t h e s e p o s i t i o n s a r e u s u a l l y from a t y p i c a l " m i d d l e c l a s s "

s o c i o e c o n o m i c o r i e n t a t i o n and h a v e b e e n i n v o l v e d i n pr ogramm ing
activities
mo s t c a s e s ,

f o r p a r t i c i p a n t s who a r e a l s o
there

is

leisu re-tim e agencies

very

little

its

in providing p a r t i c u l a r s e rv ic e s
there

coordination

such as p u b l i c ,

e a c h one u s u a l l y w o r k s w i t h i n

from t h a t

private,

class

level.

In

among t h e v a r i o u s
and c o m m e r c i a l ;

and

own l i m i t e d a r e a o f j u r i s d i c t i o n
to the c i t y ' s

i s a d e g r e e o f c o o p e r a t i o n among t h e

22

residents.

leisure-tim e

Even i f

agencies,

it

23
i s d o u b t f u l t h e r e w o u l d b e any t y p e o f s t r u c t u r e
b e t w e e n t h o s e a g e n c i e s and a l l
zations

the other social w elfare organi­

serving the disadvantaged areas of the c ity .

raised the q u estio n th a t

i f the personal

l e is u r e - tim e needs e x i s t i n g

complex?
this

in

So t h e w r i t e r

resources of a ll

a g e n c i e s a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n s w e r e p o o l e d , how w e l l
the

for coordination

of these

could they p e rc e iv e

t h e c o r e - c i t y a r e a o f an u r b a n

The p r i m a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t must be m e a s u r e d t o a n s w e r

question

is t h a t d ealin g w ith th e p e rc e p tio n of

needs by t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
s t a t e d by t h e r e s i d e n t s

leaders

living

compared t o t h e

in the

inner-city

leisure-tim e

a c t u a l needs as
area.

The t e r m s

"disadvantaged," " in n e r- c ity ,"

and " c o r e - c i t y "

a r e a s a r e u s e d t o mean

t h e same a s t h e " M o d e l C i t i e s "

a r e a o r "model n e i g h b o r h o o d s " w hich

have been p r e v i o u s l y d e f i n e d .
Th e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s
s h i p were

listed

on w h i c h t o d e t e r m i n e t h i s

in the study o b je c tiv e s

relation­

and may b e s p e c i f i c a l l y

r e s t a t e d as f o llo w s :
1.

Opinions o f the
adequacy o f

l e a d e r s and r e s i d e n t s

leisure-tim e

opportunities

concerning the
i n t h e Model C i t i e s

area:
a.

Adequacy o f t h e o v e r a l l

leisure-tim e

opportunities

available.
b.

Adequacy o f commercial r e c r e a t i o n

opportunities.

c.

Adequacy o f t h e C i t y p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n

facilities

and p r o g r a m s .
d.

Ad equacy o f q u a s i - p u b l i c and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n
programs.

24
e.

Adequacy o f Board o f E d u c a t i o n a f t e r - s c h o o l p r o g r a m s .

f.

Adequacy o f r e c r e a t i o n

programs

for c h ild re n under

12 y e a r s o f a g e .
2.

Ratings of

leisure-tim e opportunities

i n t h e Model C i t i e s

a r e a as compared t o o t h e r a r e a s o f t h e C i t y :
a.

Rating o f commercial r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s .

b.

R a t i n g o f C i t y p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n

facilities

and

programs.
c.
3.

R a t i n g o f q u a s i - p u b l i c and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o g r a m s .

Opinions of the

l e a d e r s and r e s i d e n t s

improve l e i s u r e - t i m e o p p o r t u n i t i e s

c o n c e r n i n g ways t o

i n t h e Model C i t i e s a r e a :

a.

S u ggestions f o r improving th e o v e r a l l

situation.

b.

S u g g e s tio n s f o r improving commercial r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r ­
tunities .

c.

Suggestions
facilities

d.

Suggestions

f o r im p ro v in g C i t y p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n
and p r o g r a m s .
f o r i m p r o v i n g q u a s i - p u b l i c and p r i v a t e

o r g a n iz a tio n programs.
4.

Opinions o f the le a d e rs

and r e s i d e n t s

concerning the

e x i s t e n c e and t y p e s o f p ro b le m s t h a t i n h i b i t p a r t i c i p a t i o n
b y Model C i t i e s r e s i d e n t s
a.

in l e i s u r e - t i m e programs:

The e x i s t e n c e a n d t y p e s
pation

in C i t y p a r k s

of problems

and r e c r e a t i o n

inhibiting p a r tic i­
facilities

and

programs.
b.

The e x i s t e n c e and t y p e s o f p r o b l e m s
pation

inhibiting p a r tic i­

i n q u a s i - p u b l i c and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o g r a m s .

O pinions of the l e a d e r s
time a c t i v i t i e s
C ities
a.

and r e s i d e n t s

concerning

n e e d e d o r p r e f e r r e d by r e s i d e n t s

leisure­
i n t h e Mo d e l

area:

Types o f a c t i v i t i e s

needed by c h i l d r e n u n d e r

12 y e a r s

of

age.
b.

Types of a c t i v i t i e s

p r e f e r r e d by r e s i d e n t s o v e r

12 y e a r s

o f age.
Opinions of the le a d e r s
selected
a.

factors

and r e s i d e n t s

concerning c e r ta in

a b o u t neighborhood r e c r e a t i o n

D is ta n c e t h a t Model C i t i e s r e s i d e n t s w i l l

centers.
travel

to such

centers.
b.

D esirability
at

c.

o f h a v i n g both i n d o o r and o u t d o o r f a c i l i t i e s

t h e same l o c a t i o n .

D e s ira b ility o f o ffe rin g other s o c ia l

services at

neighborhood r e c r e a t i o n c e n te r s .
d.

O pinions c o n c e r n i n g type of agency t h a t

should o p e r a te

such centers.
Other variables

and r e l a t i o n s h i p s

The v a r i a b l e o f e t h n i c
to the

included

origin of the

criterion v ariab les

residents

in

the organization,

o rg an izatio n s they re p re s e n t.
these

such as s e x ,

to perceive

An e f f o r t

t h e needs of t h e

age,

and t h e t y p e s o f
was made t o s e e

v a r i a b l e s had any r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h t h e

ability

in r e l a t i o n

of l e i s u r e - t i m e needs.

P e rs o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the l e a d e r s
len g th of service

in th e s t u d y w ere:

residents.

leaders'

if

26
All of t h e

above f a c t o r s were c o n s i d e r e d in

model t h a t c o u l d b e u s e d t o t e s t

the

form ulating a

accuracy of th e

l e a d e r s o f com­

munity o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o p r e d i c t t h e needs o f t h e r e s i d e n t s
Mo d e l C i t i e s

area.

An h y p o t h e s i s

f o r t h e model wa s t h e n s t a t e d

q u e s t i o n form as

follows:

If leaders

zations offerin g

s o c i a l and w e l f a r e

in to the plan n in g p ro c e ss ,
predict
the

of a l l

se rv ic e s could provide

p a r t of th e model.

to allow fo r t h e s e

inputs.

In t h i s

c a s e , t h e i n s t r u m e n t was a s e l f ­
l e a d e r s and r e p r e ­

s e n t a t i v e s who u t i l i z e d t h e i r k n o w l e d g e and e x p e r i e n c e
le is u r e - tim e needs of the r e s i d e n t s
In o r d e r
m o d e l , one s h o u l d
the people.
households

to te st

in d eterm ining

i n t h e Mo de l C i t i e s

area.

the accuracy of p r e d i c t iv e value o f t h i s

know t h e a c t u a l

l e i s u r e - t i m e n e e d s a s s t a t e d by

T h i s was d e t e r m i n e d by i n t e r v i e w i n g
and t h e n c o m p a r i n g t h e

variables previously outlined.
explained in the

and o r g a n i ­

and an i n s t r u m e n t c o u l d be d e s i g n e d

administered q u e s tio n n a ire to the o rg an izatio n

the

i n p u t s by

An a s s u m p t i o n

was made t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e a w i d e d i v e r s i t y o f l e a d e r s
zatio n s involved in t h i s process

inputs

group a c c u ra te ly

A method p r o v id in g f o r t h e s e

l e a d e r s t h e n b e c a m e an i n t e g r a l

in

o f t h e community o r g a n i ­

co u ld t h e y as a c o l l e c t i v e

l e i s u r e - t i m e needs?

in the

a random s amp le o f

r e s u l t s b a s e d upon t h e

criterion

The p r o c e d u r e f o r d o i n g t h i s

remaining s e c tio n s

of th is

is

chapter.

Sampling Design
The p o p u l a t i o n

included in th e study is d e fin e d

occupying r e s i d e n t i a l d w e lli n g u n i t s w i t h in
o r i g i n a l L a n s i n g Model C i t i e s
c o n s id e re d in e s t a b l i s h i n g

area.

this

as t h e people

the b o u n d a rie s o f the

The s o c i o e c o n o m i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

a r e a were o u t l i n e d

earlier.

This

27
portion of the City

identified

in f ig u r e

1 is e n l a r g e d

and shows t h e t e n Model n e i g h b o r h o o d s w i t h i n t h e t o t a l
Th e L a n s i n g P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t h a s a l i s t i n g

in Figure
area.

of the s tr e e ts

and b l o c k s t h a t a r e i n c l u d e d i n e a c h o f t h e s e n e i g h b o r h o o d s .
list

2

This

along w i t h t h e Lansing C i t y D i r e c t o r y which c o n t a i n s an a l p h a ­

betical

listing

of all

p r o v i d e d t h e means

streets

and a d d r e s s numbers

f r om w h i c h t o d r a w t h e

sample.

for dwelling u n its
Individuals

y e a r s o f age and o l d e r i n e a c h s am ple d w e l l i n g u n i t
sampling u n i t .
"household,"

sampling p u rp o se s .

Many o t h e r

s is te n c y f o r p o s s ib ly comparing r e s u l t s .
one p e r s o n i n a h o u s e h o l d c o u l d n o t
le is u r e - tim e needs of a l l

unit

including th a t

explained in the follow ing

and t h e r e b y p r o v i d e s
However,

a con­

i t was f e l t

therefore,

that

a

in a d d itio n to g e n e ra l

fo r th e younger c h ild r e n .

These are

section.

The d a t a c o l l e c t e d p e r t a i n e d

to the

lei sure-tim e needs of

t h a t th e y had e x p e r i e n c e d d u r in g t h e p a s t y e a r
study began;

therefore,

any f a m i l y l i v i n g

f o r l e s s t h a n n i n e m o n t h s wa s e l i m i n a t e d
However,

from

in L a n s i n g

from t h e p o p u l a t i o n b e i n g

t h i s was n o t known u n t i l

the time o f th e

inter­

vi ew a n d h a d t o b e c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e s a m p l i n g p r o c e s s w h i c h i s
explained

for

o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d e s i g n e d t o g a t h e r s p e c i f i c

household d a t a

surveyed.

and f e a s i b l e

o f t h e h o u s e h o l d members;

12 y e a r s o f a g e a n d o l d e r

th e time t h e

same a s a

adequately account fo r the

data for those

the r e s id e n ts

the

r e l a t e d r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s have a l s o

used th e h o u seh o ld as t h e sam pling u n i t

separate p art

constituted

A " d w e l l i n g u n i t " was c o n s i d e r e d t h e

and p r o v i d e d t h e most p r a c t i c a l

12

later.

28

LEGEND
Mo d e l n e i g h b o r h o o d n u mb e r s

mile
%

-1
f t

r~3G3Dti3 iJ
D Q ilJ O E ^
iiU

X
S 2
JU InnG
n m
r j m
C^)QOD □ □ o a
qnoD D
d j u o o □ □ □ L j
□ B O D
□ G O D JL D t

□[&

□□□p

■

d m

x

r x z j

□□□□
□n

JC jiJlJ

□□□£

□ □ n r ir
□ □ □ Q

□ □
□ UQD
Lmf J( J

M" *

33
0

F i g u r e 2 . — Map Showing t h e L a n s i n g Model C i t i e s A re a
I n c l u d e d I n t h e R e c r e a t i o n a l N eed s S u r v e y -

29
S i n c e t h e p o p u l a t i o n p a r a m e t e r s w e r e unknown and t h e r e was no
p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h d e a l i n g w i t h t h e p r o p o s e d v a r i a b l e s on w h i c h t o
estim ate population variances,
sented a problem.

t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f sample s i z e p r e ­

Added t o t h i s

D e m o n s t r a t i o n Agency,

is the

fact that

t h e Mo d e l C i t i e s

t h e d e c i s i o n m a k e r f o r whom t h e s t u d y was c o n ­

d u c t e d , wa s new a n d h a d v e r y l i m i t e d p a s t e x p e r i e n c e
the p o p u la tio n under study.

For th e s e re a s o n s ,

t h a t h e s h o u l d be s o me wh a t f l e x i b l e
cance

level

fo r measuring the r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

or-miss" b a s is
and a l s o t h e
areas,

it

in s e ttin g

in working with

the researcher f e lt
a specific

signifi­

Considering the " h it-

on w h i c h l e i s u r e - t i m e p r o g r a m s a r e s o m e t i m e s o f f e r e d

apparent

inadequacies of meeting needs

would appear t h a t

stating

inner-city

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h 85

t o 90 p e r c e n t c o n f i d e n c e w o u l d b e w i t h i n r e a s o n
improvements i n c u r r e n t o p e r a t i n g c o n d i t i o n s .
increase the degree of p re c is io n

in the

and p r o v i d e f o r

However,

and b e a b l e t o s t a t e

d iffe re n c e s with g re a te r confidence,

in order to

significant

the research er attempted to get

a l a r g e r number o f samples t h a n might o t h e r w i s e be r e q u i r e d .
R elated research s tu d ie s using th e in terv iew technique for
d a t a c o l l e c t i o n have had s am pl e s i z e s

ranging

cent t o 4 per c e n t of the p o p u l a ti o n .
s a m p l e s i z e was s e t

at

For t h i s

study, the

300 d w e l l i n g u n i t s w h i c h i s

5 l- i p e r c e n t o f t h e 5 , 4 0 0 d w e l l i n g u n i t s
Also,

from l e s s t h a n

included

a little

1 per

original
over

in th e p o p u la tio n .

a l a r g e r s a m p l e s i z e w o u l d a l l o w c o m p a r i s o n s t o b e made b e t w e e n

s u b g r o u p s w h i c h was o n e o b j e c t i v e o f t h e d e c i s i o n m a k e r i n s p o n s o r i n g
the r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t .

T h e s e s u b g r o u p s w er e formed from t h e p o p u ­

l a t i o n w i t h i n t h e t e n s e p a r a t e model n e i g h b o r h o o d s .

A prim ary f a c t o r

30
i n d e t e r m i n i n g a l i m i t t o t h e s a m p l e s i z e was t h e amo u n t o f f u n d s
a l l o c a t e d by t h e Agency f o r t h e

re search project*

The s y s t e m a t i c

r a n d o m s a m p l i n g m e t h o d was u s e d i n o r d e r t o g e t e q u a l p e r c e n t a g e
representation

from each o f t h e n e ig h b o r h o o d s .

T h i s p r o c e d u r e was a s f o l l o w s :
S,400 d w ellin g u n i t s
eighteen

in th e

T h r e e h u n d r e d sample s from t h e

r e p r e s e n t e d one d w e l l i n g u n i t o ut o f every

sample

frame.

B e g i n n i n g w i t h mo de l n e i g h b o r h o o d

n u m b e r o n e and a r a n d o m s t a r t n u m b e r e l e v e n
selected
tial

f r o m a t a b l e o f r andom n u m b e r s ) ,

( b e t w e e n o n e and e i g h t e e n ,

every e ig h te e n th re s id e n ­

d w e l l i n g u n i t was d r a w n f r o m t h e L a n s i n g C i t y

accordance with th e

alphabetical

Lansing Planning Department.

street

listing

and r e s u l t e d

a s p r o v i d e d by t h e

T h i s p r o c e d u r e was f o l l o w e d s y s t e m a t i ­

c a l l y t h r o u g h o u t t h e mo d e l n e i g h b o r h o o d s
number t e n ,

D irecto ry in

in a t o t a l

from number one t h r o u g h

o f 296 d w e l l i n g u n i t s b e i n g

drawn f o r t h e f i r s t

round o f sa m p lin g .

i n g u n i t was l i s t e d

and a s s i g n e d a h o u s e h o l d i n t e r v i e w number.

After the

Th e a d d r e s s

fo r each d w e ll­

i n t e r v i e w e r s h a d w o r k e d o n e week a n d h a d e x p e n d e d

approximately o n e - t h ir d

of the a l l o t t e d

time,

a s e c o n d s a m p l e was

drawn i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e t h e d e s i r e d number o f c o m p l e t e d i n t e r v i e w s .
This

is

f u r t h e r e x p la in e d in the

s e c t i o n on d a t a c o l l e c t i o n .

The s e c o n d p h a s e o f t h e s t u d y
organization

leaders.

T h i s was t h e

i n c l u d e d a s u r v e y o f community

total

number ( n o t

a sample)

community o r g a n i z a t i o n s p r o v i d i n g s o c i a l w e l f a r e s e r v i c e s
r e s i d e n t s o f t h e Mo de l C i t i e s a r e a .
religious,
mation

voluntary

It

and o t h e r s i m i l a r

included p u b lic ,
type ag en cies.

from t h e L a n s i n g U n i t e d C o m m u n i t y C h e s t ,

of

to the
private,

Using i n f o r ­

t h e Mo de l C i t i e s

31

D em onstration Agency,

and t h e L a n s i n g C i t y D i r e c t o r y , a l i s t

s e v e n t y - e i g h t o r g a n i z a t i o n s was c o m p i l e d f o r t h e

survey.

of

They were

as f o llo w s :
Major l e i s u r e time a g e n c i e s
Other types of s o c ia l

10

service

agencies

43

Churches
Total
Tn a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e v e n t y - e i g h t
mor e l e a d e r s

involved in

t h e Model C i t i e s

78

organizations

selected,

thirteen

l e i s u r e - t i m e programming or s u p e r v i s i o n in

area also received the questionnaire.

T h e s e were

l e a d e r s w orking i n t h e a g e n c i e s which had a m ajor r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
some t y p e o f l e i s u r e - t i m e
schools,

Lansing

service

and i n c l u d e d p e r s o n n e l

P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t ,

and n e i g h b o r h o o d c o m m u n i t y c e n t e r s .
leaders are included

in Appendices
Survey

The s u r v e y

Th e

Also,

for the household
for

stated.

B, a n d C.

i n most c a s e s , o p i n i o n s
from p r e v i o u s

research

residents

the o r g a n iz a tio n

leaders

d a t a on

Lxamples o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
Th e o p e n - e n d e d t y p e q u e s t i o n s

la rg e ly used sin ce the re sp o n d e n t's

results

and

f o r d a t a c o l l e c t i o n were the

interview s

a r e i n c l u d e d i n A p p e n d i c e s A,

n o t known a n d ,

of organizations

Q u e s tio n s were d es ig n e d t o c o l l e c t

the v a ria b le s as p re v io u sly

were

volun tary agencies,

Instruments

and a s e l f - a d m i n i s t e r e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e
and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .

in the

B a n d C.

instrum ents used

questionnaire with personal

lists

for

l e v e l o f i n f o r m a t i o n was

r a th e r than f a c t s

we r e s o u g h t .

s t u d i e s d e a l i n g w i t h unknown

32
population

p a r a m e t e r s s h o we d t h e s e t y p e s o f q u e s t i o n s t o b e m o s t

successful

in g e t t i n g t h e v i e w s o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s .

'I'he h o u s e h o l d q u e s t i o n n a i r e
first

to o b ta in d ata about th e

c o n s i s t e d o f two m aj or p a r t s ;

f a m i l y and c h i l d r e n u n d e r 12,

second t o g a t h e r d a t a from e a c h i n d i v i d u a l
o f age and o l d e r ,

A primary a d u lt

was i n t e r v i e w e d u s i n g b o t h p a r t s

(man o r woman)

in th e h o u s e h o ld

o f th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e which were

p l e t i o n o f t h e s e two f o r m s b y t h e p r i m a r y a d u l t

was

A dditional

f o r m s g a v e s u p p l e m e n t a r y d a t a a b o u t o t h e r h o u s e h o l d member s

who w e r e i n t e r v i e w e d d u r i n g t h e
respondent.
left

T h e com­

(or r e s p o n d e n t)

c o n s i d e r e d t h e minimum a c c e p t a b l e h o u s e h o l d i n t e r v i e w .

were

and t h e

h o u s e h o l d member 12 y e a r s

p r i n t e d a s t w o s e p a r a t e f o r m s on p a p e r o f d i f f e r e n t c o l o r .

individual

the

same t i m e p e r i o d a s t h e p r i m a r y

If these ad ditional

t o be f i l l e d

members w e r e n o t a t home, t h e

o u t a n d p i c k e d up a t

mary a d u l t wa s n o t a t h o me ,

the

t o g e t one c o m p l e t e d i n t e r v i e w

a l a t e r time.

forms

If a p ri­

i n t e r v i e w e r made two more a t t e m p t s
fo r the household.

Ea c h o f t h e s e

a t t e m p t s was made a t a d i f f e r e n t t i m e o f d a y .
As s t a t e d

in t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y c h a p t e r ,

the topic

for th is

s t u d y was d e v e l o p e d f r o m a b r o a d e r s t u d y a r e a a s r e q u i r e d b y t h e
sponsoring agency.

Therefore,

g a t h e r a d d i t i o n a l d a t a and a r e
this

thesis

t o p i c only.

data for the
identified
dices.

t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d e s ig n e d t o
l o n g e r t h a n would be r e q u i r e d

for

The q u e s t i o n s which were i n c lu d e d t o g a t h e r

v a r i a b l e s as o u t l i n e d

w i t h an a s t e r i s k

(*)

in t h e

study objectives

on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

are

in t h e Appen­

33
The s e c o n d p h a s e o f t h e s t u d y d e a l t w i t h r e s p o n s e s from t h e
organizations

and l e a d e r s .

sponsoring agency,

Again,

t wo q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e d e v e l o p e d .

designed to o b tain the " o f f i c i a l "
zation

concerning

to the adm inistrator,

position

in t h e a g e n c y .

ning,
ties

This

o n e wa s f i l l e d

supervising,

chairman,

sponsor,

leaders

One was

views o f the o r g a n i ­

i n t h e Model C i t i e s a r e a .

This

o r s o me o n e i n a s i m i l a r

To g e t a d d i t i o n a l

r e q u i r e d by t h e

signed for in d iv id u a l
tunities.

or c o lle c tiv e

le is u r e - tim e needs

was s e n t

beyond t h a t

t o meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e

inputs

in to the study

a n o t h e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d e ­

or p la n n e r s of l e i s u r e - t i m e oppor­
o u t by p e r s o n s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p l a n ­

or a d m in is te rin g

l e i s u r e - t i m e programs or f a c i l i ­

i n t h e Model C i t i e s a r e a a n d r e f l e c t e d t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l v i e w s

or opinions.
Data C o l l e c t i o n
Interview ers

f o r t h e h o u s e h o l d s u r v e y w e r e h i r e d by t h e Mod e l

C i t i e s D e m o n s t r a t i o n Agency f o l l o w i n g t h e i r p o l i c y o f emp lo yi n g p e r ­
sonnel

indigenous

to the area.

s i d e r a t i o n was g i v e n t o t h e i r
past experiences,
residents

ability

and t h e i r a b i l i t y

of the area.

v i s e d by t h e r e s e a r c h e r s

to follow

interview ers,
instructions,

to estab lish

On c e s e l e c t e d ,

five

con­
their

r a p p o r t with th e

t h e y w e r e t r a i n e d and s u p e r ­

involved in the p r o j e c t .

th e a g reem en t w i t h t h e Agency,
total

In s e l e c t i n g t h e

In a c c o r d a n c e w i t h

i n t e r v i e w e r s were h i r e d w ith a

a l l o t m e n t o f 400 h o u r s o f w o r k i n g ti m e .
Two o f t h e

i n t e r v i e w e r s were f i r s t

household q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
pretest

from t h e

used in p r e t e s t i n g

Six d w e l l i n g u n i t s were s e l e c t e d

three sub-areas

as s p e c i f ie d

the

for the

in the c o n tra c t with

34
t h e Model C i t i e s A g e n c y .

(Model n e i g h b o r h o o d s o n e ,

two,

and t h r e e

were g r o u p e d i n t o A r e a " 1 , "

n e ig h b o r h o o d s f o u r and f i v e

i n t o Area

" 2 , ” and n e i g h b o r h o o d s s i x ,

seven,

i n t o Area

” 3.”

These are i d e n t i f i e d

ing u n i t s

for the p r e te s t,

the

apartments,

In s e l e c t i n g t h e s i x d w e l l ­

and t h e t y p e s o f d w e l l i n g s

and b u i l d i n g c o n d i t i o n s ) .

(single

T h e r e s e a r c h e r made

i n s p e c t i o n s and o b s e r v a t i o n s t h r o u g h o u t

the v a rio u s neighborhoods.

Five

selected,

b a s e d upon t h e p r e t e s t

and t e n

c o n s i d e r a t i o n was g i v e n t o r e p r e s e n t a t i o n

selections a fte r visual

six dwelling u n its

nine,

in Figure 2 .)

of the various ethnic o rig in s
family,

eight,

i n t e r v i e w s w er e c o m p l e t e d from t h e

and t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was t h e n r e v i s e d

results.

T h e t wo i n t e r v i e w e r s u s e d i n p r e t e s t i n g t h e o r i g i n a l
naire

a s s i s t e d in t r a i n i n g

the o th e r th re e

interview ers.

question­

The r e ­

s e a r c h e r met r e g u l a r l y w i t h e a c h one d u r i n g t h e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n
period
arose

( J u l y 19 t o A u g u s t
in th e

field

13,

and t o

from t h e

being completed,
originally

to help so lv e problems t h a t

keep t h e n e c e s s a r y

The r e s u l t s o f t h e
showed t h a t

1971)

first

interview s

survey records.

w e e k ' s wo r k by t h e

interview ers

a t t e m p t e d a b o u t 50 p e r c e n t w e r e

and i t wa s t a k i n g mor e t i m e p e r

anticipated.

five

At t h a t t i m e ,

in te rv ie w than

a s e c o n d s e t o f 226 s a m p l i n g

u n i t s was d r awn u s i n g t h e same p r o c e d u r e a s p r e v i o u s l y u s e d .
tw enty-third re sid e n tia l
s t a r t number n i n e

Every

d w e l l i n g u n i t was c h o s e n u s i n g a r a n d o m

(b e t w e e n one and t w e n t y - t h r e e

s e l e c t e d from a t a b l e

o f random n u m b e r s ) .
A f t e r two w e e k s o f
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s had b e e n

interview ing,

th e r e s u l t s were:

re tu rn e d out o f th e o r i g i n a l

237

296 s a m p l e

35

u n its.

Of t h e s e ,

102 w ere c o m p l e t e d i n t e r v i e w s w i t h 26 com ing from

A rea " 1 , " 30 from A rea " 2 , " and 46 f r o m A r e a " 3 . "

In te r v ie w tim e

e x p e n d e d was 298 h o u r s .

From t h e 2 3 7 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t h a t w ere r e ­

t u r n e d , 45 had a d d r e s s e s

l i s t e d t h a t d i d n o t c o n t a i n t h e s a m p le

p op u lation .

That i s ,

the in te r v ie w e r s

the four fo llo w in g c a te g o r ie s :
d w e l l i n g , no s u c h a d d r e s s ,
n i n e months o r more.

found t h e s e t o be in one o f

vacant d w ellin g ,

a d d r e s s was n o t a

o r t h e f a m i l y had n o t l i v e d

in Lansing fo r

A ccording t o t h i s d a t a , t h e sample p o p u la t io n

was t h e n e s t i m a t e d t o be 4 , 5 1 6 d w e l l i n g u n i t s r a t h e r t h a n t h e 5 , 3 2 6
t h a t was l i s t e d
At t h i s

in t h e Lansing C it y D i r e c t o r y .
stage,

o f 186 i n t e r v i e w s ;

t h e o b j e c t i v e was r e d e f i n e d t o s e c u r e a t o t a l

that i s ,

a l l o t t e d for the study.

an a d d i t i o n a l 84 w i t h t h e r e m a i n i n g t i m e

A lso,

i t was d e c i d e d t o c o n c e n t r a t e on

g e t t i n g one c o m p l e t e h o u s e h o l d i n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e p r i m a r y a d u l t and
not to

l e a v e t h e i n d i v i d u a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e form s f o r a l a t e r p i c k - u p .

T h i s p r o c e d u r e had n o t p r o v e d v e r y s u c c e s s f u l ,

and t h e r e s u l t s d i d

n o t j u s t i f y t h e i n t e r v ie w e r tim e r e q u ir e d .
The r e d e f i n e d o b j e c t i v e would g i v e
sa m p le o f t h e t o t a l d w e l l i n g u n i t s .
rep resen tation

In o r d e r t o g e t a p r o p o r t i o n a t e

in each o f th e th r e e a r e a s ,

from t h e s e c o n d s a m p l e l i s t

approxim ately a 4 per cen t

as f o llo w s :

a revised

S ix t y d w e llin g u n i t s were

s e l e c t e d a t random from A r e a **1," 49 d w e l l i n g u n i t s
and 28 d w e l l i n g u n i t s

wer e:

from Area " 2 , "

from A r e a '' 3 . "

Three o f t h e f i v e
com plete the job .

s a m p l e was drawn

i n t e r v i e w e r s c o n t i n u e d a n o t h e r two w e e k s t o

A f t e r f o u r weeks o f i n t e r v i e w i n g ,

fin a l r esu lts

36
Total

interview s attempted

43 3

Total

interview s

159

completed

Estimated per cent of dwelling u n its
in terview ed
The r e a s o n s t h a t

i n t e r v i e w s were n o t o b t a i n e d

3.5%

i n 274 o f t h e d w e l l i n g

u n i t s may b e s u m m a r i z e d a s f o l l o w s :
No o n e was a t home

91

Household a d u l t r e f u s e d t o be
interview ed

86

H o u s e was v a c a n t

27

No s u c h a d d r e s s

c o u l d be

located

20

A r e s p o n s i b l e a d u l t was n o t a t home

17

R e s p o n d e n t had l i v e d i n L a n s i n g
l e s s t h a n n i n e months

14

A d d r e s s was n o t a d w e l l i n g

11

Other reasons

8

The h o u s e h o l d s t h a t were s u c c e s s f u l l y

interview ed are i n d i­

c a t e d b y t h e d o t s on t h e map i n F i g u r e 3.
T h e r e a s o n s g i v e n mo s t
t o be i n t e r v i e w e d w e r e t h a t
ested

in th e survey.

Area " 1 , "

f r e q u e n t l y b y t h e p e r s o n who r e f u s e d

t h e y d id not have time or were n o t

The n o n - r e s p o n s e r a t e s

24.0 per cent;

Area ” 2 ,"

inter­

f o r th o s e p e r s o n s were:

24.3 per cent;

and A r e a " 3 , "

10.8

per cent.
Q uestionnaires

for the

second phase o f th e study;

f o r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s and l e a d e r s

were f o r m u l a t e d ,

r e v i s e d d u r i n g t h e mont h o f O c t o b e r ,
t h e s e c o n d we e k i n Nov emb er ,
was made t o a l l

that is,

pretested,

a nd

1971 a n d w e r e m a i l e d d u r i n g

Two w e e k s

l a t e r a phone c a l l

follow-up

o r g a n i z a t i o n s a n d l e a d e r s who h a d n o t r e s p o n d e d .

37
LEGEND
Sur vey d i s t r i c t number

a ts jL ijL

Interview ed household
Scale

m ile

¥
u n
JU U
: x n
□ □
i n n n
nin a

_nn

□unn

L

x i c x u a o
XHXH2QQ □ □ □ □
3CDUI

]□□□

□ m n
□EBaa

□

F i g u r e 3 . - - Ma p S h o w i n g t h e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f D w e l l i n g U n i t s
w ith Completed I n t e r v i e w s .

38

Reminder l e t t e r s w e r e t h e n m a i l e d t o t h o s e who c o u l d n o t b e c o n t a c t e d
by p h o n e .

P e r s o n a l v i s i t s w e r e made t o t h e m a jo r l e i s u r e - t i m e

o r g a n i z a t i o n s i n o r d e r t o g e t r e s p o n s e s fro m r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s r e s p o n s i ­
b le fo r p r o v id in g th e la r g e s t proportion o f r e c r e a tio n a c t i v i t i e s o f
a p u b lic or q u a s i- p u b lic n a tu r e w ith in th e C ity .
ca ll

f o l l o w - u p was made t h e f i r s t week i n J a n u a r y ,

A second phone
1972 t o a l l

n on ­

r e s p o n d e n t s w i t h a r e q u e s t t h a t t h e y r e t u r n th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e by
J a n u a r y 12.
R e s u l t s o f th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e t u r n s were:
Q uestionnaires
Mailed
Returned
No._______ No.
%
Maj or l e i s u r e - t i m e

agencies

10

9

90.0

O t h e r community s o c i a l s e r v i c e
agen cies

43

21

48.8

Churches

25

4

16.0

1_3

_6

46.2

91

40

A d d ition al leaders in
tim e a g e n c ie s

leisu re­
Total

Data P r o c e s s i n g
S i n c e t h e r e w e r e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 700 r e s p o n s e s t h a t c o u l d be
r e c o r d e d on a c o m p l e t e d h o u s e h o l d i n t e r v i e w ,
the computer f o r d a ta p r o c e s s i n g .
a code book,

i t was d e c i d e d t o u s e

T h is in v o lv e d th e developm ent o f

t h e r e c o r d i n g o f r e s p o n s e s on a c o d e s h e e t ,

th e punching

o f c a r d s , and t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f a c o m p u t e r program f o r p r o c e s s i n g
the data.

In o r d e r t o d e v e l o p t h e c o d e b o o k , t h e r e s p o n s e s from

t h i r t y - s i x household q u e stio n n a ir e s

( a p p r o x i m a t e l y 23%) w e r e r e c o r d e d

and t h e a n s w e r s t o t h e o p e n - e n d e d q u e s t i o n s w ere g r o u p e d i n t o

39

categories.

The r e s u l t s

from t h i s

sample o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s p r o v id e d

s u f f i c i e n t d a t a t o s e t up t h e c o d i n g p r o c e s s .
provided a b a s i s
the data.

The c o d e book a l s o

from w h ic h t o s e t up t h e n e c e s s a r y t a b l e s t o a n a l y z e

The c o d e book and t a b l e s t h e n became t h e k e y means o f

c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e r e s e a r c h e r and t h e c o m p u t e r programmer.
The f i n a l p r i n t - o u t s w e r e r e c e i v e d from t h e c o m p u te r c e n t e r a t
C e n t r a l M i c h i g a n U n i v e r s i t y on J a n u a r y 2 1 ,

1972.

The f o r t y o r g a n i z a t i o n and l e a d e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , w h i c h w e r e
d e s i g n e d t o b e s e I f - a d m i n i s t e r e d , w e r e much s h o r t e r w i t h a b o u t
p o ssib le responses.

100

D ata from t h e s e w e r e t a b u l a t e d b y hand w i t h

r e s p o n s e s b e i n g r e c o r d e d by t h e " t a l l y "

system in prearranged t a b l e s .

From t h e s e t a b l e s and t h e c o m p u t e r p r i n t - o u t s h e e t s , t h e n e c e s s a r y
d a t a wer e s e l e c t e d t o g i v e i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e v a r i a b l e s f o r t h i s
study as s p e c i f i e d

in the o b j e c tiv e s

and t h e m o d e l.

a r e p r e s e n t e d and a n a l y z e d i n t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r .

The r e s u l t s

CHAPTER IV

SURVEY RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

T his c h a p t e r i n c l u d e s th e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f d a t a which were
r e le v a n t t o the study o b j e c t iv e s .

The f i r s t

part d e s c r ib e s the

p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e s a m p l e s and d i s c u s s e s t h e s t a t i s t i ­
c a l t r e a t m e n t o f t h e d a t a on w h i c h c o m p a r i s o n s a r e made.

The l a t t e r

part o f the ch ap ter in c lu d e s th e d ata f o r each c r i t e r i o n v a r ia b le
u n d er s t u d y and a n a l y z e s t h e c o m p a r a t i v e r e s u l t s .
c l u s i o n s b a s e d upon t h e s e r e s u l t s

A summary o f c o n ­

i s p r e s e n te d in the

f in a l chapter.

Household P o p u la tio n C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c o m p l e t e d h o u s e h o l d i n t e r v i e w s a c c o r d i n g
t o e t h n i c o r i g i n i s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 1.

The e i g h t h o u s e h o l d s r e p r e ­

s e n t i n g S p a n i s h - s p e a k i n g r e s i d e n t s and t h e two h o u s e h o l d s r e c o r d e d
as o t h e r e t h n i c o r i g i n s do n o t p r o v i d e en ough r e s p o n s e s f o r c o m p a r i ­
s o n s b a s e d on t h e s e c a t e g o r i e s .
dents are included in the t o t a l

H o w e v e r , t h e d a t a from t h e s e r e s p o n ­
frequency counts fo r the p o p u la tio n

u n d er s t u d y i n t h e Model C i t i e s a r e a , and a r e u s e d f o r c o m p a r i s o n s
between the o r g a n iz a t io n

l e a d e r s and t h e t o t a l r e s i d e n t s .

These

d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e r e m a i n i n g t a b l e s u n d e r t h e column " a l l
resp on dents."

The e t h n i c o r i g i n v a r i a b l e u s e d i n t h e s t u d y f o r

com parative p u r p o se s i s r e p r e s e n t e d by s i x t y - f i v e b la c k h o u se h o ld s

40

41

and e i g h t y w h i t e h o u s e h o l d s .
t o make s t a t i s t i c a l

The number o f r e s p o n s e s was s u f f i c i e n t

t e s t s on t w e n t y o f t h e t w e n t y - f o u r c r i t e r i o n

v a r i a b l e s i n c o m p a r in g b l a c k r e s i d e n t s w i t h w h i t e r e s i d e n t s .
TABLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE BY ETHNIC ORIGIN OF
HOUSEHOLD'S PRIMARY RESPONDENT
T otal
E thnic O rig in
No.

%

65

40.9

.......................................

8

5 .0

White .....................................................................

80

50 . 3

O t h e r ......................................................................

2

1.3

E t h n i c Group Not R e c o r d e d

4

2.5

B la c k ..............................................................
Spanish Speaking

T otal

Interview s

.

.

.

.

159

*

*

T a b l e 2 shows t h e m a r i t a l s t a t u s o f t h e p r i m a r y h o u s e h o l d
respondents.

S i n c e t h i s was a s e n s i t i v e q u e s t i o n t h a t m i g h t d e t e r

c o o p e r a t i o n by t h e r e s p o n d e n t ,
fille d

i n by t h e i n t e r v i e w e r a f t e r o b s e r v i n g r e s p o n s e s and s i t u a t i o n s

during t h e i n t e r v i e w .

T h i s was n o t a v a r i a b l e u n d e r s t u d y , b u t i s

included along w ith f a c t o r s
and e d u c a t i o n a l
file

i t was n o t a s k e d d i r e c t l y b u t was

such as a g e ,

sex,

incom e, o c c u p a t io n ,

l e v e l o f household resp o n d e n ts to g e t a b e t t e r p ro ­

o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and t o c o n s i d e r p o s s i b l e

r e l a t i o n s h i p s or e x t e r n a l v a r i a b l e s i n drawing c o n c l u s i o n s .

Infor­

m a t i o n from t h e s e d a t a m i g h t a l s o b e u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e i m p o r t a n t

42
to p ics

fo r fu ture study.

percentage

D a t a i n T a b l e 2 i n d i c a t e a much h i g h e r

(68.8%) o f m a r r i e d p r i m a r y r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h e w h i t e h o u s e ­

h o l d s a s compared t o t h e b l a c k h o u s e h o l d s

(47.7% ).

The r e v e r s e i s

t r u e o f t h e s e p a r a t e d and d i v o r c e d p r i m a r y r e s p o n d e n t s .
sitio n

The compo­

o f t h e f a m i l y a s a b a s i c s o c i a l u n i t c o u l d h a v e an i n f l u e n c e

upon l e i s u r e - t i m e n e e d s i n t h e i n n e r - c i t y

a r e a s and be a f a c t o r

c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n a l l o c a t i n g r e s o u r c e s t o meet t h o s e n e e d s .

for

Further

s t u d y w o u ld be n e e d e d t o d e t e r m i n e p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n
th ese variab les.
TABLE 2
MARITAL STATUS OF HOUSEHOLD'S PRIMARY RESPONDENT
A ll
Respondents3

W hite

Black

M arital S tatu s
No.

%

No.

%

%

No.

94

59. 1

31

47. 7

55

68. 8

Separated

13

8.2

11

16. 9

2

2.5

D ivorced.

14

8.8

8

12. 3

5

6.3

23

14.5

10

15.4

11

13.8

12

7.5

4

6. 2

6

7 .5

3

1.9

1

1.5

1

1. 3

80

- •

Married .

S in gle

.

.

.

.

Widow(ers)

.

.

.

.

Not Known
Total

.

159

• ■

65

■ ■

S e e d i s c u s s i o n on d a t a p r e s e n t e d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h i s
chapter.
T a b l e 3 g i v e s d a t a a b o u t t h e s o u r c e and amount o f t o t a l
h o u s e h o l d in co m e.

Over h a l f

(53.2% ) o f t h e h o u s e h o l d s h a v e t o t a l

43

TABLE 3
PRIMARY SOURCE AND TOTAL AMOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD
INCOME BEFORE TAXES
A ll
R espondents

Income
P r im a r y S o u r c e

No.
Salary/W ages

.

Pension

W hite

No.

%

%

No.

%

■

m

95

62. 5

34

54.0

51

67. 1

•

«

20

13.2

7

11. 1

12

15. 8

29

19. 1

21

33 . 3

6

7.9

8

5 .3

1

1.6

7

9. 2

76

■ *

P u blic A ssista n ce
Other
Total

Black

152

*

*

*

63

- ■

M a g n i tu d e

#

•

18

12.6

10

16.4

6

8.7

$3,000 - 4,499

4

•

25

17. S

13

21.3

10

14.5

$ 4 ,5 0 0 - 5,999

»

4

33

23.1

17

27.9

14

20. 3

$ 6 ,0 0 0 - 7,999

*

4

28

19.6

9

14.8

17

24.6

$ 8 , 0 0 0 and Up

•

*

39

27. 3

12

19. 7

22

31.9

•

4

143

*

69

6 .6

11

Under $ 3 , 0 0 0

T otal
No R e s p o n se

<

■

16

*

*

11.2

61
4

■

4

*

15.9

44

a n n u a l i n c o m e s o f l e s s t h a n $ 6 , 0 0 0 and a p p r o x i m a t e l y o n e - t h i r d
(32.3%) h a v e p e n s i o n s o r p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e a s t h e p r i m a r y s o u r c e o f
income.

T h is could c o n c e iv a b ly be a c o n s t r a i n t to c e r t a i n t y p e s o f

leisu re-tim e

a ctiv ities,

and w i l l b e r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n s

c o n c e r n i n g c o m p a r i s o n s b a s e d on p r o b l e m s w h i c h i n h i b i t p a r t i c i p a t i o n
in r e c r e a tio n f a c i l i t i e s

and p r o g r a m s .

I n f o r m a t i o n from t h e s e d a t a

could be u se d in fu r th e r s t u d i e s c o n c e r n in g th e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f
income l e v e l s t o l e i s u r e - t i m e b e h a v i o r and p r e f e r e n c e s .
primary h o u s e h o ld r e s p o n d e n ts
Of t h e s e ,

S ixteen

(11.2%) d i d n o t a n sw er t h i s q u e s t i o n .

e l e v e n w e r e w h i t e r e s p o n d e n t s w h i c h c o u l d make a n y com­

p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n b l a c k and w h i t e h o u s e h o l d s

less relia b le,

esp ecia lly

i f t h e n o n - r e s p o n s e s w ere n o t p r o p o r t i o n a l l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e
v a r io u s income l e v e l s .
S in ce c r ite r io n v a r ia b le s
d istan ce th a t resid en ts w i l l

in the study o b j e c t iv e s

t r a v e l t o r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r s and t h e

ty p e s o f problems i n h i b i t i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n
data were c o l l e c t e d t o a s c e r t a i n
th e sample h o u s e h o ld s .

in

leisu re-tim e

the a v a i l a b i l i t y

a c tiv itie s,

of tr a n sp o r ta tio n to

T h e s e a r e shown i n T a b l e s 4 , 5 , 6 ,

t h e 1S9 h o u s e h o l d s , a t o t a l

in clu d ed

and 7.

Of

o f 46 (28.9%) d o n o t own an a u t o m o b i l e .

The p e r c e n t a g e i s much h i g h e r f o r t h e b l a c k h o u s e h o l d s t h a n t h e w h i t e
households

(38.5% t o 2 3 . 8 % ) .

(la te r presented)

T his i s r e f l e c t e d

i n T a b l e s 4 3 and 44

c o n cern in g d i s t a n c e t h a t r e s i d e n t s are w i l l i n g to

travel to recreation cen ters.

T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

b e t w e e n t h e w i l l i n g n e s s o f b l a c k s and w h i t e s t o t r a v e l t o r e c r e a t i o n
centers,

and e s p e c i a l l y w i t h t h e g r e a t e r number o f w h i t e s w i l l i n g t o

t r a v e l tw o o r more m i l e s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a c t i v i t i e s .

Data in th e

45

TABLE 4
NUMBER OF CARS OWNED BY THE HOUSEHOLD
A ll
Respondents

Number o f Ca rs

No.

%

W h it e

Black
%

No.

No.

%

O n e ...............................

96

60,4

3S

53.8

53

66. 3

T w o ...............................

13

8. 2

4

6.2

7

8. 8

4

2. 5

1

1. 5

1

1. 3

46

28.9

25

38.5

19

23.8

80

■

Three

.

.

.

.

N o n e ...............................
T otal.

*

1S9

*

*-

65

«

•

TABLE 5
AVAILABILITY OF FRIENDSr VEHICLE TO HOUSEHOLD

F r i e n d s ' Car
A vailable

A ll
Respondents
No.

%

W h ite

Black
No.

No.

%

%

Y e s .......................................

58

36.5

16

24.6

40

50. 0

N o ......................................

94

59. 1

48

73. 8

36

45.0

No R e s p o n s e

7

4. 4

1

1.5

4

5.0

T otal.

159

80

• -

*

65

*

•

46
TABLE 6
USE OF CITY BUS SYSTEM BY HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS
A ll
Respondents

Used C i t y
Bus S y s t e m

Y e s .......................................
No

.

.

.

.

%

No.

.

Total

Black

White
%

No.

%

No.

31

19.5

16

24.6

14

17.5

128

80. S

49

7 5.4

66

82. 5

1S9

*

«

65

.

.

80

*

*

TABLE 7
TRANSPORTATION USED OTHER THAN HOUSEHOLD'S
OR FRIEND'S VEHICLE OR BUS
A ll
Respondents

O t h e r Forms o f
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Us ed

%

No.
Cab .

.

.

.

.

.

O t h e r ( B i k e , Walk­
in g , E tc.) .
N o n e ...............................
Total

B la c k

White
%

No.

No.

%

35

22. 0

21

32. 3

12

1S .0

5

3. 1

0

0. 0

4

5.0

119

74.8

44

67. 7

64

80.0

159

*

•

65

-

■

80

• ■

47

tab les a lso

show t h a t t h e l a r g e m a j o r i t y

not have a f r i e n d ' s

(59.1%) o f h o u s e h o l d s do

c a r a v a i l a b l e t o t h e m , do n o t u s e t h e c i t y bus

s y s t e m ( 8 0 . 5 % ) , o r u s e an y o t h e r modes o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n

( 7 4 .8 % ) ,

T h i s i s an e x a m p le o f t h e t y p e o f i n f o r m a t i o n a l o n g w i t h

leisu re­

t i m e a c t i v i t y p r e f e r e n c e s and o t h e r p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t
must b e c o n s i d e r e d by r e c r e a t i o n r e s o u r c e p l a n n e r s when l o c a t i n g
fa c ilitie s.
The a g e - s e x c o m p o s i t i o n o f h o u s e h o l d s i s
The r a t i o n a l e

fo r t h e age grouping i s

shown i n T a b l e 8.

as f o l l o w s :

The f i r s t

two

c a t e g o r i e s r e p r e s e n t t h e p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d r e n and t h o s e i n t h e e l e ­
m en ta ry s c h o o l g r a d e s .

Each c l a s s i f i c a t i o n p r e s e n t s u n i q u e t y p e s o f

p r o b le m s i n p l a n n i n g and a l l o c a t i n g r e c r e a t i o n r e s o u r c e s .

A lso, the

q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d e s i g n e d t o g a t h e r d a t a from t h e p r i m a r y h o u s e h o l d
r e s p o n d e n t c o n c e r n i n g l e i s u r e - t i m e n e e d s and b e h a v i o r o f c h i l d r e n
from 3 t h r o u g h 11 y e a r s o f a g e .

I n f o r m a t i o n from t h e d a t a t a b l e s

p r e s e n te d l a t e r in th e a n a l y s i s w i l l
quently m entioned needs i s
children.

for f a c i l i t i e s

T h is i s understandable s in c e

approxim ately o n e -th ir d
o f age.

show t h a t one o f t h e most f r e ­

t h e d a t a i n T a b l e 8 show t h a t

(31.4%) o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n i s b e l o w 12 y e a r s

The t h i r d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

students in

and p r o g r a m s f o r young

(1 2 -1 7 years o f age)

represents

t h e j u n i o r and s e n i o r h i g h s c h o o l g r a d e s o r t h e t e e n a g e

group who f r e q u e n t l y h a v e d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f n e e d s

in r e l a t i o n to

r e c r e a t i o n programming o r t h e p r o v i s i o n o f s o c i a l s e r v i c e s .

A lso,

one p a r t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d e s i g n e d t o o b t a i n r e s p o n s e s from
i n d i v i d u a l h o u s e h o l d members 12 y e a r s o f age and o v e r who were s t u ­
dents.

The r e m a i n i n g a g e c l a s s e s a r e d i v i d e d i n t o t h e v a r i o u s

48
TABLE 8
TOTAL NUMBER OF MALES AND FEMALES IN SAMPLE
HOUSEHOLDS IN EIGHT AGE CLASSES
A ll
R es pon de nt s

Age C l a s s e s

No.

%

White

Black
No.

%

No.

\

M ales
0 - S
.
6 -1 1
.
12-17
,
18-25
.
26-35
.
36-50
.
51-65
Over 65
No R esp onse

.
.
.
.

.

Total

*

*

37
57
47
38
30
28
21
14
12

13.0
20 . 1
16.5
13.4
10.6
9 .9
7.4
4.9
4.2

17
26
16
13
7
10
4
6
7

16.0
24.5
IS. 1
12.3
6.6
9.4
3.8
5.7
6 .6

13
23
20
19
21
12
16
8
4

9 .6
16.9
14.7
14.0
IS .4
8.6
11.8
S .9
2.9

284

* •

106

- •

136

■ ■

F em ales
0 - 5
.
6 -1 1
.
12-17
.
18-25
.
26-35
.
3 6-50
.
51-65
.
Over 65
No Response

.
.
.
.
.
.

Total

-

4

36
48
41
47
27
38
18
11
17

12. 7
17.0
14.5
16.6
9. 5
13.4
6.4
3.9
6.0

14
16
20
19
12
13
6
2
14

12. 1
13.8
17.2
16.4
10. 3
11.2
5.2
1.7
12. 1

15
25
11
24
13
19
10
9
3

11.6
19.4
8.5
18.6
10. 1
14. 7
7.8
7.0
2.3

283

• ■

116

• •

129

■ ■

Combined Males and F e m a l e s
0 - S
.
6 -1 1
.
12-17
.
18-25
.
26-35
.
36-50
.
51-65
.
Over 65
No Response
Total

.
.
.
.
.
.

■

•

73
105
88
8S
57
66
39
25
29

12.9
18.5
15. 5
15.0
10. 1
11.6
6.9
4.4
5. 1

31
42
36
32
19
23
10
8
21

14.0
18.9
16. 2
14.4
8.6
10.4
4. 5
3.6
9. 5

28
48
31
43
34
31
26
17
7

10.6
18. 1
11.7
16.2
12.8
11.7
9 .8
6 .4
2.6

567

• ■

222

* ■

265

■ •

49
s e g m e n t s o f a d u l t h o o d w i t h e a c h c l a s s h a v i n g some common c h a r a c t e r ­
i s t i c s n orm ally c o n sid ere d in fam ily or n o n -fa m ily r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s - stages o f c h ild rearin g,
teristics.

job r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ,

and p h y s i c a l c h a r a c ­

Fo r e x a m p l e , t h o s e o v e r 65 y e a r s o f a g e a r e u s u a l l y r e ­

t i r e d and o f t e n r e f e r r e d t o a s " s e n i o r c i t i z e n s "
p l a n n e r s and pro g ra m m ers .
o r unique i n t h e a l l o c a t i o n

by r e c r e a t i o n

T h is age group p r e s e n t s problem s d i f f e r e n t
of leisu re-tim e resources.

I n f o r m a t i o n from t h e a g e - s e x d a t a i n T a b l e 8 c o u l d b e u s e d t o
compare p o p u l a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s a m p l e s i n r e s e a r c h
s t u d i e s b e i n g p l a n n e d i n t h e Model C i t i e s
o f age and s e x and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s

area.

A lso,

the v a ria b les

t o l e i s u r e - t i m e b e h a v i o r and

a t t i t u d e s m ight be a t o p i c f o r f u r t h e r e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n ; h o w ev er, t h i s
w o u ld r e q u i r e a l a r g e r s a m p l e due t o t h e number o f s u b - s a m p l e u n i t s
under s tu d y .
C h a r a c te r is tic s of In d ividu al
H ousehold Respondents
As d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r I I I ,

a sep arate part o f the q u e stio n ­

n a i r e was d e s i g n e d f o r i n d i v i d u a l h o u s e h o l d members 12 y e a r s o f a g e
and o l d e r .

A t o t a l o f 229 o f t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l

from t h e 159 r e s p o n d e n t h o u s e h o l d s .

form s was o b t a i n e d

T a b l e s 9 and 10 g i v e t h e s e x

and a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n d e n t s .
These d a ta a r e e s p e c i a l l y im p o r ta n t s i n c e most o f th e q u e s t i o n s
d e s i g n e d f o r t h e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s u s e d f o r c o m p a r i s o n s w ere
included in th e in d iv id u a l
reason th a t th e

for m o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

One

f e m a l e s w e r e more h i g h l y r e p r e s e n t e d (61 .1% )

in

so

TABLE 9
SEX OF RESPONDENTS TO INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRE
A ll
R espondents

S ex

No.
Males

...............................

Fem ales

.

.

.

T otal

.

p.
0

Black
No.

W hite
%

No.

%

89

38.9

31

33.7

45

41.3

140

61. 1

61

66. 3

64

58. 7

229

* •

92

• •

109

* ■

TABLE 10
AGE OF RESPONDENTS TO INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRE
A1 1
R espondents

Age

No.

%

B1 a c k
No.

W hite
o0,

No.

%

12 - 17

.

35

15. 3

15

16.3

12

11.0

18-25

.

54

23.6

20

21 . 7

30

27.5

26 - 35

.

40

17.5

15

16. 3

21

19. 3

36 - 50

.

47

20. 5

19

20. 7

19

17.4

51 - 65

.

27

11.8

9

9.8

15

13.8

15

6. 5

4

4.3

11

10. 1

11

4 .8

10

10. 9

1

0.9

229

• •

92

• *

109

Ove r 65
No R e s p o n s e
T otal

.

4

*

51
t h e s a m p l e was due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e i n t e r v i e w e r s t e n d e d t o
f i n d f e m a l e members o f t h e h o u s e h o l d a t home more f r e q u e n t l y
t h a n m a l e members.

T his i s

a ls o a f a c t o r to be considered

in e x p l a i n i n g t h e o v e r - r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e a d u lt age groups betw een
18 and 65 a s shown i n T a b l e 11.

The t e e n a g e p o p u l a t i o n

(ages

12-17}

i s u n d e r - r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e sample o f i n d i v i d u a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e ­
s p o n d e n t s b e c a u s e many w e r e n o t a t home a t t h e t i m e o f t h e i n t e r v i e w
and d i d n o t c o m p l e t e t h e f o r m s t h a t w e r e l e f t

t o b e p i c k e d up l a t e r .

The o v e r - 6 5 - a g e g r o u p was shown t o b e e q u a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d i n b o t h t h e
h o u s e h o l d s a m p l e and among t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n d e n t s .
TABLE 11
DISTRIBUTION OF AGE GROUPS BY RESPONDENTS TO HOUSEHOLD
QUESTIONNAIRE AND BY RESPONDENTS TO INDIVIDUAL
QUESTIONNAIRE
Respondents to
H ousehold
Q uestionnaire

Age

Respondents t o
Ind ividu al
Q uestionnaire

No.

%

No.

%

12 - 17

.

.

.

.

88

22.6

35

15 . 3

18 - 25

.

.

.

.

85

21.9

54

23.6

26 - 35

.

.

.

57

14. 7

40

17 . 5

36 - 50

.

.

.

.

66

17.0

47

20. 5

51 - 65

.

.

.

.

39

10. 0

27

11.8

Over 65

.

25

6.4

15

6.5

29

7.5

11

4.8

.

No R e s p o n s e .
Total

.

389

*

*

229

*

52

Tables

12 t h r o u g h 16 c o n t a i n d a t a r e l a t i n g t o o c c u p a t i o n s and

work s c h e d u l e s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n d e n t s .

The 1 8 . 5 p e r c e n t o f

t h o s e w o r k i n g p a r t t i m e ( l e s s t h a n 30 h o u r s p e r week) w e r e p r i n c i p a l l y
students.

T his e x p la in s th e d iscrep a n cy in th e " a l l respondents"

column o f T a b l e s

12 and 1 3 , s i n c e some o f t h e f o r t y - e i g h t

fu ll-tim e

s t u d e n t s a l s o r e s p o n d e d t o t h e q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e s h i f t w o rk ed .
The numbers i n t h e " a l l r e s p o n d e n t s " column o f T a b l e s 1 4 ,

15,

and 16

do n o t c o r r e s p o n d t o t h o s e i n T a b l e 13 due t o n o n - r e s p o n s e s t o t h e
q u estion s.

F a c t o r s s u c h a s t h e number o f h o u r s p e r week w o r k e d , t h e

s h i f t s w o r k e d , and t h e amount o f v a c a t i o n r e c e i v e d can c o n c e i v a b l y b e
c o n s t r a i n t s on p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n

leisu re-tim e a c t iv it ie s .

T his i s

d is­

c u s s e d l a t e r i n t h e c h a p t e r i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f p r o b le m s w h i c h i n h i b i t
p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y t h e Model C i t i e s r e s i d e n t s

in

leisu re-tim e f a c i l i ­

t i e s and p r o g r a m s .
A n o t h e r p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s u r v e y e d was t h a t o f t h e e d u ­
cation al

le v e l o f the in d iv id u a l q u estio n n a ire respondents.

I t was

f o u n d t h a t t h e med ian l e v e l o f c o m p l e t i o n w as t h e e l e v e n t h g r a d e .
E ducation i s

o f t e n c o n s i d e r e d a s an i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r t o c o n s i d e r i n

p l a n n i n g r e c r e a t i o n r e s o u r c e s and p r o g r a m s .

The r e s u l t s o f a s t u d y

done by C h a r l e s M. R e i c h showed t h a t t h e a n n u a l number o f com munity
recreation a c t i v i t i e s

e n g a g e d i n b y t h e f a m i l y members and t h e number

o f days o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n
tistic a lly
21

i n community r e c r e a t i o n

s e r v i c e s were s t a -

r e l a t e d t o th e e d u c a t io n a l l e v e l o f t h e household head.

21

C h a r l e s M. R e i c h , " S o c i o e c o n o m i c F a c t o r s R e l a t e d t o H o u s e ­
h o l d P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Community R e c r e a t i o n " ( u n p u b l i s h e d P h . D . t h e s i s ,
P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 6 5 ) , p. 8 6 .

53

TABLE 12
OCCUPATIONAL STATUS OF RESPONDENTS TO
INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRE
A ll
Respondents

Status

%

No.

B la c k

W hite
%

No.

%

No.

S t u d e n t ...............................

48

21. 1

20

21.7

18

16. 7

Working F u l l / P a r t
1 ll[l^ * r * •

85

37. 3

33

35.9

41

38.0

*

Homemakers .

.

.

.

72

31.6

28

30.4

38

35.2

Unemployed .

.

.

.

11

4. 8

7

7. 6

3

2. 8

12

5.3

4

4 .3

8

7.4

228

4 4

92

108

■ •

R e t i r e d ...............................
Total .

.

.

.

*

TABLE 13
SHIFT WORKED BY RESPONDENTS TO
INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRE
A ll
Respondents

S h i f t Worked

No.
R e g u l a r Day .

%

Black
No.

Whi t e
%

%

No.

55

55.6

19

52. 8

29

63.0

Evening

.

.

.

.

15

15. 2

3

8. 3

9

19.6

Night

.

.

.

.

23

23.2

13

36. 1

7

15.2

Other

.

.

.

.

6

6. 1

1

2. 8

1

2. 2

Total

99

*

36

■

46

•

•

54

TABLE 14
NUMBER OF HOURS A WEEK WORKED BY RESPONDENTS TO
INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Number o f Hours

A ll
Respondents
No.

20 o r L e s s
21 t o 30
31 t o 4 0
41 t o 50
51 t o 6 0
Over 6 0

.
.
.
.
.
.

T otal

.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

11
7
57
18
2
2
97

11.3
7.2
5 8.8
18.6
2.1
2.1

m

%

No.

2
2
25
5
0
1

5.7
5.7
71.4
14. 3
0.0
2.9

8
2
23
11
1
1

17.4
4. 3
50 . 0
24.0
2.2
2. 2

35

* ■

46

■ •

No.

%

*

W h ite

B la c k

%

TABLE 15
LENGTH OF VACATION WITH PAY RECEIVED BY RESPONDENTS
TO INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRE

V a c a t i o n w i t h Pay

All
Respondents
No.

N o n e ...............................
One Week . . . .
Two Weeks
Thre e Weeks .
Four Weeks
Bonus I n s t e a d
Total

30
12
33
7
7
3
92

32.6
13.0
35.9
7.6
7.6
3 .3

♦

%

No.

%

7
4
15
3
5
0

20.6
11.8
44 . 1
8.8
14.7
0.0

20
8
12
2
1
3

43.5
17.4
26. 1
4.3
2.2
6.5

34

■ ■

46

* •

No.

%

*

W h ite

B la c k

55
TABLE 16
OCCUPATIONS OF EMPLOYED INDIVIDUAL
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENTS
A ll
Respondents

Occupation

No.

B la ck

%

No.

W hite
%

No.

%

S k i l l e d T ra d e .

17

17.5

6

15.8

10

22 . 2

Auto P l a n t

27

27. 8

13

34. 2

12

26. 7

.

6

6. 2

1

2.6

3

6. 7

C ustodian, E tc.

12

12.4

7

18. 4

2

4.4

10

10. 3

5

13.2

4

8.9

10

10. 3

2

5. 3

5

11. 1

3

3. 1

0

0.0

3

6. 7

12

12.4

4

10.5

6

13. 3

38

- •

45

• *

.

O th er F a c t o r y

Secretary/O ffice
Sales

.

.

.

Self-E m ployed
Other

.
Total

.

.

.
.

.

.

.

The r e l a t i o n s h i p

97

o f ed u cation al

• ■

lev el to

a t t i t u d e s was n o t an o b j e c t i v e i n t h i s
gained in th e broad r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t

l e i s u r e - t i m e b e h a v i o r and

study; however,

inform ation

c o n d u c t e d f o r t h e Model C i t i e s

Agency m ig h t b e u s e d f o r c o m p a r a t i v e p u r p o s e s i n f u t u r e s t u d i e s i n
other areas o f th e C ity.

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Community
O r g a n i z a t i o n s and L e a d e r s
The f o r t y community o r g a n i z a t i o n

l e a d e r s who r e t u r n e d t h e

s e lf- a d m in is te r e d q u e stio n n a ir e rep resen ted the typ es o f o r g a n i­
z a t i o n s a s shown i n T a b l e 17.

F i f t e e n o f them wo rk ed f o r a g e n c i e s

56

TABLE 17
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BY TYPE OF ORGANIZATION
Organi z a t i o n
R epresentatives
Responding

Type o f O r g a n i z a t i o n

Church o r O t h e r R e l i g i o u s O r g a n i z a t i o n

12.5

.

P r i v a t e O r g a n i z a t i o n (Club o r O t h e r Group
w i t h R e s t r i c t e d Membership) ...............................
12.5

N e i g h b o r h o o d Group o r O r g a n i z a t i o n
P ublic,

T a x - s u p p o r t e d Agency

40.0

...............................

Q u a s i - p u b l i c , o r V o l u n t a r y A g e n c y (Membership
Open t o t h e P u b l i c , b u t S u p p o r t e d by F e e s
and C h a r g e s and V o l u n t a r y C o n t r i b u t i o n s )

20.0

O t h e r T y p e s ( N o t i n Above C a t e g o r i e s o r a
C o m b i n a t i o n ) .....................................................................

12.5

T otal

.............................................................................

t h a t h ad r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r p r o v i d i n g l e i s u r e - t i m e f a c i l i t i e s
services.

or

T h e s e i n c l u d e d t h e C i t y Par ks and R e c r e a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t ,

p u b l i c s c h o o l s , Young Women's C h r i s t i a n A s s o c i a t i o n ,

scout groups,

Boys' Club o f L a n s i n g , and n e i g h b o r h o o d community o r a t h l e t i c c e n t e r s .
Twenty w e r e a f f i l i a t e d w i t h o t h e r community s o c i a l o r w e l f a r e a g e n ­
cies

and f i v e w i t h l o c a l c h u r c h e s o r r e l i g i o u s

was shown i n C h a p t e r I I I , t h e
percentage

(65.2%)

organ ization s.

As

l e i s u r e - t i m e a g e n c i e s had t h e h i g h e s t

o f r e s p o n s e s from i t s

lead ers or r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s.

O th er community s o c i a l s e r v i c e a g e n c i e s had 4 8 . 8 p e r c e n t r e t u r n s and
t h e c h u r c h e s had t h e l e a s t r e s p o n s e s

(16.0% ).

S e v e r a l o f the

57

rep resen tativ es

of the so c ia l

s e rv ic e agencies

in dicated th a t

d i d n o t p r o v id e any l e i s u r e - t i m e s e r v i c e s t o t h e p e o p le and,
fore,

did not f e e l t h a t th ey could a d e q u a te ly

th ey
th ere­

a s se s s those ty p e s of

needs.
The s i z e o f t h e a r e a s e r v i c e d by t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n s w h i c h t h e
leaders rep resen ted is

g i v e n i n T a b l e 18.

the

( 4 5 .0 % ) w as w i t h a g e n c i e s w h o s e s e r v i c e

leaders

responding

was t h e e n t i r e C i t y o f L a n s i n g o r

larg er,

The

la rg e st p ercentage of

and t h i s

area

may e x p l a i n some

o f th e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s betw een t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e
l e i s u r e - t i m e n e e d s o f a s p e c i f i c a r e a o f t h e C i t y as compared t o
s t a t e d needs o f th e r e s i d e n t s
last part of th is

the

in t h a t a r e a , w hich i s d is c u s s e d in the

chapter.
TABLE 18

AREAS SERVED BY RESPONDENT ORGANIZATIONS
Organi z a t i o n
R ep resen tativ es
Responding

S e r v i c e Area

No.
S erves E n tir e C ity o f Lansing o r L a rg er
A r e a ....................................................................................................
P r i m a r i l y S e r v e s t h e E n t i r e Model C i t i e s A r e a

.

S e r v e s a S p e c i f i c N eig h b o rh o o d o r Segment
o f t h e Model C i t i e s A r e a
..............................................
S e r v i c e is Not R e s t r i c t e d by B o u n d a r ie s o r
S im ilar J u r is d ic tio n a l G u idelines
. . .
O ther

.

....................................................................................................
T otal

.............................................................................

%

18

45.0

4

10.0

10

25.0

5

12.5

3

7.5

40

- *

58

Tw enty-seven o f the o r g a n iz a tio n

lead ers reported th a t they

w e r e i n v o l v e d i n p r o v i d i n g some t y p e o f r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s
t h e Model C i t i e s
so cia l,

area.

in

Some o f t h e s e a l s o had o t h e r e d u c a t i o n ,

or w elfare fu n ction s.

The r e m a i n i n g t h i r t e e n

s e n t e d a g e n c i e s t h a t had s o c i a l s e r v i c e r o l e s
and, t h e r e f o r e , d id n o t p r o v id e

lead ers rep re­

o th er than r e c r e a t io n

leisu re-tim e a c t iv it ie s .

from t h e s a m p l e o f community o r g a n i z a t i o n

I t appears

lea d ers responding th a t

t h e y had a b r o a d r a n g e o f e x p e r i e n c e s on w h i c h t o draw i n a n s w e r i n g
th e q u e s t io n s concerning th e

l e i s u r e - t i m e n e e d s i n t h e Model C i t i e s

area.
Some p e r s o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e l e a d e r s
age,

and y e a r s o f s e r v i c e

in th e o r g a n i z a t io n were as f o l l o w s :

T w e n t y - n i n e w e r e m a l e s and e l e v e n w ere f e m a l e s .
3 9; h o w e v e r , e l e v e n

in clu d in g se x ,

The m ed ia n a g e was

lea d ers d id not respond t o t h i s q u e s t io n .

The

m ed ia n l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r t h i r t y - f o u r r e ­
s p o n d e n t s was f i v e y e a r s .

The mean a g e and y e a r s o f s e r v i c e i n t h e

o r g a n i z a t i o n w e r e 4 0 . 7 2 and 6 . 7 8 r e s p e c t i v e l y .

A secondary study

o b j e c t i v e was t o d e t e r m i n e t h e t y p e o f l e a d e r who c o u l d b e s t p e r ­
ceive the

le is u r e - t im e needs o f th e r e s id e n t s .

Due t o t h e s m a l l

number o f r e s p o n s e s i n e a c h o f t h e s e s u b - c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , no mean­
i n g f u l s t a t i s t i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p c o u l d b e e s t a b l i s h e d b a s e d on p e r ­
sonal c h a r a c t e r is t ic s o f th e

leaders.

Instead,

lim ite d to th e t o t a l resp on ses o f the fo r ty

th e com parisons are

l e a d e r s w h i c h wer e

s u f f i c i e n t t o meet t h e p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e o f t h e s t u d y .

59

S t a t i s t i c a l Treatm ent o f Data
S i n c e t h e l e v e l o f measurement in t h i s
t h e n o m in a l s c a l e

r e s e a r c h s t u d y i s on

( i . e . , numbers o r s y m b o l s a r e u s e d s i m p l y t o

c l a s s i f y r e s p o n s e s ) , nonparam etric s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s
ones s u i t a b l e

f o r the treatm ent o f data.

s a m p le s a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y

are the only

According t o S i e g e l ,

i f the

i n d e p e n d e n t t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t i s most

appropriate in determ ining s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s w ith t h i s type
o f data.

22

He s t a t e s t h a t w i t h c o n t i n g e n c y t a b l e s w i t h d e g r e e s o f
2
(X ) t e s t may b e u s e d i f f e w e r

freed om g r e a t e r t h a n one t h e c h i - s q u a r e
t h a n 20 p e r c e n t o f t h e c e l l s

h a v e an e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c y o f l e s s t h a n

f i v e and i f n o c e l l has an e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c y o f l e s s t h a n o n e .
suggests th a t

if

He

t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e n o t met t h a t t h e r e s e a r c h e r

combine a d j a c e n t c a t e g o r i e s i n o r d e r t o i n c r e a s e t h e e x p e c t e d f r e ­
quencies in t h e variou s c e l l s .

Co chran q u e s t i o n s t h e a r b i t r a r y

e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f f i v e e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s a s t h e mirimum l i m i t and
s ta t e s th a t " r e s u l t s in d ic a te th a t the

x2

t a b l e s g i v e an a d e q u a t e

a p p r o x i m a t i o n t o t h e e x a c t d i s t r i b u t i o n e v e n when some nr a r e much
low er t h a n 5 . "

23

He w r i t e s i n

another source th a t th e i n f l e x i b l e

use o f 5 o r 10 minimum e x p e c t a t i o n s may b e h a r m f u l and h a s shown
that " th ere i s

l i t t l e d i s t u r b a n c e t o t h e 5% l e v e l when a s i n g l e

expectation i s

as low as 1 / 2 .

T h i s i s a l s o t r u e f o r t h e 1% l e v e l

i f t h e number o f d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m i n x

2

exceeds 6.

Two

22

Sciences

S id n e y S i e g e l , Nonparam etric S t a t i s t i c s f o r th e B eh a v io ra l
(New York: M cG raw -H ill Book Company, 1 9 5 6 ) , pp. 1 0 4 - 1 1 .

23
Common

W i l l i a m G. C o c h r a n , "Some Method s f o r S t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e
T e s t s , " B i o m e t r i c s , X (D e c e m b e r , 1 9 5 4 ) , 4 1 8 .

60

e x p e c t a t i o n s a s low a s

1 may b e a l l o w e d w i t h n e g l i g i b l e d i s t u r b a n c e

t o t h e 5% l e v e l .
C h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s h a v e b e e n com p u te d on a l l t a b l e s o f d a t a
t h a t a r e e q u a l t o o r a p p r o x i m a t e t h e minimum r e q u i r e m e n t s as s u g ­
g e s t e d by S i e g e l ,

Where t h e e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s e q u a l t o or e x c e e d

th e s e req u irem en ts, th e r e s u l t s are c o n sid ere d s t a t i s t i c a l l y

relia b le.

In t h o s e c a s e s w h e r e t h e e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s do n o t e q u a l t h e m i n i ­
mum r e q u i r e m e n t s b u t a r e r e l a t i v e l y c l o s e ,

the c h i- s q u a r e value i s

computed t o g i v e an i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e , b u t
w i t h t h e n o t a t i o n t h a t t h e s e t e s t s may b e l e s s r e l i a b l e .
used f o r

thex

2

t e s t f o r two

s t a t i s t i c a l l y independent

in d ep en d en t samples

The f o r m u l a

( s a m p l e s were

i n t h i s s t u d y ) w h ere t h e d e g r e e s

o f freedom

ex ceed ed one w a s :

T
X

k

- Z
Z
i = l j=*l

(0
— ^

- E^)2
—

- 2—

ij

w h ere 0 = t h e o b s e r v e d f r e q u e n c i e s and E = t h e e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s .
For 2 x 2

c o n t i n g e n c y t a b l e s where d e g r e e s o f freedom eq u a l

t h e f o r m u l a f o r t h e c o r r e c t i o n o f c o n t i n u i t y i s u s e d i n co m p uti n g
chi-square valu es. ^
24

2
W i l l i a m G. C o c h r a n , "The x T e s t o f G o o d n e s s o f F i t , " The
A n n a ls o f M a t h e m a t i c a l S t a t i s t i c s , XXI II ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 3 2 9 .
25 2
NC|AD - BCI ' 7 > 2
X = (A+B)(C+D)(A+C)(B+D)

1,

61
The c o n t i n g e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t

is

u s e d as a n o n p a r a m e t r i c

m e a s u r e o f t h e d e g r e e o f a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n two s e t s o f a t t r i b u t e s
and may b e u s e d when t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h o s e a t t r i b u t e s
o f an u n o r d e r e d s e r i e s o f f r e q u e n c i e s .
data,

th e con tin gen cy c o e f f i c i e n t

26

co n sists

In th e f o l l o w i n g t a b l e s o f

(C) h a s b e e n computed a s a m e a s u r e

o f a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n r e s p o n d e n t g r o u p s b a s e d on t h o s e v a r i a b l e s
where x

2

v a l u e show ed a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e t o e x i s t a t o r a b o v e

t h e 90 p e r c e n t c o n f i d e n c e

lev el.

27

I t can b e u s e d f o r c o m p a r i s o n

p u r p o s e s b e t w e e n c o n t i n g e n c y t a b l e s o f e q u a l s i z e and w h e r e t h e t o t a l
number o f r e s p o n s e s

(N) a r e t h e same.

correlation c o e ffic ie n ts
it

I t i s n o t c o m p a r a b le t o o t h e r

s u c h as Spearman ( r s ) o r K e n d a l l

does not reach u n ity w ith p e r f e c t c o r r e la t io n .

must b e k e p t i n mind when u t i l i z i n g
I t i s used in th e r e s u l t s o f t h i s

(y)

sin ce

T his l i m i t a t i o n

th e con tin gen cy c o e f f i c i e n t .

s t u d y t o show a d e g r e e o f a s s o c i ­

a t i o n w h i c h may b e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from z e r o .
Adequacy o f L e is u r e -T im e O p p o r t u n i t i e s
i n t h e Model C i t i e s A re a
T a b l e 19 shows t h e r e s p o n s e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e o p i n i o n s a b o u t
th e adequacy o f t h e o v e r a l l
t h e Model C i t i e s a r e a .

le is u r e - t im e opportunity s it u a t io n

The m a j o r i t y

dents in the w h ite hou seh old s f e l t
compared t o a b o u t o n e - t h i r d

26

S ieg el,

(32.3% )

(56.4%)

o f t h e primary r e s p o n ­

th a t o p p o r t u n it ie s were adequate
in th e c a s e o f th e b la c k

Nonparam etric S t a t i s t i c s , p.

27„
/
^
C = /-J L
/ N +
“

T

in

196.

62
TABLE 19
OPINIONS CONCERNING ADEQUACY OF OVERALL LEISURE-TIME
OPPORTUNITIES IN THE MODEL CITIES AREA
Model C i t i e s
Are L e i s u r e - T i m e
O p p ortu n ities
Adequate

Black

A ll
Respondents

W hite
%

No.

No.

Organi-

R esidents

%

%

No.

Leaders
No.

%

Y e s .......................................

21

32. 3

44

56.4

76

48.4

8

20.5

N o .......................................

29

44.6

2S

32. 1

56

35. 7

20

51. 3

Don' t Know

15

23.1

9

11.6

25

15.9

11

28.2

T otal

65

78

■ *

157

39

*

households.

•

•

*

4

T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n w h i t e and

b l a c k r e s p o n s e s a t t h e 9 8 p e r c e n t c o n f i d e n c e l e v e l a s shown i n t h e
summary o f s t a t i s t i c a l

t e s t resu lts

g iv e n in Table 20.

lists

the r e s u lts o f t e s t s

tion s

con cern in g adequacy o f l e i s u r e - t i m e o p p o r t u n i t i e s .

That t a b l e

co m p a r in g t h e r e s p o n s e s t o t h e s i x q u e s ­
The v a l u e

o f a i n d i c a t e s t h e r e j e c t i o n r e g i o n f o r t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s o f no
d i f f e r e n c e and t h e c o n t i n g e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t

(C) m e a s u r e s t h e d e g r e e

o f a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s b a s e d on t h e c r i t e r i o n v a r i ­
able.

A d ifferen ce i s

considered s i g n i f i c a n t

i f th e value o f chi

s q u a r e computed from t h e c o n t i n g e n c y t a b l e o f d a t a f a l l s w i t h i n t h e
r e j e c t i o n r e g i o n w h e r e a _< . 1 0 .

T h erefo re, only those d iffe r e n c e s

t h a t c a n b e shown t o e x i s t a t o r a b o v e t h e 9 0 p e r c e n t c o n f i d e n c e
level

(1 - a)

are c o n s id e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t .

A lm o s t h a l f (48.4% )

o f th e t o t a l primary r e s p o n d e n ts f e l t

th a t l e i s u r e - t i m e o p p o r t u n i t i e s were a d e q u a te , whereas o n ly 2 0 . 5 p e r

63
TABLE 20
ADEQUACY OF LEISURE-TIME OPPORTUNITIES: A COMPARISON OF OPINIONS
OF ORGANIZATION LEADERS WITH THOSE OF RESIDENT GROUPS AND
OPINIONS OF BLACK RESIDENTS WITH THOSE
OF WHITE RESIDENTS

O pinions Concerning
Adequ acy o f L e i s u r e Time O p p o r t u n i t i e s
i n t h e Model C i t i e s
A re a

Adequacy o f O v e r a l l
L e i s u r e - T i m e Oppor­
t u n it ie s A vailable

NSDC

Adequacy o f C o m n e r c i a l
R ecreation O pportuni­
tie s

.001

cb

a

.010

.319

Adequacy o f C i t y P ar ks
and R e c r e a t i o n F a c i l i ­
NSD
t i e s and Programs

■

Adequacy o f Q u a s i P u b l i c and P r i v a t e
O rgan ization Pro­
grams

.001

Adequacy o f Board o f
E ducation A f t e r S c h o o l Programs
Adequacy o f R e c r e a t i o n
Programs f o r C h i l d r e n
Under 12 Y e a r s Old

A ll
R esidents
Respondents

White

B la ck
aa

^ a lu e

Black R e s i dents w ith
W h ite R e s i dents

O rg a n iza tio n Leaders w ith
Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s

C

.328

a

.010

C

.222

NSD

NSD

a

.020

.241

.001

.363

.257

.010

.272

.050

. 161

.010

.435

.001

.458

.001

. 391

NSD

*

*

.001

.542

.001

.657

.001

.541

NSD

*

*

.010

. 339

. 0 S 0 d . 318

.001

. 381

NSD

*

o f a a t w h i c h t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s may b e r e j e c t e d .

^C ontingency c o e f f i c i e n t

(degree o f a s s o c i a t i o n ) .

Sfo s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
^Expected c e l l
requirem ents.

C

(a > .1 0 ) .

f r e q u e n c i e s do n o t m e e t minimum recommended

* -

64
c e n t o f the o r g a n iz a t io n
centage o f th e lead ers

le a d e r s thought th e y w ere.

A greater per­

(28.2% compared t o I S . 9%) s a i d t h e y d i d n o t

know i f program s w e r e a d e q u a t e .

T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

b e t w e e n t h e s e two g r o u p s a t t h e 99 p e r c e n t l e v e l .

T h e r e was n o

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e l e a d e r s 1 and b l a c k r e s i d e n t s 1
o p i n i o n s c o n c e r n i n g a d e q u a c y o f p r o g r a m s , b u t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e a t t h e 99 p e r c e n t

l e v e l b e t w e e n l e a d e r s and w h i t e r e s i ­

dent h ou seh old s.
T a b l e 21 r e c o r d s t h e r e s p o n s e s c o n c e r n i n g t h e o p i n i o n s ab o u t
t h e n e e d f o r more c o m m e r c ia l r e c r e a t i o n e s t a b l i s h m e n t s .

T h e r e was a

TABLE 21
OPINIONS CONCERNING ADEQUACY OF COMMERCIAL
RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES
Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s
Need More C om mer cial
R ecreation
O pportunities

Black
No.

Y e s ......................................
N

o .......................................

A ll
Respondents

W hite
%

No.

O rgani­
zation
Leaders

%

%

No.

No.

%

52

58.4

32

30 . 5

91

41.4

12

32.4

9

10. 1

47

44. 8

63

28.6

14

37. 8

26

24. 7

66

30.0

11

29.7

105

• ■

220

D o n ' t Know .

.

.

.

28

31.5

Total .

.

.

.

89

•

■

«

*

37

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t th e 9 9 .9 per cen t l e v e l between th e
organ ization

l e a d e r s and t h e b l a c k r e s i d e n t s

and a l s o b e t w e e n t h e

b l a c k and w h i t e r e s i d e n t s , b u t t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
b e t w e e n t h e l e a d e r s and t o t a l r e s i d e n t s o r b e t w e e n t h e l e a d e r s and

■ ■

65
the w h ite r e s id e n t s .

I t w i l l b e shown l a t e r when d i s c u s s i n g i m p r o v e ­

m ents n e e d e d , t h a t t h e r e was m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g among some r e s i d e n t s
about t h e d e f i n i t i o n
make t h e r e s u l t s

o f c o m m e r c i a l r e c r e a t i o n and t h i s may t e n d t o

on t h i s

a n a l y s i s somewhat l e s s r e l i a b l e .

To d e t e r m i n e t h e a d e q u a c y o f t h e f a c i l i t i e s

and p r ogram s

o f f e r e d b y t h e C i t y o f L a n s i n g P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t , t h e
r e s p o n d e n ts were asked i f th e y f e l t
t h e D e p a r t m e n t c o u l d im p ro v e i t s
borhoods.

t h a t t h e r e w e r e ways i n w h i c h

s e r v i c e s i n t h e Model C i t i e s n e i g h ­

T a b l e 22 s u m m a r i z e s t h e r e s p o n s e s t o t h i s q u e s t i o n .

The

TABLE 22
OPINIONS CONCERNING ADEQUACY OF CITY PARKS
AND RECREATION PROGRAMS
Model C i t i e s
Do Ways E x i s t f o r
I m p r o v i n g Programs

Black
No.

Y e s ...............................
N

o ...............................

D o n ' t Know ,
Total

.

greatest d ifferen ces

No.

level

No.

%

No.

%

60.9

39

39.4

99

47.8

24

6 1.5

7

8 .0

26

26. 3

39

18. 8

1

2 .6

27

31.0

34

34. 3

69

33. 3

14

35.9

87

*

99

•

207

*

»

39

*

o f o p i n i o n w e r e b e t w e e n t h e b l a c k and w h i t e
l e a d e r s and t h e w h i t e r e s i ­

Bot h d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t

(s e e Table 2 0 ).

the t o t a l

%

53

r e s i d e n t s and b e t w e e n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
dent group.

A ll
Respondents

W h ite
%

O rgani­
zation
Leaders

R esidents

a t t h e 99 p e r c e n t

T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n

r e s i d e n t s and t h e l e a d e r s a t t h e 9 5 p e r c e n t l e v e l ,

but

*

66
t h e d i f f e r e n c e o f o p i n i o n s was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t b e t w e e n t h e l e a d e r s
and b l a c k r e s i d e n t s .
The same t y p e o f q u e s t i o n was a s k e d t o o b t a i n o p i n i o n s a b o u t
t h e a d e q u a c y o f q u a s i - p u b l i e and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s .
T h e s e i n c l u d e d a g e n c i e s s u c h as t h e YMCA, YWCA, s c o u t s ,
clu b s,

and s i m i l a r o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

percentage

(70.7%)

o f the resid e n ts

T a b l e 23 shows t h a t

churches,
a much g r e a t e r

a n s w e r e d t h a t t h e y d i d n o t know

TABLE 23
OPINIONS CONCERNING ADEQUACY OF QUASI-PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE ORGANIZATION SERVICES
Model C i t i e s
Do Ways E x i s t f o r
Improving S e r v i c e s

Black

A ll
Respondents

W hite
%

No.

R esidents

No.

%

No.

%

O rganization
Leaders
%

No,

13

14.9

11

11.6

28

14. 1

24

61.5

9

10. 3

20

21. 1

30

15. 2

4

10 . 3

Don' t Know .

65

74.7

64

67.4

140

70.7

11

28. 2

Total .

87

95

• -

198

•

39

* *

Y e s ...............................
N

o ...............................

*

*

i f ways e x i s t e d f o r i m p r o v i n g p r o g r a m s ,
la ter,

t h e y g a v e v e r y few s u g g e s t i o n s

a n d , as w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d

f o r any t y p e s o f i m p r o v e m e n t s .

T h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e o p i n i o n s o f t h e
b l a c k s and w h i t e s

on t h i s q u e s t i o n

( s e e T a b l e 2 0 ) , b u t t h e r e was a

d i f f e r e n c e at t h e 9 9 .9 p er cen t l e v e l between the o r g a n iz a t io n
l e a d e r s and a l l
f a c t th a t the

th r e e r e sid e n t groups.

T h i s i s p r o b a b l y due t o t h e

l e a d e r s a r e more aware o f t h e s e r v i c e s o f t h o s e a g e n c i e s

67
t h a n t h e r e s i d e n t s a n d , t h e r e f o r e , a g r e a t e r p e r c e n t a g e o f th em
(61.5%)

felt

t h a t t h e r e w e r e ways f o r i m p r o v i n g t h e program s and

f e w e r o f th em (28.2%) a n s w e r e d t h a t t h e y d i d n o t know.
The s t u d e n t s

( 1 2 y e a r s o f age and o v e r ) w ere a s k e d i n t h e

i n d i v i d u a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e form i f they f e l t

th a t the sch o o ls

should

p r o v i d e m or e o r d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f a f t e r - s c h o o l a c t i v i t i e s .

T heir

r e s p o n s e s a r e compared w i t h t h o s e o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n l e a d e r s who
were a s k e d i f t h e y f e l t
c a t i o n c o u l d improve i t s
C ities

area.

t h e r e w ere ways i n w h i c h t h e Board o f Edu­
after-school a c t iv it ie s

program i n t h e Model

T a b l e 24 s h o w s a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same r e s u l t s

as th ose

TABLE 24
OPINIONS CONCERNING ADEQUACY OF BOARD OF EDUCATION
AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMS
Model C i t i e s
Do Ways E x i s t f o r
Improving A fte r S c h o o l Programs

Black
No.

Yes
N

.

.

.

.

*

o ...............................

Don1t Know .
T otal

.

R esidents
A ll
Respondents

W h ite
%

No.

%

No.

%

O rgani­
zation
Leaders
No.

%

8

42.1

3

16 . 7

16

34.8

23

60.5

11

57.9

15

83. 3

29

63.0

2

5 .3

0

0. 0

0

0 .0

1

2 .2

13

34.2

19

■ *

18

« •

46

* •

38

* *

c o n c e r n i n g t h e o p i n i o n s o f t h e q u a s i - p u b l i c and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n
programs.

The d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e o p i n i o n s o f t h e b l a c k s and

w h i t e s w as n o t s i g n i f i c a n t

a t t h e 90 p e r c e n t

for th e c o r r e c tio n o f c o n t in u it y .

l e v e l u s in g t h e formula

H o w ev er, t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t

68

differen ce

a t th e 99.9 p e r c e n t

a nd t h e t h r e e

re s id e n t groups

t h e r e was a v e r y

(s e e T able 20).

low r e s p o n s e r a t e

t h e h o u s e h o l d s due t o t h e f a c t
t h e tim e o f t h e
th e m f i l l e d

le v e l betw een o r g a n iz a tio n

leaders

As s t a t e d p r e v i o u s l y ,

from t h e t e e n a g e p o p u l a t i o n

t h a t many o f th e m w e r e n o t a t home a t

in te rv ie w w ith th e prim ary a d u lt.

A l s o , v e r y few o f

o u t t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e w h i c h w a s p i c k e d up b y t h e i n t e r ­

view er a t a l a t e r tim e.
b a s e d on d a t a

T his

low r e s p o n s e m a k e s a n y c o n c l u s i o n s

i n T a b l e 24 l e s s r e l i a b l e .

T he p r i m a r y h o u s e h o l d r e s p o n d e n t a n d t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
were asked i f

t h e y f e l t t h a t t h e Model C i t i e s

or d i f f e r e n t k ind s of a f t e r - s c h o o l , weekend,
f o r c h i l d r e n u n d e r 12.

b e more a w a r e o f e x i s t i n g
of q u estio n ,

it

fa c ilitie s

did not e l i c i t

it

a n d summer a c t i v i t i e s

was f e l t t h a t

and p ro g ram s.

t h e y w ould

Due t o t h e t y p e

(25.0% ),

s a i d t h e y d i d n o t know i f m o r e o r d i f f e r e n t

activ ities

are needed.

differen ce

o f o p in io n s betw een th e o r g a n iz a tio n

T his p a r t i a l l y

d i f f e r e n c e betw een th e b la c k s

b u t the

low r e s p o n s e

a s shown

c h ild re n 's

e x p la in s the s ig n if ic a n t

t h r e e r e s i d e n t g r o u p s a s shown i n T a b l e 2 0 .
sig n ifican t

in t h i s

a " d o n ' t know" a n s w e r f r o m t h e p r i m a r y

h o u s e h o ld r e s i d e n t s b u t a s i z a b l e number o f l e a d e r s
in T a b le 2 5 ,

lead ers

a r e a s h o u l d h a v e m or e

O nly th o s e h o u s e h o ld s w ith c h i l d r e n

age g r o u p w e r e a s k e d t h e q u e s t i o n s i n c e

q u estio n ,

in

lead ers

and t h e

A g a in , t h e r e was no

a n d w h i t e s on t h i s

r a t e makes any c o n c l u s i o n s

less

v alid .
In r e v i e w i n g t h e
opinions

six

crite rio n

concerning adequacy of

Model C i t i e s

area,

v a r i a b l e s u s e d t o compare

leisu re-tim e

o p p o rtu n ities

in the

t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s were r e a c h e d :

There

69
TABLE 25
OPINIONS CONCERNING ADEQUACY OF RECREATION PROGRAMS
FOR CHILDREN UNDER 12 YEARS OF AGE
Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s
Are More o r D i f f e r e n t
A c t i v i t i e s Needed

B la c k
No.

Y e s ...............................
N

o ...............................

D o n ' t Know .
T otal

.

A ll
Respondents

W hite
%

No.

O rgani­
zation
Leaders

%

No.

No.

%

%

23

74.2

13

6 5 .0

41

69.5

23

57.5

8

25 . 8

7

35.0

18

30.5

7

17.5

0

0. 0

0

0 .0

0

0.0

10

25.0

31

• •

20

59

*- »

40

*

* *

was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n b l a c k r e s i d e n t s and w h i t e
r e s i d e n t s on t h r e e o f t h e q u e s t i o n s :
tim e o p p o r t u n i t i e s ,
tu n ities,
fa c ilitie s

and ( 3 )

(1)

adequacy o f o v e r a l l

leisu re­

( 2 ) a d e q u a c y o f c o m m e r c ia l r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r ­

a d e q u a c y o f C i t y P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t

and programs*

The s e c o n d o n e c o n c e r n i n g c o m m e r c ia l r e c r e ­

a t i o n i s q u e s t i o n a b l e due t o a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e t y p e s o f
fa cilities

in t h i s

category.

T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e o p i n i o n s o f
the o r g a n iz a tio n
q u estion s.

l e a d e r s and t h e

t o t a l r e s i d e n t s on f i v e o f t h e s i x

The o n l y one w h e r e t h e r e was n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

was c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o m m e r c ia l r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s .
r e s u l t s o c c u r r e d i n c o m p a r in g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
white r e s i d e n t s .

In co m paring t h e

leaders'

The same

lead ers w ith th e

o p in io n s w ith t h o s e o f

t h e b l a c k r e s i d e n t s t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on f o u r o f
th e q u e s t i o n s w hich concerned t h e adequacy o f

(1)

commercial

70
recreation o p p o rtu n ities,
programs,

(3)

( 2 ) q u a s i - p u b l i c and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n

Board o f E d u c a t i o n a f t e r - s c h o o l p r o g r a m s , and (4)

c h i l d r e n ' s r e c r e a t i o n programs.
Th e c o n t i n g e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t s

i n T a b l e 20 show t h e d e g r e e o f

a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e c o m p a r a t i v e g r o u p s b a s e d on t h e c r i t e r i o n
variab les.

For e x a m p l e , t h e

la r g e r the c o e f f i c i e n t ,

d i f f e r e n c e i s b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s .

th e g r ea ter the

C ontingency c o e f f i c i e n t s

are

g i v e n when t h e c h i - s q u a r e t e s t showed a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e ­
twee n g r o u p s .

The c o e f f i c i e n t s

fo r th e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s cannot

be com pared b e c a u s e t h e number o f t o t a l r e s p o n s e s
t h e same.

fo r ea ch are not

Th ey s h o u l d b e u s e d o n l y as i n d i c a t o r s o f d i f f e r e n c e s

grea ter than zero.
Rating o f L eisure-T im e O p p o r tu n itie s
Th e i n d i v i d u a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n d e n t s and t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
le a d e r s w ere asked t o r a t e t h e

l e i s u r e - t i m e o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n t h e Model

C i t i e s a r e a a s compared t o o t h e r a r e a s o f t h e C i t y .

R a t i n g s from

b o t h g r o u p s w e r e made on c o m m e r c i a l r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s ,
p a rk s and r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s

and p r o g r a m s ,

C ity

and t h e q u a s i - p u b l i e

and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o g r a m s .
T a b l e 26 shows t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e r a t i n g s f o r c o m m e r c i a l
recreation o p p o rtu n ities.
gro up s f e l t

A v ery small p e r c e n t a g e o f a l l

o f the

t h a t t h e s e o p p o r t u n i t i e s w e r e b e t t e r i n t h e Model C i t i e s

a r e a as com pared t o o t h e r a r e a s o f t h e C i t y .
the w h ite r e s id e n t s

felt

Almost h a l f

[48.1%) o f

t h a t t h e f a c i l i t i e s were about avera g e or

t h e same i n t h e Model C i t i e s

area as in o th e r areas; however, t h is

view was n o t s h a r e d b y t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n

lead ers

(31.6%) o r t h e b l a c k

71

TABLE 26
RATING OF COMMERCIAL RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES
Model C i t i e s
Black

R ating

%

No.

%

6.7

10

4.6

1

2 .6

50

48.1

86

39.6

12

31.6

43.2

20

19. 2

63

29.0

14

36. 8

25.0

27

26.0

58

26.7

11

28.9

No.

2

2.3

7

About A v e r a g e .

26

29.5

Below A v e r a g e .

38
22

.

.

.

88

Total

resid en ts

(29.5% ).

O rgani­
zation
Leaders

No.

%

D o n ' t Know .

A ll
Respondents

W h i te

No.
B e t t e r Than A v e r a g e .

R esidents

•

*

104

%

«

*

217

•

4

38

•

*

The c h i - s q u a r e t e s t on t h e r e s p o n s e s t o t h i s

q u e s t i o n show s t h a t t h e r e was n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e
l e a d e r s and t h e t h r e e r e s i d e n t g r o u p s , b u t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e a t t h e 99 p e r c e n t l e v e l b e t w e e n b l a c k and w h i t e r e s i d e n t s
( s e e T a b l e 27 f o r a summary o f t h e s e r e s u l t s ) .
In r a t i n g t h e f a c i l i t i e s

and p r o g r a m s p r o v i d e d b y t h e C i t y

Parks and R e c r e a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
o f o p i n i o n s b e t w e e n b l a c k s and w h i t e s a t t h e 9 9 . 9 p e r c e n t l e v e l .
T a b l e 28 show s t h a t a l m o s t t w o - t h i r d s
rated the f a c i l i t i e s

(65.7%)

o f the w h ite r e s id e n t s

and program s a v e r a g e o r a b o v e i n t h e Model C i t i e s

a r e a a s compared t o o t h e r a r e a s o f t h e C i t y .

O nly a b o u t o n e - f o u r t h

(26.8%) o f t h e b l a c k r e s i d e n t s had r e s p o n s e s i n t h e s e tw o c a t e g o r i e s .
The o r g a n i z a t i o n l e a d e r s t e n d e d t o s h a r e t h e same o p i n i o n s a s t h e
t o t a l r e s i d e n t s w i t h a b o u t o n e - h a l f i n e a c h grou p r a t i n g t h e s e r v i c e s

72

TABLE 27
RATINGS OF LEISURE-TIME OPPORTUNITIES:
A COMPARISON OF
OPINIONS OF ORGANIZATION LEADERS WITH THOSE OF
RESIDENT GROUPS AND OPINIONS OF BLACK
RESIDENTS WITH WHITE RESIDENTS

R ating of L e isu re Time O p p o r t u n i t i e s
i n t h e Model C i t i e s
A r e a as Compared t o
O th e r Areas o f t h e
C ity

O rgani z a tio n L eaders w ith
Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s
B lack

R a t in g o f Com m ercial
R ecreation E s ta b ­
lishm ents

NSDc d

R ating of C ity P arks
and R e c re a tio n
F a c i l i t i e s and
Program s

.0 1 0 d .290

R ating of Q uasiP u b l i c an d P r i ­
v a te O rgani­
z a t i o n Program s

NSD

•

A ll
R esidents
R espondents

W hite

cb

Qta

^ alu e

B lack R esid e n ts w ith
W hite R e s idents

p

9 m

a

a

C

a

C

NSD

•

•

NSD

•

•

. 010

. 270

NSD

p

•

NSD

*

•

.001

.405

.010

.219

.001

. 310

.010

. 195

o f a a t w h i c h t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s may b e r e j e c t e d .

^C ontingency c o e f f i c i e n t

(degree o f a s s o c ia tio n ) .

°No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
^E xpected c e l l
requirem ents.

C

( a > . 10) .

f r e q u e n c i e s d o n o t m e e t minimum r e c o m m e n d e d

73
TABLE 2 8
RATING OF CITY PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS
O rgani­
zatio n
Leaders

M odel C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s
R ating

%

No.

15. 7

17

8.0

4

10.0

51

50. 0

86

40.4

16

40.0

47.7

14

13. 7

61

28 .6

9

2 2.5

25.6

21

20.6

49

23,0

11

27.5

%

No.

1

1.2

16

About Average .

22

25.6

Below A v e r a g e .

41
22

Don' t

Know .

.

.

.

T otal

a v e ra g e o r above.

86

%

No.

No.
B e t t e r T ha n A v e r a g e .

A ll
R espondents

W hite

Black

*

*

%

102

•

*

213

•

•

40

*

A lthough a l a r g e r p e rc e n ta g e o f t h e w h ite r e s i ­

d e n t s r a t e d t h e C i t y p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n
h ig h e r than th e o r g a n iz a tio n le a d e r s ,
s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 90 p e r c e n t l e v e l
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e betw een th e

fa c ilitie s

and program s

t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s were n o t
( s e e T able 2 7 ).

T h e r e was a

l e a d e r s an d t h e b l a c k r e s i d e n t s ,

b u t one c e l l d i d n o t h a v e t h e r e q u i r e d

nu mber o f e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s

as recomnended by S i e g e l .
Th e r a t i n g s
ties

o f q u a s i- p u b l i c and p r iv a te o r g a n i z a t i o n f a c i l i ­

and pro g ram s a r e

r a te d the s e rv ic e s

shown i n T a b l e 2 9 .

S in c e so few r e s p o n d e n t s

o f t h e s e a g e n c i e s b e t t e r t h a n a v e r a g e compared t o

o th e r areas o f th e C ity ,

th e expected freq u en cies

in

t h a t c a t e g o r y d o n o t m e e t t h e minimum r e q u i r e m e n t s .
gory is

*

the c e lls of
When t h a t c a t e ­

com bined w i t h t h e s e c o n d o n e s o t h a t t h e r a t i n g would be

" a v e ra g e o r above" th e s t a t i s t i c a l

test

shows t h a t

t h e r e were

74

TABLE 29
RATING OF QUASI-PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATION PROGRAMS
Model C i t i e s
R ating

Black

R esidents
A ll
Respondents

W hite

No.

%

1.4

3

7. 7

84

40.2

17

43.6

12. 1

33

15.8

12

30.8

51.5

89

42.6

7

17.9

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

2

2.3

1

1.0

3

About A v e r a g e .

40

46.0

35

35. 3

Below A v e r a g e .

19

21.8

12

26

29.9

51

B e t t e r Than A v e r a g e .

Don1t Know .

.

.

.

Total

87

sig n ific a n t d ifferen ces
between th e o r g a n iz a t io n
27)*

*

•

99

O rgani­
zation
Leaders

•

*

209

♦

39

•

*

*

(99% l e v e l ) b e t w e e n b l a c k s and w h i t e s and
l e a d e r s and t h e t o t a l r e s i d e n t s

T h e r e was a g r e a t e r d i f f e r e n c e

( a t t h e 99.9% l e v e l )

( s e e Table
between the

l e a d e r s and t h e w h i t e r e s i d e n t s and t h e r e was n o s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r ­
ence between the lead ers

and t h e b l a c k r e s i d e n t s .

the o r g a n i z a t i o n

(51 .3% ) and t h e b l a c k r e s i d e n t s

leaders

About o n e - h a l f o f
( 4 8 .3 % )

r a t e d t h e s e s e r v i c e s a v e r a g e o r a b o v e c o m p a red t o ab ou t o n e - t h i r d
(36.3%) o f t h e w h i t e s .

The m a j o r i t y o f w h i t e s

(51.5%)

in d ic a te d that

t h e y d i d n o t know how t o r a t e t h e p ro gr am s o f t h e s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
In s u m m a r iz i ng t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e r a t i n g s o f t h e t h r e e t y p e s
o f l e i s u r e - t i m e o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n t h e Model C i t i e s

area, the

follo w ­

i n g c o n c l u s i o n s w ere drawn:
1.

T h e r e w ere s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e b l a c k s
w h ite s concerning t h e i r op in ion s o f th e r a tin g s o f a l l

and

75
t h r e e t y p e s o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n t h e Model C i t i e s a r e a a s
compared t o o t h e r a r e a s o f t h e C i t y .

The w h i t e s t e n d e d t o

r a t e t h e C i t y p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n s e r v i c e s

and t h e commer­

c i a l r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s h ig h e r than th e b l a c k s , but
d i d n o t seem i n f o r m e d en ough t o a d e q u a t e l y r a t e t h e pro gra m s
o f t h e q u a s i - p u b l i c and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s .
2.

I n co m p a r i n g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
total

resid en ts,

l e a d e r s w i t h th e sample o f

t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e o f

o p i n i o n on t h e r a t i n g o f q u a s i - p u b l i c and p r i v a t e o r g a n i ­
z a t i o n programs.

A major r e a s o n f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e see m s

t o b e t h e h i g h p e r c e n t a g e o f r e s i d e n t s who g a v e a " d o n ' t
know" r e s p o n s e t o t h i s q u e s t i o n a s compared t o t h e
C42.6% and 17.9% r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .

lead ers

T h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e o p i n i o n s o f t h e s e two g r o u p s on t h e
c o n m e r c i a l r e c r e a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s and t h e C i t y p a r k s and
r e c r e a t i o n p r o g r a m s and f a c i l i t i e s .
3.

A c o m p a r i s o n o f t h e l e a d e r s w i t h t h e b l a c k r e s i d e n t s and w i t h
t h e w h i t e r e s i d e n t s showed a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on one
o f the three q u estio n s.

With t h e b l a c k r e s i d e n t s t h e d i f f e r ­

e n c e o f o p i n i o n was on t h e r a t i n g o f p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n
fa cilities

and p r o g r a m s ,

and w i t h t h e w h i t e r e s i d e n t s t h e

d i f f e r e n c e w as on r a t i n g o f t h e s e r v i c e s o f q u a s i - p u b l i e
and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s .

76
S u g g e s t i o n s f o r Improving L e i s u r e Time O p p o r t u n i t i e s
The p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n s h a v e p r e s e n t e d d a t a c o n c e r n i n g o p i n i o n s
of the residen ts

and l e a d e r s b a s e d on t h e a d e q u a c y o f l e i s u r e - t i m e

o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n t h e Model C i t i e s

a r e a and a r a t i n g o f s e r v i c e s p r o ­

v i d e d by some o f t h e m ajo r l e i s u r e - t i m e a g e n c i e s .

In t h i s

sectio n ,

d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d on t h e s u g g e s t i o n s g i v e n t o impro ve t h e

leisu re­

tim e o p p o r t u n i t i e s .
answered t h a t t h e

O n ly t h o s e r e s p o n d e n t s who had p r e v i o u s l y

l e i s u r e - t i m e o p p o r t u n i t i e s w e r e n o t a d e q u a t e wer e

asked f o r s u g g e s t io n s

fo r improvements.

T h i s a c c o u n t s f o r t h e low

resp on se ra te in th e ta b le s o f data in t h i s
tests

on t h e s e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s

s e c t i o n w h ich makes t h e

less relia b le.

The t a b l e s o f

d a t a a r e g i v e n p r i m a r i l y t o i n d i c a t e how some o f t h e r e s i d e n t s and
l e a d e r s f e e l c o n c e r n i n g im p rove m ent o f l e i s u r e - t i m e o p p o r t u n i t i e s .
S u g g e s t io n s f o r im proving t h e o v e r a l l
t u n i t i e s a r e shown i n T a b l e 30.

l e is u r e - t im e oppor­

The c h i - s q u a r e t e s t i n T a b l e 31
TABLE 30

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING OVERALL LEISURE­
TIME OPPORTUNITIES
Model C i t i e s
Suggestions

R ecreation
F a c i l i t i e s (M ore/
B etter/C loser) .
R ecreation
A ctiv ities
D ifferen t)
Total

R esidents
A11
Respondents

W hite

Black

No.

%

No.

O rgani­
zation
Leaders
No.

0,
'o

No.

%

15

75.0

10

55.6

25

65.8

7

31. 8

5

25.0

8

44.4

13

34. 2

15

68.2

20

* 4

18

38

* •

22

(M ore/

■ ■

* ■

77
TABLE 31
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING LEISURE-TIME OPPORTUNITIES:
A COMPARISON OF OPINIONS OF ORGANIZATION LEADERS
WITH RESIDENT GROUPS AND OPINIONS OF BLACK
RESIDENTS WITH WHITE RESIDENTS

O pinions Concerning
Ways t o Improve
L e i s u r e - T i m e Op­
p o r t u n it ie s in
t h e Model C i t i e s
Area

a

Cb

a

S u ggestion s for
Improving th e
O verall S itu a tio n

. 010

S u g g e s t i o n s f o r Im­
p r o v i n g Com mercial
R e c r e a t i o n Oppor­
tu n ities

NSD

S u g g e s t i o n s f o r Im­
p r o v i n g C i t y Parks
and R e c r e a t i o n
F a c i l i t i e s and
Programs

.001

. 386

NSD

S u g g e s t i o n s f o r Im­
p ro v in g Q uasiP u b l i c and P r i v a t e
O r g a n iz a tio n Pro­
grams

NC®

NC

NC

NSDC

•

«

p

NSD

p

*

•

NC

R esidents

C

a

. 281

NSD

p

•

NSD

NSD

*

•

. 0 5 0 d . 24S

.001

. 414

.050

NC

NC

.050

. 361

C

o f a a t w h i c h t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s may b e r e j e c t e d .
(degree o f a s s o c i a t io n ) ,

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

^Expected c e l l
requirem ents.

g

a

C

.395

C ontingency c o e f f i c i e n t
c

A ll
Respondents

W hite

Black
a

^ a lu e

Black R e s i d e n t s wi t h
W hite R e s i dents

O r g a n i z a t i o n L ea d er s w i t h
Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s

(a > .1 0 ) .

f r e q u e n c i e s do n o t m eet minimum recommended

C h i - s q u a r e v a l u e and c o n t i n g e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t n o t computed d u e
t o i n s u f f i c i e n t number o f e x p e c t e d c e l l f r e q u e n c i e s .

78

shows a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n
the to ta l

l e a d e r s and

residents

a t t h e 95 p e r c e n t

l e v e l and between th e l e a d e r s

a nd b l a c k r e s i d e n t s

a t t h e 99 p e r c e n t

level.

D i f f e r e n c e s were n o t

s i g n i f i c a n t between the o th e r groups.
in g i v i n g s u g g e s t i o n s
o p p o rtu n itie s needed,

f o r th e type of commercial r e c r e a t i o n

a large percentage of the blacks

mentioned c h i l d r e n ’s playgrounds or s i m i l a r ty p es
shown i n

fable

32.

In t h i s

case,

it

is

felt

( 43 . 2 %)

of a c tiv itie s

as

t h a t one i n t e r v i e w e r

TABLE 32
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING COMMERCIAL
RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES
Model C i t i e s
Types o f
Establishm ents
Needed

P l a y g r o u n d s / C h i 1d ren 's A c tiv itie s

All
Respondents

White

Bl a c k
No.

Residents

%

No.

%

No.

%

OrganiL d l l UI1
Leaders
No.

Q,
'0

16

43. 2

1

4.8

17

27. 4

0

0.0

.

6

16. 2

5

23.8

11

17.7

7

31.8

Teen A c t i v i t i e s /
R oller Rinks/
Pool H a l l s

5

13.5

6

28.6

12

19.4

8

36.4

Swimming P o o l s

6

16. 2

3

14. 3

10

16. 1

2

9. 1

4

10. 8

6

28.6

12

19.4

5

22. 7

37

• •

21

62

*

22

■ *

Bowling A l l e y s

Movi es

.

Total

.

.
.

.

■ ■

79

who w o r k e d i n t h e p r e d o m i n a n t l y b l a c k n e i g h b o r h o o d f a i l e d t o make
c l e a r t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a com m ercial r e c r e a t i o n e s t a b l i s h m e n t

28

b e c a u s e c h i l d r e n ' s p la y g ro u n d s are n o rm a lly c o n s id e r e d as a p u b l i c
ty p e o f f a c i l i t y o f f e r e d by a governm ental agency.

The o r g a n i z a t i o n

l e a d e r s w e r e p r o b a b l y more i n f o r m e d a b o u t t h e common t e r m i n o l o g y o f
com m ercial r e c r e a t i o n and,
types o f estab lish m en ts

therefore,

th e ir responses

includ ed the

i n t e n d e d by t h e r e s e a r c h e r i n t h i s d e f i n i t i o n .

I f t h e c a t e g o r y o f c h i l d r e n ' s playgrounds i s e l i m i n a t e d
ta b le,

the s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t

show s t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

e x i s t e d b e t w e e n any o f t h e g r o u p s ; h o w e v e r , t h i s
r e l i a b l e because o f the

from t h e

con clu sion i s

less

l o s s o f inform ation in regrouping the d ata.

T a b l e 33 g i v e s t h e r e s p o n s e s on s u g g e s t i o n s f o r im p r o v i n g t h e
fa c ilitie s
Department.

and program s p r o v i d e d b y t h e C i t y P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n
The l a r g e s t p e r c e n t a g e o f b l a c k s

(44 .9% )

felt

that

improv emen t n e e d e d t h e m o s t was f o r more o r b e t t e r c h i l d r e n ' s
a c t i v i t i e s w h e r e a s t h e g r e a t e s t number o f w h i t e s
more o r b e t t e r park and r e c r e a t i o n

fa c ilitie s.

(38.3% ) s u g g e s t e d
About o n e - h a l f (5 0.7 % )

o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n l e a d e r s a l s o f e l t t h a t t h e s e two t y p e s o f im­
provem ents were needed.

The c h i - s q u a r e t e s t

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e on t h i s
w hites

( a t t h e 99.9% l e v e l )

(see Table 31).

show s t h e g r e a t e s t

c r i t e r i o n b e t w e e n t h e b l a c k s and

w ith a co n tin g en cy c o e f f i c i e n t o f .414

T h e r e w as a l s o a d i f f e r e n c e a t t h e same l e v e l b e ­

twee n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n

l e a d e r s and t h e b l a c k r e s i d e n t s , b u t no

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e l e a d e r s and w h i t e r e s i d e n t s .

The

‘ “The f l a s h c a r d w h i c h l i s t e d e x a m p l e s o f c o m m e r c ia l r e c r e a t i o n
a c t i v i t i e s was shown o n l y t o t h e p r i m a r y h o u s e h o l d r e s p o n d e n t and n o t
t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n d e n t s ( s e e A p p e n d ix A ).

80
TABLE 33
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING CITY PARK AND RECREATION
FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS
Model C i t i e s
Black

S uggestion s

A ll
Respondents

W h ite
%

No.

O rganiiatiu n
Leaders

R esidents

%

No.

%

No.

No.

%

More o r B e t t e r
C h ild ren 's
A ctiv ities .

35

4 4.9

7

14.9

45

33 . 3

4

13.8

More o r B e t t e r Park
§ R ecreation
F a c ilities .

18

23. 1

18

38 . 3

40

29.6

11

37.9

Fam ily/A dult
A ctiv ities

16

20. 5

4

8.5

21

15.6

3

10. 3

Supervi s i on/Trained
Personnel

6

7. 7

12

25.5

19

14.1

4

13. 8

P u b licity /In v o lv e­
ment o f R e s i ­
dents
. . . .

3

3. 8

6

12. 8

10

7. 4

7

24. 1

.

Total

78

•

•

47

*

135

«

-*

29

d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e l e a d e r s and t o t a l r e s i d e n t s was s i g n i f i c a n t
a t t h e 95 p e r c e n t l e v e l ;

however, th e ex p ected fr e q u e n c ie s fo r t h i s

c o m p a r i s o n d i d n o t e q u a l t h e minimum recommended.
T a b l e 34 l i s t s

t h e s u g g e s t i o n s by th e v a r io u s groups f o r

i m p r o v i n g t h e q u a s i - p u b l i c and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o g r a m s .
t o t h e l i m i t e d number o f r e s p o n s e s ,

sta tistica l

Due

t e s t s w e r e n o t com­

p u t e d f o r c o m p a r i s o n s b e t w e e n b l a c k and w h i t e r e s i d e n t s and t h e
organ ization

leaders.

A com parison between th e t o t a l r e s i d e n t s

t h e l e a d e r s showed a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t t h e 9 5 p e r c e n t

and
level;

81
h o w e v e r , t h e r e w e r e 25 p e r c e n t o f t h e c e l l s t h a t d i d n o t c o n t a i n
minimum e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s .
TABLE 54
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING QUASI-PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE ORGANIZATION PROGRAMS
Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s
Black

S uggestion s

No.

A ll
Respondents

W hite
%

No.

%

No.

%

O rgani­
zation
Leaders
No.

%

Chi l d r e n / A d u l t
R eereation
A ctiv ities .

S

38.5

5

41.7

12

41.4

5

20. 8

P u b licity /In v o lv e­
ment o f R e s i d e n t s .

6

46.2

3

25.0

10

34 . S

5

20. 8

S u pervision/
T ran sp ortation /
Lower F e e s ■

2

15.4

3

25.0

6

20.7

8

33.3

Neighborhood
F a c ilitie s/
Longer H o u r s /
Use S c h o o l s .

0

0 .0

1

8.3

1

3.4

6

25.0

T otal

13

*

•

In s u m m a r i z i n g t h e r e s u l t s
(see Table 3 1 ) ,

it

12

•

*

29

■ ■

24

■

from t h e p r e c e d i n g f o u r t a b l e s

a p p e a r s t h a t du e t o l i m i t e d d a t a and t h e r e ­

s t r i c t i o n s on t h e s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t t h a t v a l i d c o n c l u s i o n s c a n n o t
b e drawn o n t h e s e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s .

Data i n d i c a t e s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e b l a c k and w h i t e r e s i d e n t s and b e t w e e n t h e
organ ization

l e a d e r s and b l a c k r e s i d e n t s c o n c e r n i n g o p i n i o n s f o r

i m p r o v i n g t h e C i t y p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n p r o g r a m s .

O th er c o m p a r i s o n s

•

82
as shown i n T a b l e 31 may a l s o i n d i c a t e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e ­
tw een t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n

l e a d e r s and t o t a l r e s i d e n t s on t h e t y p e s o f

s u g g e s t i o n s f o r im proving th e o v e r a l l

l e i s u r e - t i m e c o n d i t i o n s and

f o r i m p r o v i n g t h e q u a s i - p u b l i e and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o g r a m s .
P r o b l e m s That I n h i b i t P a r t i c i p a t i o n
i n L e i s u r e - T i m e Programs
Q u e s t io n s were d e s ig n e d t o d eterm in e i f t h e r e were c o n s t r a i n t s
w h i c h k e p t t h e Model C i t i e s

area r e s i d e n t s

from p a r t i c i p a t i n g as

o f t e n as t h e y w o u ld l i k e i n pro gr am s s p o n s o r e d by t h r e e t y p e s o f
l e i s u r e - t i m e a g e n c i e s - - t h e C i t y P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t ,
the q u a s i-p u b lic ,

and p r i v a t e a g e n c i e s .

t h a t he w o u ld l i k e t o p a r t i c i p a t e ,
leisu re-tim e f a c i l i t i e s

I f th e r e s id e n t responded

o r t o p a r t i c i p a t e more o f t e n ,

in

o r p r o g r a m s , he was t h e n a s k e d f o r r e a s o n s

o r p r o b l e m s t h a t k e p t him from p a r t i c i p a t i n g .

The p r i m a r y h o u s e h o l d

r e s p o n d e n t was a s k e d t h i s q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e young c h i l d r e n
( under 12) and t h e i n d i v i d u a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e a s k e d
for t h e i r o p in io n s co n c e r n in g t h e s e problems.
T a b l e 35 show s t h e r e s p o n s e s t o t h e q u e s t i o n a s t o w h e t h e r
p ro b le m s e x i s t e d t h a t i n h i b i t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y t h e Model C i t i e s
r e s i d e n t s i n C i t y p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n p r o g r a m s .
type o f q u e s t io n e l i c i t e d

The n a t u r e o f t h i s

e i t h e r a " y e s ” or "no" r e s p o n s e from t h e

r e s id e n ts , but fo r o rg a n iz a tio n

lead ers i t

g o t a " d o n ' t know" r e ­

s p o n s e from t h o s e un aw are o f t h e s i t u a t i o n o r who d i d n o t want t o
commit t h e m s e l v e s t o a d e f i n i t e

answer.

R e s u l t s i n T a b l e 36 show

t h a t t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e b l a c k and w h i t e
r e s i d e n t s c o n c e r n in g th e e x i s t e n c e o f p ro b lem s, but t h e r e were

63

TABLE 35
OPINIONS CONCERNING EXISTENCE OF PROBLEMS THAT INHIBIT
PARTICIPATION BY CHILDREN AND ADULTS IN CITY
PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS
Model C i t i e s
Do P r o b le m s E x i s t

No.

A ll
Respondents

W hite

Black
%

O rgani­
zation
Leaders

R esidents

%

No.

No.

%

No.

%

Y e s .......................................

51

42.9

60

48. 8

130

4 8.0

24

6 0 .0

No

68

57. 1

63

51.2

141

5 2.0

5

12 . 5

Don* t Know

0

0.0

0

0 .0

0

0.0

11

27.5

T otal

119

■ *

123

*

40

• •

.

.

.

.

.

.

•

m

271

s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s betw een the o r g a n iz a tio n

*■

l e a d e r s and a l l

r e s id e n t groups at the 9 9 .9 per cen t l e v e l .
O p in io n s c o n cern in g e x i s t e n c e o f problems i n h i b i t i n g p a r­
ticip a tio n

i n q u a s i - p u b l i c and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o g r a m s a r e

given in T a b le 37.

The c h i - s q u a r e t e s t

show s t h e r e s u l t s t o b e t h e

same a s on t h e p r e v i o u s q u e s t i o n w i t h d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n o r g a n i ­
z a t i o n l e a d e r s and t h e t h r e e r e s i d e n t g r o u p s b e i n g s i g n i f i c a n t

at

t h e 9 9 . 9 p e r c e n t l e v e l and w i t h no d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e b l a c k s
and w h i t e s .
The t y p e s o f p r o b l e m s t h a t i n h i b i t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n
l e i s u r e - t i m e program s a r e l i s t e d

i n T a b l e s 38 and 3 9 .

in

Due t o a

l i m i t e d number o f e x p e c t e d f r e q u e n c i e s i n more t h a n 2 0 p e r c e n t o f
the c e l l s ,
relia b le;

sta tistica l tests

for s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s are le s s

h o w e v e r , computed c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e s i n d i c a t e s i g n i f i c a n t

84

TABLE 36
PROBLEMS INHIBITING PARTICIPATION IN LEISURE-TIME PROGRAMS:
A COMPARISON OF OPINIONS OF ORGANIZATION LEADERS WITH
THOSE OF RESIDENT GROUPS AND OPINIONS OF BLACK
RESIDENTS WITH WHITE RESIDENTS

O pinions C oncerning
E x i s t e n c e and Typ es
o f Problem s th a t
In h ib it P a r tic i­
p a tio n in L eisureTime Pr og ra ms

B la c k R e s i dents w ith
W h it e R e s i dents

O r g a n iz a tio n Leaders w ith
Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s
Black

A ll
Respondents

W hite

a

C

R esidents
C

aa

Cb

E x i s t e n c e o f P r o b lem s
Which I n h i b i t P a r ­
t i c i p a t i o n in C ity
P a r k s and R e c r e ­
a t i o n Department
Programs

.001

.451

.001

.467

.001

.470

NSDC

m

m

E x i s t e n c e o f Prob lem s
Which I n h i b i t P a r ­
t i c i p a t i o n in Q uasiP u b l i c and P r i v a t e
O r g a n iz a t io n Pro­
grams

. 001

.519

.001

.481

.001

.471

NSD

4

4

Types o f P r o blem s
t h a t I n h i b i t Par­
t i c i p a t i o n in C ity
Parks and R e c r e ­
ation F a c i l i t i e s
and Pr ogram s

.0 0 1 d .511

.0 0 1 d .503

. 0 0 1 d . 474

. i o o d .270

Types o f P r o b lem s
t h a t I n h i b i t Par­
t i c i p a t i o n in
Q u a s i - P u b l i e and
P riv a te O rganization
Programs

.001d .548

.0 0 1 d .562

.001

NSDd

a

C

. 506

a

^ a l u e o f a a t w h i c h t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s may b e r e j e c t e d .
^Contingency c o e f f i c i e n t
^o

(degree o f a s s o c i a t i o n ) .

s ig n ific a n t d ifferen ce

^Expected c e l l
requirem ents.

(a > . 1 0 ) .

f r e q u e n c i e s do n o t meet minimum recommended

-*

*

85
TABLE 57
OPINIONS CONCERNING EXISTENCE OF PROBLEMS INHIBITING
PARTICIPATION IN QUASI-PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
ORGANIZATION PROGRAMS
Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s
Do P r o b le m s E x i s t

Black
No.

A ll
Respondents

W hite
%

%

No.

O rgani­
zation
Leaders

No.

%

No.

%

Y e s ...............................

19

21.6

29

29.3

53

25.2

24

61.5

o ...............................

69

78.4

70

70.7

157

74.8

7

17.9

0

0.0

0

0.0

0

0.0

8

20.5

N

D o n ' t Know .
Total

.

88

*

*

99

■ ■

210

*

•

39

*

#

TABLE 38
OPINIONS CONCERNING THE TYPES OF PROBLEMS INHIBITING
PARTICIPATION IN CITY PARKS AND
RECREATION PROGRAMS
Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s
Types o f Problems

Black
No.

Lack o f T i m e / H r s .
o f Work/Work
Schedule . . .

.

A ll
Respondents

W h it e
%

No.

%

No.

%

O rgani­
zation
Leaders
No.

%

19

46. 3

22

45.8

51

51.5

0

0. 0

18

43.9

15

31 . 3

33

33. 3

21

58. 3

Young C h i l d r e n / I l l ­
n e s s / O l d A ge.

3

7. 3

6

12.5

9

9.1

0

0.0

Inadequate Super­
vision /L ack o f
In terestin g
A ctiv ities

0

0 .0

3

6. 3

3

3.0

5

13.9

F ear/D iscrim ination/
Safety/C rim e

1

2 .4

2

4.2

3

3, 0

10

27.8

48

* •

99

■ ■

36

• •

T ransportation/D is­
tance to F a c i l i t i e s

Total

.

41
■

86

TABLE 39
OPINIONS CONCERNING THE TYPES OF PROBLEMS INHIBITING
PARTICIPATION IN QUASI-PUBLIC AND PRIVATE
ORGANIZATION PROGRAMS
>__ » __ t __ 4__ 1 J

' T __

~ - 1*

--------------i

—

■

-

■

Mod e l C i t i e s
Types of Problems

No.

Residents
All
Respondents

White

Black
%

No.

■|

%

No.

O rgani­
zation
Leaders
0

No.

%

a

1

La c k o f T i m e / M r s .
o f Work/ Work
Schedule . . .

7

41.2

18

60.0

25

51.0

0

0. 0

Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n / D i s tance to F a c ilitie s

2

11.8

4

13. 3

7

14. 3

9

32. 1

Young C h i l d r e n / I l l n e s s / O l d Age.

2

11.8

2

6.7

4

8. 2

0

0.0

Inadequate Super­
v isio n /L ack of
Interesting
A ctivities

2

11.8

1

3. 3

3

6. 1

2

7.1

Cost o f A c t i v i t i e s

2

11.8

4

13. 3

6

12.2

12

42. 9

Public R elations/
Class B arriers/
A ttitudes

2

11.8

1

3. 3

4

8.2

5

17.9

30

• •

49

.

Total
1

groups a t the 99.9 per cent

level.

l e a d e r s and a l l
B a s e d on d a t a

some o f t h e most p r o m i n e n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e
are as f o llo w s :

lack o f t i m e ,

28

-

•

three resident

i n t h e two t a b l e s ,
l e a d e r s and r e s i ­

Over o n e - h a l f o f t h e r e s i d e n t s men tione d t h e

number o f h o u r s w o r k e d ,

i n h i b i t i n g problems.

’

7

d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n

dents

■

o r t h e i r work s c h e d u l e as b e i n g

None o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n

we r e c o n s t r a i n i n g f a c t o r s .

leaders

N e i t h e r d i d any o f t h e

fe lt these

le a d e r s mention

87

t h e r e a s o n s o f young c h i l d r e n i n t h e home,

illn ess,

or o l d a g e ; b u t

t h e s e w e r e g i v e n by 8 t o 9 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e s i d e n t s .
(58,3%)

o f t h e l e a d e r s c o m p a red t o o n e - t h i r d

(33.3%) o f t h e r e s i d e n t s

f e l t th a t tra n sp o rta tio n or d ista n ce to f a c i l i t i e s
r e s tr ic t in g p a rticip a tio n

safety,

w ere m a j o r p r o b l e m s

i n C i t y p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n p r o g r a m s .

s u b s t a n t i a l number o f l e a d e r s
d iscrim in ation ,

O ver h a l f

(27.8%) f e l t

A

t h a t f a c t o r s s u c h as f e a r ,

and c r i m e were p r o b l e m s w h e r e a s v e r y few

(3.0%) o f t h e r e s i d e n t s g a v e t h e s e as r e a s o n s .

In r e f e r e n c e t o t h e

q u a s i - p u b l i c and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n p r o g r a m s , a much l a r g e r p e r ­
centage o f th e
an i n h i b i t i n g

leaders

(42 .9 % )

saw t h e c o s t o f a c t i v i t i e s

f a c t o r as c om p ared t o t h e r e s i d e n t s

t h e low number o f r e s p o n s e s

as being

(12.2% ).

in Table 3 9 , a s t a t i s t i c a l

Due t o

a n a l y s i s on

t h is data i s not r e l i a b l e .
A summary o f t h e s t a t i s t i c a l

resu lts

o f c o m p a r i s o n s b a s e d on

o p in io n s co n cern in g problems i n h i b i t i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
t im e p r o g r a m s was g i v e n i n T a b l e 36.

leisu re­

I t c a n b e c o n c l u d e d t h a t major

d i f f e r e n c e s do e x i s t b e t w e e n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n

l e a d e r s and a l l

three

r e s i d e n t g r o u p s b a s e d on t h e s e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s w i t h t h e q u a l i f i ­
cation p r e v io u s ly s ta te d .
99.9 per cen t

level.

A l l d i f f e r e n c e s were s i g n i f i c a n t

a t the

I t appears that the o p in io n s concerning the

e x i s t e n c e o f p r o b l e m s and t h e t y p e s o f p r o b l e m s a r e n o t v e r y d i f f e r ­
e n t b e t w e e n t h e b l a c k and w h i t e r e s i d e n t s w i t h r e s p o n s e s on o n l y
one o u t o f f o u r q u e s t i o n s s h o w i n g a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t t h e
90 p e r c e n t l e v e l .

88

T yp es o f A c t i v i t i e s P r e f e r r e d b y
M odel C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s
T h e r e w e r e tw o q u e s t i o n s d e s i g n e d t o o b t a i n r e s p o n s e s c o n ­
c e r n in g t h e t y p e s o f r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s p r e f e r r e d by t h e v a r i o u s
a g e g r o u p s i n t h e Model C i t i e s a r e a .
ch ild ren 's

The q u e s t i o n p e r t a i n i n g t o

a c t i v i t i e s was a p a r t o f t h e h o u s e h o l d q u e s t i o n n a i r e

a n sw e r e d b y t h e p r i m a r y r e s p o n d e n t o n l y i n t h e c a s e s where c h i l d r e n
u n d er 12 w e r e members o f t h a t p a r t i c u l a r h o u s e h o l d .
needed a c t i v i t i e s

for t h is

S u ggestion s for

a g e g r o u p w ere o n l y g i v e n by t h o s e r e ­

s p o n d e n t s who f e l t t h a t c u r r e n t p r o g r a m s w e r e n o t a d e q u a t e .

These

r e a s o n s a c c o u n t f o r t h e l i m i t e d number o f r e s p o n s e s as shown i n
Table 40.

A lon ger l i s t

o f a c t i v i t i e s w i t h a g r e a t e r number o f
TABLE 40

OPINIONS CONCERNING THE TYPES OF RECREATION ACTIVITIES AND
FACILITIES NEEDED FOR CHILDREN UNDER 12 YEARS OF AGE
Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s
Ty p es o f A c t i v i t i e s 6
F a c i l i t i e s N ee d ed

Black
%

No.
S u p e r v ise d , O rgani­
zed R e c r e a t i o n
A ctiv ities .
Sports F a c i l i t i e s /
Parks/Playgrounds.
Total

A ll
Respondents

W hite
No.

No.

%

%

O rgani­
zation
Leaders
No.

%

15

65.2

6

66. 7

23

67.7

20

71.4

8

34 . 8

3

33. 3

11

32.4

8

28.6

34

•

28

23

•

*

9

•

*

*

*

89
f r e q u e n c i e s was o b t a i n e d f o r t h e o l d e r a g e g r o u p s
given

in T a b le 41.

The q u e s t i o n

for t h is

(12 and o v e r )

as

a g e g r o u p was p r e s e n t e d i n

a d i f f e r e n t manner and was a p a r t o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e
f or m.
list

Each o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n d e n t s was a s k e d t o
t h e t h r e e most i m p o r t a n t s p a r e - t i m e a c t i v i t i e s t h a t h e w o u l d

p e r s o n a l l y l i k e t o do a t a n eig h b o rh o o d r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r .

T h is

t y p e o f q u e s t i o n e l i c i t e d more r e s p o n s e s t h a n t h e o n e f o r t h e y o u n g e r
ch ild ren .

For c o m p a r a t i v e p u r p o s e s , t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n

l e a d e r s were

a s k e d s i m i l a r t y p e s o f q u e s t i o n s - - o n e f o r c h i l d r e n u n d er 12 and one
f o r t h o s e Model C i t i e s r e s i d e n t s
S ta tistica l tests

12 y e a r s and o l d e r .

( s e e T a b l e 42) show t h a t t h e r e was n o

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e betw een any o f th e g rou p s c o n c e r n in g t y p e s
o f a c t i v i t i e s n e e d e d f o r c h i l d r e n u n d er 12 .

H o w e v e r , due t o t h e

l i m i t e d number o f r e s p o n s e s and t h e s m a l l g r o u p i n g o f a c t i v i t i e s
T ab le 40,

c o n c l u s i o n s b a s e d on t h e s e t e s t s a r e

c o m p a r i s o n s can b e made on t h e a c t i v i t i e s

less re lia b le .

in

B etter

p r e f e r r e d by t e e n a g e r s and

a d u l t s a s shown i n T a b l e 41 s i n c e t h e r e w ere a g r e a t e r number o f
i n d i v i d u a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n d e n t s who a n s w e r e d t h a t q u e s t i o n .
However, t h e r e must b e some q u a l i f i c a t i o n s made on any c o n c l u s i o n s
drawn from t h i s d a t a .
T a b l e 11)

I t was shown e a r l i e r i n t h e c h a p t e r

t h a t t h e 12 - t o 1 7 - y e a r - a g e gro up

(see

( 15.3 % ) was u n d e r ­

r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e s a m p l e o f i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n d e n t s as co m p are d t o
t h e same a g e g r o u p (22.6%) a s g i v e n i n t h e h o u s e h o l d d a t a .
groups

(18 t o 65) w ere o v e r - r e p r e s e n t e d .

A lso,

t h e r e was a l a r g e r p e r c e n t a g e o f f e m a l e s ( 61 .1 % )
(38.9% ).

The a d u l t

according t o T able 9 ,
compared t o m a l e s

T h i s may h a v e b e e n a f a c t o r i n t h e number o f r e s p o n s e s f o r

90
TABLE 41
OPINIONS CONCERNING THE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES PREFERRED BY
TEENAGERS AND ADULTS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD
RECREATION CENTER
Model C i t i e s
Black

Types o f A c t i v i t i e s

No.

R esidents
A ll
Respondents

W h ite
%

No.

%

No.

%

Organi
zation
Leaders
No.

%

A r t s and C r a f t s / S e w ­
in g /K n ittin g

27

24.3

25

14.3

60

18.5

9

8. 7

Swimming

13

11.7

30

17.1

47

14 . 5

12

11.5

O t h e r S p o r t s and
P h ysical
A c t i v i t i e s 3.

10

9.0

30

17.1

43

13. 3

31

29.8

S oftb all/B aseb al1

11

9.9

17

9.7

33

10.2

3

2.9

P o o l/P in g Pong/
T a b l e Games

11

9.9

13

7.4

27

8. 3

7

6.7

Q u ie t Games/Cards/
B ingo/C heckers/E tc.

5

4. 5

20

11.4

27

8. 3

5

4. 8

Te n n i s / V o l 1 eyb a l 1

9

8. 1

16

9. 1

27

8.3

3

2.9

A dult/E nrichm ent
C lasses

8

7. 2

9

5. 1

24

7.4

3

2.9

11

9.9

6

3.4

18

5.6

9

8.7

6

5. 4

9

5. 1

18

5.6

22

21. 2

111

- •

175

B asketball
S o c i a l and C u l t u r a l
A ctivities*5
Total

*

324

104

-

I n c l u d e s g o l f , h a n d b a l l , f o o t b a l l , gym, e x e r c i s e , b o x i n g ,
badm inton, i c e s k a t i n g , h ock ey, e t c .
I n c l u d e s m u s i c , d a n c e , drama, p a r t i e s , d r o p - i n ,

clu b s, e tc .

91

TABLE 42
ACTIVITIES PREFERRED BY MODEL CITIES RESIDENTS: A COMPARISON
OF OPINIONS OF ORGANIZATION LEADERS WITH THOSE OF
RESIDENT GROUPS AND OPINIONS OF BLACK
RESIDENTS WITH WHITE RESIDENTS

O pinions C oncerning
A c t i v i t i e s N ee d e d
or P r e f e r r e d by
R esidents o f the
Model C i t i e s A r e a

Black
a

a

Types o f A c t i v i t i e s
Needed by C h i l d r e n
Under 12 Y e a r s o f
Age

NSDC

Types o f A c t i v i t i e s
P r e fe r r e d by T een ­
a g e r s and A d u l t s

.001

^ a lu e

W h ite

cb

a

C

NSD

j

.445

.001

. 348

A ll
Respondents
C
a

NSD

*

.001

.329

«

R esidents
a

(degree o f a s s o c i a t i o n ) .

s ig n ific a n t d ifferen ce

(a > . 1 0 ) .

C

NSD

*

.05 0

.242

o f a a t w h i c h t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s may be r e j e c t e d .

^C ontingency c o e f f i c i e n t
So

Black R e s i ­
d e n ts with
W hite R e s i ­
dents

O r g a n iz a tio n Leaders with
Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s

*

92
a ctiv ities

s u c h a s a r t s and c r a f t s , s e w i n g and k n i t t i n g p l u s some

other d i f f e r e n c e s th a t are apparent in t h e t a b l e .

One o f t h o s e

d i f f e r e n c e s t h a t appear s i g n i f i c a n t i s t h a t c o n cern ed w it h s o c i a l
and c u l t u r a l a c t i v i t i e s .

Over o n e - f i f t h

(21 .2% ) o f t h e l e a d e r s

l i s t e d t h e s e a s p r e f e r r e d com pare d t o o n l y 5 . 6 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e s i ­
dents.

A n o t h e r m a jo r d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e g r o u p s o c c u r r e d i n t h e

c a t e g o r i e s o f s p o r t s and p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s .
With t h e s e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s ,
summary r e s u l t s
d ifferen ce

c o n c l u s i o n s a r e drawn from t h e

o f T a b l e 42 a s f o l l o w s :

( a t t h e 95% l e v e l )

the types o f a c t i v i t i e s
recreation cen ter.

T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t

b e t w e e n b l a c k s and w h i t e s c o n c e r n i n g

t h e y would p r e f e r t o have i n a n eigh b orh ood

T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

le v e l) between th e o p in io n s o f th e o r g a n iz a tio n
th r e e r e s i d e n t groups c o n c e r n in g a c t i v i t i e s

( a t t h e 99.9%

l e a d e r s and a l l

t h a t t e e n a g e r s and a d u l t s

would p r e f e r t o h a v e a t n e i g h b o r h o o d r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r s .
O p in ion s C on cerning Neighborhood
R ecreation Centers
One o f t h e p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e a g e n c y s p o n s o r i n g t h e
r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t was t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e n e e d f o r
and d e s i r a b l e
neighborhoods.

f e a t u r e s o f r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r s i n t h e Model C i t i e s
S i n c e t h e a g e n c y w a n t e d r e s p o n s e s fro m b o t h t h e

r e s i d e n t s and t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s c o n c e r n i n g c e r t a i n
aspects about p o s s i b l e fu tu r e

l e i s u r e - t i m e c e n t e r s , q u e s t i o n s were

d e s i g n e d f o r b o t h g r o u p s and r e s u l t s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n
for com parative pu rp oses.

One e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s

is

th a t the a c t i v i ­

t i e s p r e f e r r e d b y t e e n a g e r s and a d u l t s w e r e t r e a t e d a s a s e p a r a t e

93
c a t e g o r y and p r e s e n t e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n a l o n g w i t h a c t i v i t i e s
n e e d e d by t h e y o u n g e r c h i l d r e n .
O p i n i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e d i s t a n c e s t h a t t e e n a g e r s and a d u l t s
w i l l t r a v e l t o r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r s a r e shown i n T a b l e s 43 and 4 4 .
Due t o t h e l i m i t e d number o f r e s p o n s e s from i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e 12to

1 7 - y e a r a g e g r o u p , o n l y one s t a t i s t i c a l

T a b le 43.

t e s t was computed from

A com parison between t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n

l e a d e r s and t o t a l

TABLE 43
OPINIONS CONCERNING DISTANCE THAT TEENAGERS WILL
TRAVEL TO A RECREATION CENTER
O rganiz a t i on
Leaders

Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s

No.

A ll
Respondents

White

B la ck

D istan ce

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

1 t o 6 Blocks

8

72. 7

6

54.5

16

57.1

10

33. 3

7 Blocks t o 1 M ile

2

18. 2

4

36.4

9

32.1

13

43. 3

2 M i l e s o r More.

1

9. 1

1

9. 1

3

10. 7

7

23. 3

30

■ ■

Total

11

*

■

11

*

*

28

*

•

r e s i d e n t s showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e c o n c e r n i n g o p i n i o n s a b o u t
the d is t a n c e t h a t teen a g ers are w i l l i n g t o t r a v e l t o

recreation

c e n t e r s o f f e r i n g t h e t y p e s o f a c t i v i t i e s w h ic h t h e y w o u l d d e s i r e .
In c o m p a r in g t h e r e s u l t s shown i n T a b l e 4 4 , s t a t i s t i c a l
Table 45)

tests

show no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n o r g a n i z a t i o n

(see
lead ers

and t h e r e s i d e n t g r o u p s c o n c e r n i n g d i s t a n c e s t h a t a d u l t s a re w i l l i n g
to travel;

however,

t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e a t t h e 99 p e r

94

TABLE 44
OPINIONS CONCERNING DISTANCE THAT ADULTS WILL TRAVEL
TO A NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION CENTER
Organi­
zation
Leaders

Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s

No.

A ll
R espondents

W h it e

B la c k

D istance

%

No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

1 to 6 Blocks

29

49. 2

32

47. 1

68

4 8.6

14

53.9

7 Blocks t o

20

33.9

10

14. 7

31

22.1

4

15.4

10

16.9

26

38.2

41

29. 3

8

30.8

59

• *

68

140

* -

26

* -

1 M ile

2 M i l e s o r More.
Total

c e n t l e v e l b e t w e e n b l a c k s and w h i t e s .
more w h i t e s

- ■

A m ajo r d i f f e r e n c e was t h a t

(38.2%) w e r e w i l l i n g t o t r a v e l tw o m i l e s o r more a s com­

pared t o b la c k s

(16.9% ).

T h i s may b e r e l a t e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t a

greater p rop ortion o f b lack households
pared t o w h i t e s

(38.5%) do n o t own a c a r com­

( 2 3 .8 % ) .

In o r d e r t o recommend t h e t y p e s o f r e s o u r c e s t o a l l o c a t e f o r
n e i g h b o r h o o d r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r s and t o d e t e r m i n e t h e d e s i r a b l e s c o p e
o f such c e n t e r s ,
th eir fu n ctio n s.

i t was t h o u g h t d e s i r a b l e t o g e t o p i n i o n s c o n c e r n i n g
One q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e t y p e s o f a c t i v i t i e s

p r e f e r r e d by t h e r e s i d e n t s
cussed.

in t h o s e c e n t e r s has a l r e a d y been d i s ­

Two o t h e r q u e s t i o n s w e r e a s k e d t o o b t a i n d a t a on t h i s

a s p e c t o f t h e problem.

One c o n c e r n e d t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f h a v i n g

b o t h i n d o o r and o u t d o o r l e i s u r e - t i m e f a c i l i t i e s

a t t h e same l o c a t i o n ;

and t h e o t h e r q u e s t i o n was t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f o f f e r i n g s o c i a l

95

TABLE 45
SELECTED FACTORS ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION CENTERS:
A COMPARISON OF OPINIONS OF ORGANIZATION LEADERS
WITH THOSE OF RESIDENT GROUPS AND OPINIONS
OF BLACK RESIDENTS WITH WHITE RESIDENTS

O rg a n iza tio n Leaders w ith
M odel C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s

O pinions C oncerning
S e le c te d Factors
About N e i g h b o r h o o d
R ecreation C enters

Black

D ista n c e t h a t Teen­
agers w i l l Travel
to a R ecreation
C enter

NCC

D ista n ce t h a t A dults
w i l l Travel to a
R ecreation Center

NSD

D e s i r a b i l i t y o f Hav­
i n g Bot h I n d o o r and
O utd oor F a c i l i t i e s
a t t h e Same L o c a t i o n

. 020

D esira b ility o f O ffer­
in g Other S o c i a l
S e r v ic e s at N eigh­
b orh ood R e c r e a t i o n
Centers
Type o f A gen cy t h a t
Should O p erate
Such C e n t e r s

of

a .

A ll
Respondents

White
Cb

aa

^ a lu e

Black R e s id en ts w ith
W h ite R e s i dents

NC

a

C

NC

NC

a

NSD

♦

*

. 24 7

NSD

m

m

. 100

. 212

NSD

.001

. 35 2

.001

•

*

C

NC

NC

.010

.270

. 158

. 100

. 158

*

.010

.247

.010

.249

*

*

NSD

•

■

NSD

.362

a

C

NSDd

. 050

.001

R esidents

#

. 297

a t w h i c h t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s may b e r e j e c t e d .

^ C ontingency c o e f f i c i e n t

(degree o f a s s o c i a t i o n ) .

Q

C h i - s q u a r e v a l u e and c o n t i n g e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t n o t co m p ute d due
t o i n s u f f i c i e n t number o f e x p e c t e d c e l l f r e q u e n c i e s .
dNo s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

(a > . 1 0 ) .

96

s e r v ic e s oth er than r e c r e a tio n a c t i v i t i e s

at neighborhood c e n t e r s .

The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e q u e s t i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e s 46 and 4 7 .
TABLE 46
OPINIONS CONCERNING THE DESIRABILITY OF HAVING BOTH INDOOR
AND OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES AT THE SAME LOCATION
Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s
Black

At Same L o c a t i o n

No.
Y e s ...............................

A ll
Respondents

White
%

No.

%

No.

O rgani­
zation
Leaders
No.

%

%

72

83. 7

76

72.4

162

77.5

21

6 0 .0

S

5. 8

16

15.2

23

11.0

5

14.3

D o n ' t Know .

9

10. 5

13

12.4

24

11.5

9

25. 7

T otal .

86

209

* *

35

N

o ...............................

•

*

105

• ■

»

•

TABLE 47
OPINIONS CONCERNING THE DESIRABILITY OF OFFERING OTHER SOCIAL
SERVICES AT NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION CENTERS
Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s
Other S e r v i c e s
D esirab le

Black
No.

A ll
Respondents

W hite
%

No.

%

No.

%

O rgani­
zation
Leaders
No.

%

Y e s ...............................

69

86. 3

63

63.6

147

74. 2

25

6 7.6

o ...............................

8

10. 0

27

27. 3

38

19. 2

9

24. 3

3

3. 7

9

9.1

13

6.6

3

8. 1

80

■ ■

99

N

Don' t Know .
Total

.

■ ■

198

«

*

37

*

*

97
A la r g e p e r c e n ta g e o f a l l r e s i d e n t groups
83.7%)

f e l t t h a t b o t h i n d o o r and o u t d o o r f a c i l i t i e s

same l o c a t i o n .

S ix t y per cent o f th e o rg a n iza tio n

same o p i n i o n ; h o w e v e r ,

(Table 45)

should be at the
le a d e r s shared the

a larger percentage o f leaders

t h e y d i d n o t know a s compared t o t h e r e s i d e n t s
resu lts

( f r o m 72.4% t o

(25 .7% ) s a i d

(11.5% ).

S ta tistica l

show s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a t t h e 95 p e r c e n t

l e v e l between o r g a n i z a t io n

l e a d e r s and t o t a l r e s i d e n t s ;

a t t h e 98

p e r c e n t l e v e l b e t w e e n l e a d e r s and b l a c k r e s i d e n t s ; b u t n o s i g n i f i ­
c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n l e a d e r s and w h i t e r e s i d e n t s .
b e t w e e n b l a c k and w h i t e r e s i d e n t s
i n d o o r and o u t d o o r f a c i l i t i e s

concerning th e

The d i f f e r e n c e

lo c a t io n o f both

a t t h e same s i t e w as s i g n i f i c a n t a t

t h e 90 p e r c e n t l e v e l .
About t h r e e - f o u r t h s

(74 .2% ) o f t h e r e s i d e n t s

(67.6%) o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n l e a d e r s f e l t

and t w o - t h i r d s

i t w o u l d be d e s i r a b l e t o

have o t h e r s o c i a l s e r v i c e s a t neigh b orh ood r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r s .
w ere d e f i n e d a s t h i n g s s u c h as
related fu n ction s.

legal se r v ic e s,

h ealth c l i n i c s ,

These
and

R e s u l t s show ed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e ­

tween t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n

l e a d e r s and t o t a l r e s i d e n t s o r b e t w e e n t h e

l e a d e r s and w h i t e r e s i d e n t s .

A d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e l e a d e r s and

b l a c k r e s i d e n t s e x i s t e d a t t h e 9 0 p e r c e n t l e v e l and a d i f f e r e n c e
b e t w e e n t h e b l a c k and w h i t e r e s i d e n t s was s i g n i f i c a n t

a t t h e 99

per c e n t l e v e l .
The f i n a l q u e s t i o n was d e s i g n e d t o o b t a i n r e s p o n s e s c o n c e r n ­
ing th e o p in io n s as t o th e ty p e o f agency t h a t sh ou ld o p e r a t e
neighborhood r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r s

l i k e the ones p r e v io u s ly d e s c r ib e d .

R e s p o n s e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 48 .

T e s t r e s u l t s i n T a b l e 45 show

98

TABLE 48
OPINIONS CONCERNING THE TYPE OF AGENCY THAT SHOULD
OPERATE NEIGHBORHOOD RECREATION CENTERS
Model C i t i e s R e s i d e n t s
Type o f A gen cy

No.
C i t y o r P a r k s and
R e c r e a t i o n Dept.

A ll
Respondents

W hite

Black
%

No.

%

%

No.

O rgani­
zation
Leaders
%

No.

14

17.1

41

40.2

59

29. 1

11

29.0

Model C i t i e s

9

11.0

6

S .9

19

9.4

4

10.5

Other A g e n c ie s or
Gro up s
. . . .

8

9. 8

6

5. 9

16

7. 9

13

34.2

49

4 8.0

109

53.7

10

26. 3

203

•

38

Don * t Know .
T otal

.

.

.

.

51

62.2

.

.

.

82

*■

m

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between a l l

102

•

groups.

*

l e a d e r s and r e s i d e n t s was i n t h e " d o n ' t

know" c a t e g o r y .

(53.7%) o f t h e r e s i d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t

t h e y d i d n o t know wh at t y p e o f a g e n c y s h o u l d o p e r a t e s u c h c e n t e r s
whereas o n ly o n e - f o u r t h

(26.3%) o f t h e l e a d e r s ga ve t h a t a n s w e r .

The g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e b l a c k s and w h i t e s c o n c e r n e d t h e
o p i n i o n s ab ou t t h e C i t y o r P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t a s t h e
o p era tin g agency.

A g r e a te r p ercen tage o f the w hites

f e r r e d t h a t a g e n c y a s com pared t o t h e b l a c k s

(40.2%) p r e ­

( 1 7 .1 % ) .

The p u r p o s e o f t h i s c h a p t e r w as t o p r e s e n t t h e d a t a and
r e s u lt s r e l a t i n g t o th e study o b j e c t i v e s ,

•

One o f t h e major d i f f e r ­

ences between o r g a n iz a t io n
Over h a l f

•

and t o make c o m p a r i s o n s

o f t h e v a r i o u s g r o u p s b a s e d on t h e t w e n t y - f o u r c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s .

99

A summary o f t h e s e c o m p a r i s o n s and c o n c l u s i o n s i s p r e s e n t e d i n
the fo llo w in g chapter.

CHAPTER V
SLM4ARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Procedure
The p r i m a r y p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y was t o com pare t h e l e i s u r e tim e n eed s as s t a t e d by " i n n e r - c i t y " r e s i d e n t s w it h t h e i r needs as
p e r c e i v e d b y community o r g a n i z a t i o n l e a d e r s .

The " i n n e r - c i t y "

u s e d f o r t h e s t u d y was t h e o r i g i n a l Model C i t i e s

area

area o f L ansing,

M i c h i g a n w h i c h c o m p r i s e d an e s t i m a t e d 4 , 5 1 6 r e s i d e n t i a l d w e l l i n g
u n i t s or h o u se h o ld s .

From t h i s number, 159 c o m p l e t e d i n t e r v i e w s w er e

o b t a i n e d from o n e o f t h e p r i m a r y a d u l t s i n e a c h h o u s e h o l d , and an
a d d i t i o n a l 70 i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r v i e w s w e r e o b t a i n e d from o t h e r h o u s e ­
h o l d members f o r s u p p l e m e n t a r y d a t a .
A t o t a l o f 40 com munity o r g a n i z a t i o n

lead ers returned a s e l f ­

ad m in istered q u e s t io n n a ir e w ith data r e l a t i n g t o t h e i r o p in io n s con­
c e r n i n g t h e l e i s u r e - t i m e n e e d s i n t h e Model C i t i e s a r e a .

The l e a d e r s

r e p r e s e n te d o r g a n i z a t i o n s in t h e C it y o f Lansing which se r v e d s o c i a l ,
w elfare,

ed u cation al,

or l e i s u r e - t i m e f u n c t i o n s .

Tw enty-seven o f

t h e l e a d e r s w ere i n v o l v e d t o some d e g r e e i n p r o v i d i n g r e c r e a t i o n a l
a ctiv ities

i n t h e Model C i t i e s

area.

Q u e s t i o n s w ere d e s i g n e d t o g a t h e r d a t a on t w e n t y - f o u r c r i ­
terio n v a ria b les r e la tin g to the follow in g to p ics:

100

101

1.

O p in io n s c o n cern in g t h e adequacy o f l e i s u r e - t i m e oppor­
tu n ities

2.

i n t h e Model C i t i e s

area.

O pinions concerning th e r a t in g o f l e i s u r e - t i m e s e r v ic e s

in

t h e Model C i t i e s a r e a a s compared t o o t h e r a r e a s o f t h e C i t y .
3.

O p in io n s c o n c e r n in g t h e ways t o improve th e l e i s u r e - t i m e
o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n t h e Model C i t i e s a r e a .

4.

O p i n i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e and t y p e s o f p r o b l e m s t h a t
i n h i b i t p a r t i c i p a t i o n b y Model C i t i e s r e s i d e n t s

in l e i s u r e ­

t i m e p r o g r a m s.
5.

O p in io n s c o n c e r n in g t h e t y p e s o f a c t i v i t i e s needed or
p r e f e r r e d b y Model C i t i e s r e s i d e n t s .

6.

O pinions concerning c e r t a i n s e le c t e d
hood r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r s

f a c t o r s about n e ig h b o r ­

i n t h e Model C i t i e s a r e a .

R e s u l t s from t h e d a t a w e r e u s e d t o make t h e f o l l o w i n g com­
parisons:

(1)

o p in io n s o f th e o r g a n iz a t io n le a d e r s w ith th o se o f the

t o t a l s a m p l e o f Model C i t i e s

resid en ts;

(2)

the opinions o f the

l e a d e r s w i t h t h o s e o f a s a m p le o f b l a c k r e s i d e n t s
of w hite r e s id e n ts ;

and ( 3 )

and w i t h a s a m p l e

the o p in io n s o f th e b lack r e s id e n t s w ith

those o f th e w h ite r e s id e n t s .

The c h i - s q u a r e t e s t was u s e d t o d e t e r ­

mine s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s and t h e c o n t i n g e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t was
computed t o m e a s u r e t h e d e g r e e o f a s s o c i a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e c o m p a r a t i v e
g ro ups b a s e d on t h e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s .
parisons i s

g iv e n in Table 49.

A summary o f t h e s e com­

D i f f e r e n c e s were c o n s id e r e d s i g n i f i ­

can t a t t h e 9 0 p e r c e n t c o n f i d e n c e l e v e l or a b o v e
su lts

[a

<_

. 10).

Re­

i n t h e summary t a b l e show t h e number o f c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s on

TABLE 49
SUM4ARY OF COf*ARISONS OF ORGANIZATION LEADERS WITH RESIDENT GROUPS AND BLACK
RESIDENTS WITH WHITE RESIDENTS BASED ON TWENTY-FOUR CRITERION VARIABLES
Black Resi­
dents with
White R esi­
dents

O rganization Leaders with
Model C itie s Residents
Major C la s s ific a tio n s of C rite rio n V ariables
Black

All
Respondents

White

SO* NSDb

Residents

SO

NSD

SD

NSD

SD

NSD

Adequacy o f L eisure-T iee O pportunities in Six C lasses of Service

4

2

5

1

5

1

3

3

Ratings o f Leisure-Time O pportunities in Three C lasses of Service

1

2

1

2

1

2

3

0

Suggestions fo r laproving Leisure-Time O pportunities in Three
C lasses o f Service

2

1

0

3

3

1

1

2

Existence o f and Types of Problems In h ib itin g P a rtic ip a tio n in
Programs o f Two Types of Leisure-Time Agencies

4

0

4

0

4

0

1

3

A c tiv itie s Needed or P referred oy Model C itie s Residents Based
on Two Age Groups

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Opinions Concerning Five S elected Factors About Neighborhood
Recreation Centers

3

1

1

3

2

3

4

0

15

7

12

10

16

8

13

9

T otal Niuber of C rite rio n V ariables Tested

S ig n if ic a n t d iffe ren c e a t or above the 90 per cent confidence lev el (o £ .10).
b

No s ig n ific a n t d iffe ren c e.

103
w hich t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s as w e l l

a s t h o s e on w h ic h

t h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s betw een th e com p arative grou p s.
G e n e r a l F i n d i n g s and C o n c l u s i o n s
1.

T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e o f o p i n i o n s b e t w e e n t h e
org a n iza tio n

l e a d e r s and t h e s a m p l e o f t o t a l Model C i t i e s

r e s i d e n t s on t w o - t h i r d s o f t h e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s
out o f t w e n ty - fo u r ) .
zation

lead ers'

B a s e d on t h e s e f i n d i n g s ,

(six teen

the organ i­

accuracy in p e r c e iv in g th e le is u r e - t im e

n e e d s o f t h e Model C i t i e s
chosen fo r the study.

r e s i d e n t s was . 3 3 3 on t h e c r i t e r i a

The a u t h o r , t h e r e f o r e , c o n c l u d e d t h a t

h i s m odel as d e v e l o p e d i n C h a p t e r I I I

i s not a p p lic a b le in

p r e d ic t in g th e le i s u r e - t im e needs o f " in n e r -c ity " r e s id e n t s
and t h a t p o l i c y m ak er s s h o u l d n o t r e l y e n t i r e l y on t h e
o p i n i o n s o f t h e com munity o r g a n i z a t i o n l e a d e r s
r eso u r c e s for th a t purpose.

in a llo c a t in g

The c o n c l u s i o n s r e a c h e d s u p p o r t

th e h y p o th e s is proposed in the study o b j e c t i v e s ;

that i s ,

a

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e e x i s t s between th e o p in io n s o f th e
organ ization

l e a d e r s and t h o s e o f t h e r e s i d e n t s

neighborhood area c o n c e r n in g l e i s u r e - t i m e n e e d s .

i n t h e m odel
However,

t h e s e c o n c l u s i o n s cannot b e g e n e r a l i z e d beyond t h e sample
p op u lation ,

and t h e a u t h o r recommends t h a t f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h

b e c o n d u c t e d on d i f f e r e n t

c r ite r io n variab les

ty p e s o f d a ta -g a th erin g instrum ents.

and on o t h e r

A lso, research i s

needed in o t h e r urban a r e a s w it h a s i m i l a r p o p u l a t i o n t o
fu rth er t e s t the h y p o th esis.

104

2.

The c h i - s q u a r e t e s t s

and t h e c o n t i n g e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t s showed

t h e g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e s t o e x i s t between t h e

l e a d e r s and

t h e r e s i d e n t s b a s e d on t h e i r o p i n i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e e x i s t ­
e n c e and t y p e s o f p r o b l e m s t h a t i n h i b i t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n
l e i s u r e - t i m e programs.
terio n v a riab les

The c o e f f i c i e n t s on t h e s e f o u r c r i ­

r a n g e d fro m . 4 7 0 t o . 5 0 6 w h i c h a r e s i g n i f i ­

c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from z e r o .

I t was p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e

c o n t in g e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t sh o u ld be used o n ly t o

in d ica te the

d eg ree o f a s s o c i a t i o n between t h e com parative groups based
on e a c h o f t h e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s and n o t u s e d t o compare
d ifferen ces.

T h i s i s due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e t o t a l number

o f the responses

(N) was n o t t h e same f o r e a c h q u e s t i o n u s e d

t o g a t h e r d a t a on t h e v a r i a b l e s .
The d a t a a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e o p i n i o n s o f t h e l e a d e r s and t h o s e o f
t h e r e s i d e n t s b a s e d on t h e f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a :
of leisu re-tim e op p ortun ities

(1)

i n t h e Model C i t i e s

adequacy

area,

(2)

t y p e s o f a c t i v i t i e s p r e f e r r e d in a neighborhood r e c r e a t i o n
center,

and ( 3 )

centers.

The l e a s t d i f f e r e n c e s o f o p i n i o n s w e r e c o n c e r n e d

w ith:

(1)

C ities

area,

dren,

t h e ty p e o f a g en cy t h a t s h o u ld o p e r a te such

r a t i n g s o f l e i s u r e - t i m e o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n t h e Model
(2)

t y p e s o f a c t i v i t i e s n e e d e d f o r young c h i l ­

(3) d i s t a n c e th a t r e s i d e n t s w i l l t r a v e l to a r e c r e a t io n

center,

and ( 4 ) t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f o f f e r i n g

at recreation centers.

so cia l services

10S
3.

T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e o f o p i n i o n s b e t w e e n
o r g a n i z a t i o n l e a d e r s and b l a c k r e s i d e n t s on 6 8 p e r c e n t o f
t h e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s and b e t w e e n t h e l e a d e r s and w h i t e
resid en ts

on 55 p e r c e n t o f t h e v a r i a b l e s .

T his i n d i c a t e s

t h a t th e o r g a n iz a t io n le a d e r s are a b le t o p e r c e iv e the
le is u r e - t im e needs of the w hite r e s id e n ts w ith greater
accu racy than th e needs o f t h e black r e s i d e n t s .
4.

S ig n ifica n t d ifferen ces
resid en ts

e x i s t e d between t h e samples o f w h i t e

and b l a c k r e s i d e n t s on t h i r t e e n o u t o f t w e n t y - t w o

c r ite r io n variab les

(59.1% ).

The c o n t i n g e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t s

show ed t h e g r e a t e s t d e g r e e o f d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e g r o u p s
ex isted

in th e c a se o f o p in io n s concerning

(1)

suggestions

f o r i m p r o v i n g C i t y p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s

and p r o ­

grams ( . 4 1 4 ) ,

( 2 ) r a t i n g o f C i t y p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n s e r ­

v ices

(.4 0 5 ),

and ( 3 )

o p p ortu n ities

(.3 6 3 ).

adequacy o f com m ercial r e c r e a t i o n

S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e groups a l s o
e x i s t e d on t h e f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a :
p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s
o f o v erall
o f services

(1) adequacy o f C i t y

and p r o g r a m s ,

(2) adequacy

le isu r e -tim e op p ortu n ities a v a ila b le ,

(3) r a t i n g s

o f f e r e d by c o m m e r c i a l r e c r e a t i o n e s t a b l i s h m e n t s

and by t h e q u a s i - p u b l i c and p r i v a t e o r g a n i z a t i o n s ,

(4) t y p e s

o f a c t i v i t i e s p r e f e r r e d in neighborhood r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r s ,
and ( 5 )

selected

f a c t o r s about neighborhood c e n t e r s such a s

d istan ce th at resid en ts w ill

tra v el,

types o f fu n c tio n s,

ty p e o f agency t h a t should o p e r a te th e c e n t e r s .

an d

In g e n e r a l ,

106

the

l e a s t d e g r e e o f d i f f e r e n c e was t h a t c o n c e r n i n g t h e

e x i s t e n c e and t y p e s o f p r o b l e m s t h a t i n h i b i t p a r t i c i p a t i o n
in

l e i s u r e - t i m e programs.
These d a ta support th e f o llo w in g c o n c lu s i o n s :

w h ite r e s id e n ts

(1) th e

i n t h e Model C i t i e s a r e a p e r c e i v e t h e i r

leisu re-tim e op p ortu n ities
black r e s id e n ts ;

(2)

a s b e i n g more a d e q u a t e t h a n t h e

the s e r v ic e s

o f f e r e d by t h e C i t y Parks

and R e c r e a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t a r e r a t e d h i g h e r by t h e w h i t e
r e s i d e n t s than t h e b la c k r e s i d e n t s ;

and ( 3 ) t h e r e i s

n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e b lack r e s i d e n t s
r e s id e n t s concerning th e ty p e s o f a c t i v i t i e s

a sig ­

and w h i t e

p r e f e r r e d at

n e i g h b o r h o o d r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r s and t h e d i s t a n c e s t h e y a r e
w i l l i n g t o t r a v e l t o such c e n t e r s .
Interp retation s

and Rec om mend ation s

B a s e d on t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n C h a p t e r IV
and i n t h e p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n , t h e a u t h o r p r o p o s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i n t e r ­
p retation s,

comments, and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t h a t m ig h t b e h e l p f u l t o

t h e d e c i s i o n makers r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r o v i d i n g l e i s u r e - t i m e o p p o r ­
tu n ities

i n t h e Model C i t i e s a r e a .
S i n c e th e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s betw een th e o r g a n i­

sation

l e a d e r s and t h e r e s i d e n t s

t h e Model C i t i e s a r e a ,

c o n c e r n in g t h e r e c r e a t i o n n e e d s in

t h e d e c i s i o n m ak er s s h o u l d u t i l i z e

some t y p e

o f s u r v e y r e s e a r c h m e th o d s t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e p e o p l e i n
o r d e r t o a d e q u a t e l y p l a n and d e v e l o p r e c r e a t i o n r e s o u r c e s .

They

s h o u l d n o t d epend e n t i r e l y up on t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s o f t h e p r o ­
f e s s i o n a l p l a n n e r s and p rogram m ers t o m eet t h o s e n e e d s .

A lso,

107
methods s h o u ld be u t i l i z e d

t o obtain th e

citizen s'

v i e w s on a c o n ­

t in u in g b a s i s to d em o cra tize the d e c isio n -m a k in g p r o c e s s .
One o f t h e c r i t e r i a on w h ic h t h e r e was a g r e a t d e g r e e o f
d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t w o g ro up s was t h a t d e a l i n g w i t h e x i s t e n c e
and t y p e s o f p ro b lem s i n h i b i t i n g r e s i d e n t s '
ation

f a c i l i t i e s and p r o g r a m s .

p a rticip a tio n

in r e c r e ­

The C i t y ' s r e c r e a t i o n p ro g ra m p l a n n e r s

should a n a ly z e t h e s e problem s to m inim ize th o s e i n h i b i t i n g f a c t o r s .
For e x a m p l e , a c t i v i t i e s
at tim e s

s h o u l d be p l a n n e d and f a c i l i t i e s

scheduled

c o n v e n i e n t f o r t h e p e o p l e s o t h a t more o p p o r t u n i t i e s a r e

a v a i l a b l e t o them.

T his

is

important s i n c e th e i n h i b i t i n g f a c t o r s

m e n t i o n e d most f r e q u e n t l y b y t h e r e s i d e n t s were l a c k o f t i m e , number
o f h o u r s worked o r t h e i r work s c h e d u l e s .
F u r t h e r s t u d y s h o u l d be g i v e n t o t h e p r o b l e m s o f f e a r ,
d iscrim in ation ,

safety,

and cr im e t o e x a m i n e t h e r e a s o n s why t h e s e

were m e n t i o n e d by a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n

(27.8% )

o f th e le a d e r s as i n ­

h ib itin g

f a c t o r s as c om p ared t o so fe w r e s i d e n t s

ing t h i s

a s a minor p r o b l e m on t h e p a r t o f t h e r e s i d e n t s s e e m s

c o n t r a d ic t o r y in view o f th e recent r e p o r t s

(3.0% ).

C onsider­

o f t h e n ew s m e d i a i n

L a n s i n g u n l e s s t h e c i t i z e n s now a c c e p t t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s a s j u s t p a r t
of everyday l i f e .

A lso,

makes t h e c o n c l u s i o n s

t h e low r e s p o n s e r a t e on t h i s q u e s t i o n

less

relia b le.

T h i s may be a s e n s i t i v e a r e a

o f q u e s t i o n i n g f o r t h e r e s i d e n t s and m i g h t r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t r e s e a r c h
t e c h n iq u e s t o obtain b e t t e r data.
The p o l i c y m a k e r s on the C i t y o f L a n s i n g Par ks and R e c r e ­
a t i o n Board s h o u l d i n c r e a s e t h e l e i s u r e - t i m e s e r v i c e s i n t h e a r e a s
o f predom inantly b la c k r e s i d e n t s s in c e

a la r g e prop ortion

(47.7% )

108
o f them f e l t

th a t recreation f a c i l i t i e s

and p r o g r a m s i n t h e i r

n e i g h b o r h o o d s w e r e below a v e r a g e a s compared t o o t h e r s e c t i o n s
the City.
C ities

O n l y 14 p e r c e n t o f t h e w h i t e r e s i d e n t s

area f e l t

t h a t the f a c i l i t i e s

T h i s may b e d u e t o

the fact t h a t

mor e o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s
households
(61.5%).
larger

(76.3%)
Also,

of

i n t h e Model

and p r o g r a m s w e r e b e l o w a v e r a g e .

the white r e s i d e n t s

had a c c e s s t o

s e r v i c e s b e c a u s e a l a r g e r number o f w h i t e

owned c a r s a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e b l a c k h o u s e h o l d s

t h e me d i a n i n c o m e o f t h e w h i t e h o u s e h o l d s was

($6,440 compared t o $ 5 , 2 0 4 ) ,
The f a c t

th a t a larger proportion of black

s a t i s f i e d with th e

recreation opportunities

gives support to th e

conclusion t h a t

residents

are not

in t h e i r neighborhoods

organization

leaders are p e r ­

ceiving the needs o f the white r e s i d e n t s b e t t e r th an those o f th e
black r e s id e n ts .

Further research

o f l e a d e r s who c a n b e s t p e r c e i v e
be o f s p e c i a l

those

i n t e r e s t to explore

origin of the o rg an izatio n

i s needed t o

i d e n t i f y the types

le is u re -tim e needs.

I t would

the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the e th n ic

leaders

and t h e i r a b i l i t y

to p erceive

the

needs o f th e d i f f e r e n t e t h n i c r e s i d e n t groups.
Another recommendation
for a llo c a tin g

resources

is

that

th e d e c i s i o n makers r e s p o n s i b l e

for neighborhood r e c r e a tio n

be c o g n i z a n t o f t h e p r e f e r e n c e s o f t u e r e s i d e n t s
areas of th e C i t y which th e c e n t e r w i l l
i m p o r t a n t due t o

the

significant

r e s i d e n t s b a s e d on t h i s
cultural a c tiv i tie s
a c t i v i t i e s by t h e

criterion

serve.

centers

should

in the p a r t i c u l a r
This

is e s p e c ia lly

d iff e r e n c e between the le a d e rs
variable.

For example,

social

w e r e t h e s e c o n d mo s t f r e q u e n t l y m e n t i o n e d

l e a d e r s as b e i n g p r e f e r r e d

in a neighborhood

a nd
and

recreation center.
the r e sid e n ts
dents}.

T hese were l i s t e d

t h e l e a s t number o f t i m e s by

(21.2% o f t h e l e a d e r s compared t o 5.6% o f t h e r e s i ­

A lso,

it

s h o u l d b e k e p t i n mind t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

e x i s t e d between th e b la c k r e s i d e n t s

and w h i t e r e s i d e n t s b a s e d on

a c t i v i t y p r e f e r e n c e s a t neighborhood r e c r e a t i o n c e n t e r s .

T h is could

h a v e an e f f e c t on t h e t y p e s o f f a c i l i t i e s i n c l u d e d i n s u c h c e n t e r s
l o c a t e d i n p r e d o m i n a n t l y b l a c k , w h i t e , o r r a c i a l l y m ix e d n e i g h b o r h o o d s
There a r e s e v e r a l s u g g e s t i o n s f o r im proving t h e r e s e a r c h
m e th o d s f o r f u t u r e s t u d i e s
Model C i t i e s

in th e i n n e r - c i t y .

The p o l i c y o f t h e

agencies to h ir e personnel liv in g w ith in th at p a r tic u la r

a r e a p l a c e d c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s o f t h e i n t e r v i e w e r s
and made t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f d e s i r a b l e d a t a more d i f f i c u l t .

The a u t h o r

recommends t h a t f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h t h e s p o n s o r i n g a g e n c y r e c r u i t
and h i r e i n t e r v i e w e r s w i t h h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n a l q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a n d ,
i f p o s s ib le , w ith in te r v ie w in g ex p erien ce.
C o n sid e r a tio n should a l s o be g iv en t o th e tim e o f th e year
th a t the survey d ata are c o l l e c t e d .

I t a p p e a r s t h a t J u l y and A u g u st

w e r e n o t d e s i r a b l e months f o r d a t a c o l l e c t i o n d u e t o t h e number o f
r e s i d e n t s who w ere n o t a t home d u r i n g t h e t h r e e i n t e r v i e w a t t e m p t s .
Another s u g g e s t i o n i s

t o r e p la c e the s e lf - a d m in is t e r e d

q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i t h t h e p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w a s a d a t a - g a t h e r i n g method
for the o r g a n iz a tio n

lead ers.

T h i s m ig h t i n c r e a s e t h e r a t e o f

r e s p o n s e , b u t c o u l d r e q u i r e more f u n d s f o r d a t a c o l l e c t i o n .
A t t e m p t s s h o u l d b e made t o s e c u r e more c u r r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n
c o n c e r n i n g t h e a d d r e s s e s and o c c u p a n c y o f t h e d w e l l i n g u n i t s .

The

110

resea rch ers in t h i s

s t u d y had t o u s e d a t a o v e r a y e a r o l d

Lansing C ity D i r e c t o r y ) .

T h is r e s u lte d

(i.e .,

the

in a lo s s o f th e in te r v ie w e r s '

t i m e b e c a u s e o f t h e number o f d w e l l i n g u n i t s w h i c h w e r e u n o c c u p i e d
o r had b e e n c h a n g e d from r e s i d e n t i a l t o o t h e r u s e s .

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

A m erica n A s s o c i a t i o n f o r H e a l t h , P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n , and R e c r e a t i o n .
R ecreation R esearch.
W ashington, D .C .:
The A s s o c i a t i o n , 1966.
Burton,

Thomas L . ,
and Noad, P. A.
R ecreation Research M ethods: A
R eview o f R e c e n t S t u d i e s .
Birm in gh am , E n g la n d :
The U n i ­
v e r s i t y o f B irm ingham, E n g l a n d , 1 9 6 8 .

C a r t e r , G e n e v i e v e W.
" S o c i a l T r e n d s and R e c r e a t i o n P l a n n i n g . "
R e c r e a t i o n , LVIII ( O c t o b e r , 1 9 6 S ) , 3 7 8 - 8 0 .
C h a p i n , F. S t u a r t , J r . , and H i g h t o w e r , Henry C.
"Household A c t i v i t y
P a t t e r n s and Land U s e . "
J o u r n a l o f t h e A m erica n I n s t i t u t e o f
P l a n n e r s , XXXI ( A u g u s t , 1 9 6 5 ) , 2 2 2 - 3 1 .
C larke,

A l f r e d C.
" L e i s u r e and O c c u p a t i o n a l P r e s t i g e . "
Mass L e i s u r e .
E d i t e d b y E r i c L a r r a b e e and R o l f M e y e r s o h n .
G lencoe, 111.:
The F r e e P r e s s , 19 S 8 .

C l a r k e , D avid H . , and C l a r k e , H. H a r r i s o n .
Research P r o cesses in
P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n , R e c r e a t i o n , and H e a l t h .
E nglewood C l i f f s ,
N .J.:
P r e n t i c e - H a l 1, I n c . , 1 9 7 0 .
C o c h r a n , W i l l i a m G.
"The
T e s t o f Goodness o f F i t . "
The A n n a l s
o f M a t h e m a t i c a l S t a t i s t i c s , XXIII ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 3 1 5 - 4 5 .
"Some Methods f o r S t r e n g t h e n i n g t h e Common x
B i o m e t r i c s , X (December, 1 9 5 4 ) , 4 1 7 - 5 1 .

2

T ests."

D avies, C larence J.
N e i g h b o r h o o d Groups and Urban R e n e w a l .
York:
C o lu m b ia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 66.

New

Dunn, D ian a R.
" 1 9 7 0 Urban R e c r e a t i o n and Park . . . D a t a Bench
Mark Y e a r . "
P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n , VI ( F e b r u a r y , 1 9 7 1 ) ,
32-37+.
E m rie, W i l l i a m J .
R e c r e a t i o n P r o b le m s i n Urban I m p a ct ed A r e a s .
R ep ort t o t h e G o v e r n o r .
Sacram ento, C a l i f . , October 15,
F itzp atrick , P a tricia .
U n i v e r s i t y G u id e t o t h e P r e p a r a t i o n o f
Theses.
East L a n sin g , M ic h .: M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
1968.

Ill

1970.

112

F r e d e r i c k s o n , H. G e o r g e .
" E x p l o r i n g Urban P r i o r i t i e s :
The C a s e o f
S yracu se."
Urban A f f a i r s Q u a r t e r l y , V ( S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 6 9 ) ,
31-43.
G o o d a l e , Thomas L.
"An A n a l y s i s o f L e i s u r e B e h a v i o r and A t t i t u d e s
in S e l e c t e d M in n ea p o lis Census T r a c ts ."
U n p u b l i s h e d Ph .D .
t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s , 196S.
G ray, D a v i d E.
"Compensatory R e c r e a t i o n ."
IV ( A p r i l , 1 9 6 9 ) , 2 3 - 2 4 + .

P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n ,

G u g g e n h e i m e r , E l i n o r C.
P l a n n i n g f o r P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n N e e d s i n
Urban A r e a s . New York: Twayne P u b l i s h e r s , I n c . , 1 9 6 9 .
H a v i g h u r s t , R o b e r t J . , and F e i g e n b a u m , K en n eth .
" L e i s u r e and L i f e S ty le."
The A m e r ic a n J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y , LXIV ( J a n u a r y ,
1959), 396-404.
H e s t e r , Oka T.
" P o r ta b le P laygrou n d s."
(February, 1 9 7 1 ), 7 0 -72.
H utchinson, Ira J . , J r .
R ecreation , III

The Am er ica n C i t y , LXXXVI

" P l a n n i n g Where t h e A c t i o n I s . "
(J u ly , 1968), 22-24.

P a r k s and

K a i t z , Edward M . , and Hyman, H e r b e r t H.
Urban P l a n n i n g f o r S o c i a l
W elfare:
A Model C i t i e s A p p r o a c h . New York:
Praeger
P u b l i s h e r s , 1970.
K om hauser, Arthur.
D e t r o it as t h e P eople See I t .
U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1952.

D etroit:

Wayne

Kwong, F r a n c e s .
"Low Income and O p p o r t u n i t y :
Leisure-Tim e
A c t i v i t i e s and F a m i l y L i v i n g . "
Unpublished M a ster's t h e s i s ,
U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o , 1 9 66.
Lansing C i t y D i r e c t o r y .

D etroit:

R. L.

Maimon, Z v i .
"The I n n e r - C i t y I m p a c t . "
( D ecem b e r, 1 9 7 0 ) , 2 3 3 - 4 8 .

Polk 6 C o . , 1970.
Urban A f f a i r s Q u a r t e r l y , VI

Morgan S t a t e C o l l e g e Urban S t u d i e s I n s t i t u t e and S t r a t e g i c P l a n n i n g
C orporation.
A P l a n n i n g S t u d y o f Urban R e c r e a t i o n C o n c e p t s ,
B e h a v i o r , Demands, F a c i l i t i e s and Programs L e a d i n g t o t h e
D e v e l o p m e n t o f New P l a n n i n g G u i d e l i n e s .
R e p o r t t o t h e Bureau
o f O u td o o r R e c r e a t i o n , D e p a r t m e n t o f I n t e r i o r , W a s h i n g t o n ,
D .C ., B a l t i m o r e , 1970.
Murphy, James F.
" For W h ite o r B l a c k A m e r i c a . "
IV ( A u g u s t , 1 9 6 9 ) , 2 8 - 2 9 + .

P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n ,

113
N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n and Park A s s o c i a t i o n .
" N a t i o n a l Forum:
P ar ks
and R e c r e a t i o n i n t h e Urban C r i s e s . "
P ar ks and R e c r e a t i o n ,
IV ( J u n e , 1 9 6 9 ) , 3 5 - 4 6 .
__________ . "NRPA Model C i t i e s C o n t r a c t E n d s . "
V (Dec em ber, 1 9 7 0 ) , 5 5 - 5 6 .

P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n ,

N e s b i t t , Jo h n A . ; Brown, P a u l D. ; and Murphy, Janies F. , e d s .
R e c r e a t i o n and L e i s u r e S e r v i c e f o r t h e D i s a d v a n t a g e d .
P h i 1a d e l p h i a : Lea 5 F e b i g e r , 1 9 7 0 .
P e n d le t o n , C larence M ., J r .
"Community I n v o l v e m e n t . "
R e c r e a tio n , V (O ctober, 1 9 7 0 ), 21-22+.
P itt,

G i l l i a n M.
" L e i s u r e In A New Tow n."
XXIX (March, 1 9 6 1 ) , 1 1 8 - 2 1 .

P a r k s and

Town and C o u n t r y P l a n n i n g ,

R e c r e a tio n Resource C o n s u lt a n ts .
R e c r e a t i o n i n t h e L a n s i n g Model
C i t i e s A rea:
A P i l o t S t u d y o f S p a r e - T i m e B e h a v i o r and
A ttitu d es.
R e p o r t t o t h e L a n s i n g P l a n n i n g Boar d, L a n s i n g ,
M i c h . , 1972 .
R e i c h , C h a r l e s M.
" S o cio eco n o m ic F a c to r s R e la te d t o H ousehold
P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Community R e c r e a t i o n . "
U n p u b l i s h e d Ph.D .
t h e s i s , P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1965.
R e i s s m a n , L eo n a rd .
" C l a s s , L e i s u r e , and S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n . "
Am er ica n S o c i o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , XIX ( F e b r u a r y , 1 9 5 4 ) , 7 6 - 8 4 .
R e p o r t o f t h e N a t i o n a l A d v i s o r y C om m is sion on C i v i l D i s o r d e r s .
K e m e r , c h a ir m a n .
New York:
Bantam B o o k s , I n c . , 1 9 6 8 .

O tto

S h i v e r s , J a y S . , and H j e l t e , G e o r g e .
Planning R ecrea tio n a l P l a c e s .
R utherford, N. J . :
F a ir le ig h D ickinson U n iv e r s ity P r e s s ,
1971.
S ieg el,

Sidney.
Nonparam etric S t a t i s t i c s f o r th e B eh a v io ra l
S c i e n c e s . New York:
M cG raw -H ill Book Company, 1 9 5 6 .

Survey Research C enter.
I n t e r v i e w e r ' s M a n u a l.
I n s t i t u t e f o r S o c i a l R e s e a r c h , 1969.

Ann A r b o r , M i c h . :

T u r a b i a n , Kate L.
A Manual f o r W r i t e r s o f Term P a p e r s , T h e s e s , and
D issertations^
3rd e d .
Chicago:
U n i v e r s it y o f Chicago
P r e s s , 1967.
W h i t e , R. C l y d e .
" S o c ia l C la s s D i f f e r e n c e s i n th e Uses o f L e is u r e ."
Mass L e i s u r e .
E d i t e d b y E r i c L a r r a b e e and R o l f M e y e r s o h n .
G lencoe, 111. :
The F r e e P r e s s , 1 9 5 8 .
Young, W h itn e y M . , J r .
" C risis--C h a llen g e--C h a n g e."
R e c r e a t i o n , IV ( A p r i l , 1 9 6 9 ) , 4 2 - 4 3 + .

P ar k s and

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

City

of

LANSING

L A N S I N G ,

M I C H I G A

CITIES D E M O N S T R A T IO N A O E N C Y
M O D E L CITIES
ID tK

E . M ID h lB A N A V E .

MODEL CI TI ES SPARE TIME ACTIVITY NEEDS SURVEY

This i s to introduce
a survey of

.

the sp are time a c t i v i t i e s

In t h e Model N e i g h b o r h o o d s .

She i s h e l p i n g u s make

and f a c i l i t i e s

Woul d y o u p l e a s e a s s i s t

th a t a re needed
h e r by

answering th e q u e s tio n s ?
Thank you f o r y o u r c o o p e r a t i o n .
Sincerely,
>nj|
*

cq u elin e W arr, Acting D ire c to r
C i t y D e m o n s t r a t i o n Ag e n c y
Mo d e l C i t i e s

JW:bw

114

1 IS

MODEL C IT IE S/R E C R E A T IO N RESOURCE CO N SU LTANTS

INTERVIEW NO.

1971 R EC REA TIO N NEEDS SURVEY

C o w Page

H O U SEHOLD QUESTIO N N A IRE

A .

LOCATION OATA

Block No

Multiple
Unit
Selected

Address.

.......................

Model Cities Aras No.
Census Tract No

■ .

INTERVIEWER

Name

G -

RECORD OF CALLS AND APPOINTMENTS

D ate Received

{AP

A ppointm ent)
1st

3rd

2nd

Date
Day o f Week
Hour of Day
Results:

a.m . or p.m.

tN T
NAH
RAA
REF
HV
AND
NSA
LB

- Interview
* No on* at hom e
- Responsible adult absent
* Refused
■ House vacant
• Address not a dwelling
- No such address
- Leas titan B m onths resident

In lo v in M r’i com m ent* III REF, <Av?)

Interview Tim*

Mir

Supervisor's Instructions:

D.

PRIMARY RESPONDENT DATA

,__ ,

eo

e

,

,

□

a

ffl

ffl

q

Marital S t*tut
Married

[m

f.

Separated

I a I:

Divorced

fd I .

Single

1i ) ;

Q uestionnaire copyright RECREATION RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, East Lansing, Michigan

W idowed

Iwl

116

LANSING M ODEL C IT IE S PROGRAM

INTERVIEW NO.

1971 SPARE TIME A CTIV ITV NEEDS SURVEY
H OUSEHOLD Q U ESTIO N N A IRE
HELLO. MV NAME IS . . .
I AM FROM THE MODEL CITIES PROGRAM WE ARE MAKING A STUDY OF WHAT
PEOPLE DO IN THEIR SPARE TIME AND WHAT PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES ARE NEEDED IN THE
MOOEL CITIES AREA. MAY I SPEAK TO THE {MAN) (WOMANI OF THE HOUSE?

*1.

HOW LONG HAVE YOU/HAS YOUR HOUSEHOLD/LIVEO IN LAN SIN G'
(If Im than S month*, thank respondent and Nava)

month*

v*ar*

PART I—INTRODUCTION
THE MODEL CITIES TASK FORCES AND PREVIOUS STUDIES TELL US THAT HAVING ENOUGH SPARE TIME
OPPORTUNITIES IS IMPORTANT. ESPECIALLY FOR YOUNG PEOPLE PLEASE MAY I ASK YOU SOME OUES
TIONS ABOUT YOUR SPAHE TIME ACTIVITIES? ALL YOUR ANSWERS WILL BE TREATEO AS COMPLETELY
CONFIDENTIAL

* •.

DO YOU FEEL THIS NEIGHBORHOOD O FFERS ADEOUATE SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES FOR YOU/AND YOUR
__
HOUSEHOLO? IC hackonal
Ya*
Q ;
No
[ r>| ,
D on't know
[J
If " n o ." WHAT SUGGESTIONS OO YOU HAVE FOR IMPROVING THE SITUATION?
Suggaattona:

3.

DO YOU/DOES THIS HOUSE HOLD/OWN ANY OF THE SPORTS OR OTHER SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES EQUIP
MENT LISTED ON THIS CARD? (Hand respondent fledtcard no. II

¥ «*

H

No

[n ]

If " v a t." WHICH ONES AND HOW MANY OF EACH?
number
number
numbar
numbar
num bar
numbar
numbar

Bicycle*
BaMcetbell*
Bathing *uit*
Hard/aoft ball*
Beaatoall b a ll
Football*
F idling rod*

*4.

(aI

Golf club **T*
Tanni* racket*
Roller Stale*
lea A at at
Toboggan* or aladi
O ther, 1
Specify f

numbar
numbar
number
numbar
num bar
numbar
numbar

DO YOU/DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD/HAVE A CAR IN WORKING ORDER?
Ya*

| y 1 ._____________ III m ow than ona. total num ber of car*_____________L_______________ No______L lJ _

lb)

IS A FRIEND'S VEHICLE AVAILABLE?

Ya*

Q

(cl

DO YOU/DOES THIS HOUSEHOLD/USE THE CITY BUS SYSTEM REGULARLY?

Ya*

[~7|

Id)

ANY OTHER MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION USED REGULARLY BY THIS HOUSEHOLD? (cab, com pany
vehicle. ate.)

Y a.

H ,

•pacify

.

No fn~]
No frT]

No

[n ]

117

V .

ARE YOU/IS YOUR HOUSEHOLD/PLANNING TO STAY IN LANSING?

Yaa

[7 ] ;

No

IF "N O ." EXPLAIN

WOULD

Q

________

YOU PLEASE

TELL ME A LITTLE ABOUT YOU/EACH MEMBER OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD?
RalaiHHnhip to
Primarv Raapondani

Saa

Firat N ama

/ if tndNldual
form naadad

AW

t. |P rtm . Raap.)
2.

. . . . .

.

-------------------------------

-

3.
4.
5.
8.
7.
B.
THERE ARE MANY KINDS OF PLACES WHERE ONE CAN DO SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES. HERE IS A LIST OF THE
MAIN ONES AND SOME OF THE THINGS ONE CAN DO (H and raapoodant fiaahcard no. 2> FIR ST. LET'S TALK
ABOUT CITY OPERATED PA RK S AND GOLF COURSES INOT SCHOOL PLAYGROUNDS).

(a)

DO YOU KNOW THE NAMES OF THE TWO LANSING CITY PARKS WHICH ARE CLOSEST TO YOU?
Nama

Know:
(bi

.
B oth

.

.

N ama

Or*

1 fa I .

| o| ;

. .
Naithar a n a I

I

(Chat* ona)

If raapondant d id n o t know bM h, (all him /har:
YOUR NEAREST CITY PARKS ARE

and

DO YOU KNOW HOW TO GET TO THEM?
Waapondanl Lna*» bow lo aat to: B oth
tel

par*. Yaa
-

|~o~l :

N althat ona I

]

(C hat* ona)

-

v"

| vl

lactkvftiaa)

. No

[n ]

a

(actiwrtiaal

: No

Q iJ

HAVE YOU/MEMBERS O F YOUR HOUSEHOLD/EVER BEEN/AS A FAMILY GROUP/TO EITHER OF THESE
TWO NEAREST PARKS?
(activfliat undartafcan thara)

Yaa
la)

Ona

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THINGS YOU CAN OO AT THESE TWO NEAREST PARKS?

(d|

[_bj ;

- . .

; No

[n_]

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT KEEPS YOU/YOUR HOUSEHOLD/FROM USING THESE TWO NEAREST
PARKS/FOR FAMILY ACTIVITIES/AS OFTEN AS YOU WOULD LIKE?
Yaa

Q

tdatalfal

.

.

, No

fn~|

118

.

la)

DO YOU KNOW WHERE ANY OTHER LANSING CITY PARKS OR GOLF COURSES ARE LOCATED AND
WHAT YOU CAN OO THERE? (Not the ones m entioned m 7b)
Knew where
it was
ye*
no

given

Been
th ere

be avertable

Never
been

1
2.
3.
4.
[b)

(Now bend respondent tladvcerd no. 3.)
OO YOU KNOW WHERE ANY OF THESE PARKS WHICH WE HAVEN'T MENTIONED BEFORE ARE
LOCATED AND WHAT YOU CAN OO AT THEM?
Knew w here
it wee
no
vee

Activities a i d to
be avertable

If

Park name
know n

Never
been

1.
2,
3
4.

9 S DIO YOU/MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD/EVER GO/AS A FAMILY GROUP/TO ANY LANSING CITY PARKS
OR GOLF COURSES LAST SUMMER (19701 OR LAST FALL, WINTER OR SPRING <1970711? ICheck one)
Y et

|

y|

.

(Proceed with reet of this question)

No

3 u r n mar m onth* in 1970
'

(e) WHICH PARKS OID YOU/
YOUR GROUP/GO TO?
(b) HOW DID YOU GET
TH ER E?
Ic) ABOUT HOW MANY
TIMES?
<d) HOW MANY F ROM
YOUR HOUSE WENT?
lei WHAT ACTIVITIES
DID YOU USUALLY
OO THERE?

1.
2.
3

If) WHY OID YOU PICK
THAT PARK?

Comment*:
(Now proceed to Q uestion 10)

£n]

(It " n o ," go on to Question 10)
9 cool month*, 1970-71

119

*fOt WOULD

YOU/YOUR HOUSEHOLD/LIKE TO HAVE GONE/GONE MORE/TO LANSING CITY PARKS THIS PAST

YEAR?

Ym

[7 ] :

No

fn~[

(It ’’vaa," proto* rmmtont for not goinj. Any protoiam*' Oo not giM e tM p lM l)
(If no," carefully proto* rmuaom for not w anting to go o r go more)
3 turrvmar month*, 1970

.

..

9 oool month*. 1870-71

If.

(a)

_

..._..

.

________ _________ ____

DID YOU/YOUR HOUSEHOLD/KNOW ABOUT THE RECREATION PROGRAMS THE CITY OF LANSING
PUT ON LAST SUMMER AND WINTER? (Chock on*)
Yaa

(b)

___________________

. . . . . .

|_yj

(Procaad with reat o f n utation)

No

| n |_______ |l f "n o .'' proba to chock)

WHICH LOCATIONS AND PROGRAMS DID YOU KNOW ABOUT?
3 a im m a m onth* in 1870

Park, Plavfftiund,
School or
Racraal ion Can tar nam a

8 cool month*. 1B7G71

1

2.
3.

-

P ra g a M :
4.

■

-

-------

-

6
e.
Ic)

HOW DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THESE CITY SPONSORED RECREATION PROGRAMS? (chock ona)
Lanalnf S tate Jo u rn al notice
Notioa b ra u d it hom a from tchool
Children haard a b o u t it from friend*
N a i^ b o r t told rno ab o u t it
O thar |«p*effy>

□
□
□
□
□

Ilf «ngla. divorcad. w p aratad or widowad and

living a b w ,

go on to Part III, quoation 21, tha individual quoatkinnair*.)

120

t S . D I D MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD GO TOGETHE R TO AN Y PLACES OUTSIDE THE CITY FOR PICNICKING
OR SWIMMING, TO SEE A SHOW. FOR A VACATION TRIP, OR SOME OTHER KINO OF SPARE TIME ACTIVITY
THIS PAST YEAR?
Vh

|7 ]

(Procaad w ith ract

of quattio n ).

No

[n ]

(If "n o ," go on to Q uaation 131
8 cool m ontha. 1970-71

3 aummar m onth* in 1870
(a) WHERE OID YOU GO?
lb) FAMILY TRIP OR GROUP?
Ic) HOW DID YOU GET
THERE?
Id? ABOUT HOW MANY
TIMES DIO YOUR
HOUSEHOLD GO?
(a) HOW MANY FROM THIS
HOUSEHOLD USUALLY
WENT?
(f? WHAT ACTIVITIES
DID YOUR HOUSE­
HOLD MEMBERS
USUALLY DO
THERE?
Activitiaa

1.
2.

--------

„

------------- ----

.

- --

---------

3.

------- -----------

4.
6.

<al WHY DID YOUR
HOUSEHOLD PICK
THAT PARTICULAR
LOCATION?

I S . (aI

WAS LAST YEAR UNUSUAL FOR SOME REASON AS FAR AS SPARE TIME AND TRIPS GO?
raapondant. P raba caratulty A A If any r a c i a l praMama. Oo not *fv* axampiaa.I

(Oo not M

tha

(if "n o ." go o n to Q u a a io n 14)
(b|

(If "yaa" )
IN WHAT WAY WAS LAST YEAR UNUSUAL?

THOSE ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS ABOUT SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES YOU DO TOGETHER. NOW I WOULD LIKE
TO GET SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE INOIVIDUAL SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES OF EACH MEMBER O F THE
HOUSEHOLD.
(If no ona In thahouaahoM la undar 12, fD on to individual quaationnaira, Qumtion 21.)
WE HAVE INDIVIDUAL FORMS FOR THOSE 12 YEARS OLD ANO OVER BUT I WILL NEED YOUR HELP WITH
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE CHILO(REN) IN THIS HOUSEHOLD THAT ARE OVER 3 BUT
UNDER 13 YEARS OF AGE

121

RANT II—CHILDREN'S ACTIVITIES
1 4 . ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS IN AN AVERAGE WEEK IN THE 3 SUMMER MONTHS AND IN THE COOL MONTHS
DID YOUR CHILDREN (OVER 3 AND UNDER 12) SPEND ON VARIOUS SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES? IA ik about
•tc h activity, thttw " o " w N rt nont.i
N am e &

H ot

H ot

Cool

Hot

Cool

Hot

Cool

Hot

H ot

Cool

Cool

Muwc a t horn*
Scouting
Church dutoa
YMCA,, YWCA
City *>onaor*d
recreation

School ctonaorad ckiba.

O ther Capacity)

1 B .la l

DID YOUR CHILDIREN) GO TO DAY CAMP OR OVERNIGHT CAMP LAST SUMMER?
Yai

(b)

| y J________IProcaid w ith raat ol n u ta jo n l,____________ No

WAS IT DAY CAMP OR OVERNIGHT CAMP?
Child'* Nama

Day or o v e rru le ?
It o v a n q p t.
num bar o t dayi?
Run by?

1

2

1n ]________<11 "n o ."

go on to Q u i t ion 161

WHAT ORGANIZATION WAS RUNNING IT?
3.

4.

«

122

* 1 « u .)

OO YOU FEEL THIS COMMUNITY SHOULD HAVE MORE OR DIFFERENT KINDS OF AFTER SCHOOL.
WEEK-END. AND SUMMER ACTIVITIES FOR CHILDREN UNDER 12>
y«

|b)

i n ._________________ h o

m

(i f "n o ." go on to Q uestion 1 71

(If ’'ye*'' I
WHAT SHOULD BE PROVIDED. WHERE SHOULD IT BE. AND WHAT AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION
SHOULD DO IT?
Needed activity?

For w hom ?

Agency or organ ir a t ton?

When?

Where? (location)

1,
2.

_

3.
4.
G.

V7*.<«)

OID YOUR CHILO(REN) {UNDER 17) GO TO ANY LANSING CITY PARKS WITHOUT ADULT MEMBERS OF
THIS HOUSEHOLD LAST SUMMER OR DURING THE COOL MONTHS?
Y«

[y |

{Proceed w ith reft of queMfonI:

No

3 am tm er m onthe in 1070
(a) WHICH PARKS DID
THEY GO TO?
lb) HOW DID THEY
GET THERE?
{Cl ABOUT HOW MANY
TIMES OID THEY GO?
(d) HOW MANY F ROM
THIS HOUSEHOLD
WENT?
la) WHAT ACTIVITIES
OID THEY
USUALLY DO
THERE?

1.
2.
3.
4.

If) WHY DID THEY GO
TO THAT PARTICULAR
PARK?
Comment*:

[ n"|

(II

"no." go on

to O uertion 181

6 coo! month*. 1070-71

123

• 1 S .W O U L D YOUR CHILDREN (UNDER 12} LIKE TO HAVE GONE/GONE MORE/TO LANSING CITY PARKS?

v«*

B ;

N°

B

(If " v a t / ’ proto* i M » n t for not going or not going m ore. Do not giv* rra m p lm 11
(If " n o ." carefully probe rM to n t for not wanting to go or go m a tt.]
3 rum m er month* in 1070

9 ooo( month*, 1070-71

f 9 . DIO YOUR CHILOCRENI IUNOER 171 TAKE PART IN ANY LANSING CITY SPONSORED SPARE TIME PROGRAMS
LAST SUMMER OR DURING THE COOL MONTHS?
Y*»

[y |

(Proceed with r u t o f qwMtianl;

No

j~n]

3 aummar m onth* in 1970

Ilf " n o ." go on to Question 201
9 cool month*. 1970-71

(al WHICH PARKS OR
RECREATION CEN
TER S DID THEY GO TO?
(HI HOW DIO THEY GET
THERE?
(Cl ABOUT HOW MANY
TIMES DID THEY GO?
(dl HOW MANY FROM THIS
HOUSE HO L 0 WENT?
I«l WHAT KIND OF
ACTIVITIES DID
THEY USUALLY
OO THERE?
Act hrit i**

1.
_
3.
4.

(f| WHY DIO THEY GO TO
THAT PARTICULAR
PROGRAM?
Comment*:

•SO.WOULD YOUR CHILDREN LIKE TO HAVE TAKEN PART/TAKEN PART MORE O FTE N /IN PROGRAMS SPON­
SORED BY THE CITY OF LANStNG?

Y**

[7 ] ;

Wo

j~n~|

(If ’’y tt ," p ra b tiN W fit for n o t doing *o Any protoltmi ? Do not give w n n p l n l l
(If " n o ," a n f u l l y proto* r***on* for not wanting to do n l
3 tum m ar month* in 197D

9 cool month*. 1970-71

NOW, MAY I START THE INDIVIDUAL FORMS BY ASKING YOU ABOUT YOUR OWN SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES?

124

HELP US PLAN BETTER SPARE TIM E PROGRAMS!

IN T E R V IE W N O .

PART lll-IN D IV ID U A L SPARE TIME INFORMATION
{lor all houw bold resKtenta 12 y n r i old and older)
F ir*t Nam*

S S j W H A T BEST DESCRIBES YOUR STATUS THIS PAST 12 MONTHS?
C ontinue to O uenion 23.

WORKING (full or part time)

0
0

Icl

HOMEMAKER (not wortiing)

0

G o on to Question 25

Id)

U N E M P L O Y E D ...................

0

G o on to Question 25.

(•)

RETIRED (not working) . .

□

Go on to Oueat ion 25.

(a)

STUDENT

(to)

Go on to Q ueftion 24.

for ttudmri only)
(•I

WHICH SCHOOL WERE YOU ENROLLED IN THIS PAST SCHOOL YEAR?
tchool/oolleg* name

(b)

WHAT GRADE ICLASSOR YEAR) WERE YOU IN?
<radWv**r

|c)

WERE YOU A FULL TIME STUDENT?
Yea

(d|

[ T | :__________________No

f n~|

DID YOU TAKE PART IN ANY ORGANIZED SCHOOL/COLLEGE SPORTS THIS PAST
Y*e

[7] .

SCHOOL

YEAR?

0

(H "v*a":1
WHICH SPORTS DID YOU TAKE PART IN AND ABOUT
1

Nam* of aport

2

3

HOW MANY

TIMES IN THE PAST SCHOOL YEAR?
4.

S.

Number of timea
(el

DIO YOU GO TO ANY SCHOOL/COLLEGE SPORTS EVENTS AS A SPECTATOR THIS PAST SCHOOL YEAR?
Y*a

0

,

No

[7 J

I11 “y e i" :)
WHICH SPORTS EVENTS AND ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES IN THE PAST SCHOOL YEAR?
Event
Number of time*

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

125

m

DO YOU BELONG TO ANY CLUBS OR ORGANIZATIONS AT YOUR SCHOOL/COLLEGE?
Y*»

Q

;

No

[n ]

(If '"y**” :)
WHICH CLUBS OR ORGANIZATIONS AND ABOUT HOW MANY TIMES THIS PAST SCHOOL YEAR ISEP
TEMBER TO JUNE) DID YOU ATTEND MEETINGS OUT OF SCHOOL HOURS?
Nama of club or organisation

Numbar of limy*

1.
2.
3.

4.
* (fll

DO YOU FEEL YOUR SCHOOL SHOULD PROVIDE MORE OR D IFFER EN T KINDS OF AFTER SCHOOL
SPO RTS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES?
V*»

[7 J:

No

0

(If " v w " :l
WHAT SPORTS OR ACTIVITIES WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE PART IN A FTE R SCHOOL?
Sport* an d ie tl« H I«

(III

__

IF YOUR SCHOOL DIO HAVE MORE A FTER SCHOOL SPORTS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES. WOULD YOU
TAKE PANT MORE O FTEN ?
Yaa

[7 ] ;

No

[7 ]

(If "n o " : I
WHY WOULD YOU NOT TAKE PART MORE O FTEN ?

(i)

DID YOU HAVE A PA R T TIME JOB DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR?
Yaa

[7 ] ;

No

[~n~]

Ilf " n o ," plaara go on to O uaation 2B)

(If "y a a " )
ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS EACH WEEK DID YOU WORK?

• M

,

(for paraona mforking fuH or part timai
(al

WHAT KINO OF WORK DO YOU DO?
kind of work

lb)

, amployar

HOW MANY HOURS A WEEK ON THE AVERAGE D1D YOU WORK THIS PAST YEAR?
lu w ri par waak

boon

126

tel

DID YOU USUALLY WORK REGULAR OAYTIME HOURS?
Y*»

j~y ] p

No

[n ] *

O ther

[o [

_
DIO YOU USUALLY WORK
Id)

p i ._________________ nights

f iT l,_________________o th w

fo"f

IF YOU W ORKEO FULL TIME. DIO YOU WORK OUT O f TOWN AND THEREFORE WERE NOT ABLE TO
GET HOME EVERY DAY?

Ho GD

V** H :

(If "yaa":)
HOW OFTEN ON THE AVERAGE DIO YOU G ET HOME? (ehack ona)
2 or 3 tbnaa a w M k
lal

t 1

one* a

«■ )

I1

.

laaa than onca a waak

I I

OIO YOU GET A VACATION WITH PAY O U flIN G THE PAST 12 MONTHS?

V“

0

:

*°

E

(If "vaa" )
HOW MUCH VACATION DIO YOU GET?

waak*

• S 0 . W H A T GRADE IN SCHOOL DID YOU COMPLETE? (circla one I
4

5

6

2

■

Public School

I
|

B

10

11

12

I
|

High School

1

3

3

4

Collage

5
or m ora
vaari

0 0 . WHAT SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES OID YOU PERSONALLY OO IN YOUR HOME (OR SOMEONE ELSE'S HOME)
THIS PAST YEAR OUR1NG AN AVERAGE WEEK IN THE 3 SUMMER MONTHS AND IN THE COOL MONTHS?
(TV, muaic. hotahiea. gamaa, con*arration, raad ln t. playing w ith chM ran, entertaining lu en d t. working m th e yard, titling
on the porch, sunbathing. playing carda, rH ating, ale. I
ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS DID YOU SPEND ON EACH ACTIVITY IN AN AVERAGE WEEK?

N am a of activity

Numbar ol hour* par tw
in 3 wmmar m onlhi

Numbar ol hour sp a r i
in 9 cool m onth*

127

MtWm(•)

OID VOU PERSONALLY TAKE PART IN ANY SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES AT COMMERCIAL ESTABLISH
MENTS (SUCH AS BOWLING ALLEYS, MOVIES, BARS. POOL HALLS, ETC.I DURING THE SUMMER
MONTHS AND IN THE COOL MONTHS THIS PAST YEAR ? ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS DID YOU SPEND
ON EACH ACTIVITY IN AN AVERAGE WEEK I
N umber of hour* p e r week
in 3 summer m onth*

Type o t eitabliihm ent and activity

Number of hour* p er week
in 9 cool m onth*

\.
2.
3.
4.
S.
0.
T.
B.
* <b|

HOW WOULD YOU SAY THIS PART OF THE CITY COMPARES TO OTHERS IN PROVIDING COMMERCIAL
RECREATION? (check on*I
B etter then average

• (cl

[

|

A bout n P l R

|

j

Below average

|

j

D o n 't know

|

|

DO YOU FEEL THIS PART OF THE CITY NEEDS MORE COMMERCIAL RECREATION ESTABLISHMENTS?
Icheck one)
Ya*

Jy ] .

No

[n | .

D o n 't know

[

|

(II "v aa":I
WHAT KINDIS) ARE NEEDED?

I Interviewer note: prim ary reepondenri living alone will have already told you about park* they w ent to in Q uestions 9 and
(0 Turn beck to tbeae qua*non* to give you a lead in for tba next question I

DID YOU PERSONALLY TAKE PART IN ANY SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES AT CITY PARKS OR RECREATION
CENTERS (OH SCHOOLS WHICH HAD CITY RECREATION PROGRAMS! DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS
AND IN THE COOL MONTHS THIS PAST YEAR, AND ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS DIO YOU SPEND ON
EACH ACTIVITY DURING AN AVERAGE WEEK?

Perk or recreation center

Number o l tio u itp a r w*
in 3 sum m er m onth*

N umber of hour* p er
in 9
I m onth*

128

•

(b)

WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE GONE/MO HE O FTEN /TO LANSING CITY PARKS THIS PAST YEAH ?
Y ai

0

(If

.

No

[n ]

WHAT PREVENTED YOU FHOM GOING/AS OFTEN AS YOU LIKED?

Raaaont:

* (cl

HOW WOULD YOU SAY THIS NEIGHBORHOOD COMPARES TO OTHERS IN LANSING WITH REGARD TO
CITY PARKS ANO RECREATION PROGRAMS? (chat* one)
Batfar than t « n g »

•

(dl

[__|

A bout tv r» n >

[__ [

._____Btkx* i v t u y t

[_ J

,_____ D on't k n o o

[__|

ARE THERE WAYS IN WHICH THE CITY PARK ANO RECREATION DEPARTMENT CAN IMPROVE ITS
SERVICES IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? Ichock on*)
Y a.

;

No

.

Don't

know |

|

Ilf "yaa ' I PLEASE EXPLAIN

t g , |i |

OID YOU PERSONALLY TAKE PART IN ANY SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES AT THE YMCA OR YWCA, OR AT A
CHURCH, CLUB OR OTHER SIMILAR ORGANIZATION DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS AND IN THE
COOL MONTHS THIS PAST YEAR AND ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS DID YOU 5PEND ON EACH ACTIVITY
IN AN AVERAGE WEEK?
N umbar of h o u ri pur M f i
in 3 Kimmai m o n lh i

Nm m of o rganiiation and activity

Numbar of hour* p ar i i w i
m 9 cool m onth*

1
2.
3.
4.
S.
«
7.
8
* |b |

WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE TAKEN PART/MORE OFTEN/IN YMCA. CHURCH. CLUB OR SIMILAR SPARE
TIME ACTIVITIES THIS PAST YEAR?
Ya*

0

;

No

0

(If “vM ’ I WHAT PREVENTED YOU FROM TAKING PART/AS OFTEN AS YOU WOULD LIKE?
Raaaon*.

129

* (cl

HOW WOULD YOU SAY THIS NEIGHBORHOOD COMPARES WITH OTHERS IN LANSING WITH REGARD
TO SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES O FFERED BY THE YMCA, YWCA. CHURCHES, CLUBS AND OTHER SIMILAR
PLACES? Icheck o n e|
B atin than average

* (d)

|

]

A bout average

I

I

Below average

j

|

D on't know

|

1

ARE THERE WAYS IN WHICH THE YMCA. YWCA. CHURCHES. CLUBS OR OTHER SIMILAR ORGANIZA
TIONS COULD IMPROVE THE SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES THEY O FFER FOR PEOPLE IN YOUR NEIGHBOR
HOOD? (chock one!
Ye.
III

"

[y ],
v n " :1

No

|n| ,

D on’t know

|~~“1

PLEASE EXPLAIN

• 9 0 . 1 F A SPARE TIME CENTER WERE BUILT IN YOUR PART OF THE CITY,
(a)

WHAT ARE THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES (indoor* or outdoor*) THAT YOU
PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO THERE?
1. Moar im portant
2. SKOetfimiil important:

3.
(b)

Tfurd moat

im portant:

HOW FAR WOULD YOU TRAVEL TO A CENTER WHICH HAO THE KINDS OF ACTIVITIES THAT YOU
LIKE?
Number o l block*

(C)

SHOULD A LEISURE TIME CENTER OF THIS KIND HAVE BOTH INDOOR AND OUTDOOR SPARE TIME
ACTIVITIES AT THE SAME LOCATION OR SHOULD OUTDOOR FACILITIES BE AT ANOTHER LOCATION?
(check onel
Same location

Id!

f*~1.

A nother location

| *1 .

D o n 't know

□

. D on’t know

I

WHAT AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION SHOULD OPERATE CENTEHS OF THIS TYPE?
Agency nam e

<a|

or N um bar of mile*

I

HOW WOULD YOU FEEL ABOUT HAVING OTHER SERVICES AT A CENTER LIKE THIS? I MEAN THINGS
LIKE SOCIAL SERVICES. HEALTH CLINICS, AND LEGAL SERVICES
Comment*

130

SI. (a)

IN THE PAST YEAR, 0 1 0 YOU CO TO ANY PLACES OUTSIDE THE CITY FOR PICNICKING, SWIMMING.
TO SEE A SHOW. ATTEND A SPORTS EVENT. FOR A VACATION TRIP. OR FOR SOME OTHER KIND OF
SPARE TIME ACTIVITY/WITHOUT ANY MEMBERS OF YOUR HOUSEHOLD'
Yei

|y],

(Proceed w ith rest of queationl,

No

Summer months in 1970

QT]

(II "n o ," go on to O ueiiion 31b|
Cool m onths, 1970 71

la) WHERE DID YOU GO?
(bl WHAT GROUP DIO
YOU GO WITH?
|c) HOW DIO YOU GET
THERE?
fdj ABOUT MOW MANY
TIMES DIO YOU GO?
(el HOW LONG WERE
YOU AWAY?
(f) WHAT ACTIVITIES
OID YOU
PERSONALLY
OO THERE?

1
2
3.

’ Activities
4.
B
la) WHY DIO YOU PICK
THAT PARTICULAR
PLACE?

(Not*:

II you w ant to many places, pick H u m that involved i h t p a n i i i amount of time away from th e city. For tram p le
pick a place you w ant to to tim at to t 3 hours ahead of a place you w ent to for a w hole day but only once.)
(b)

WAS LAST YEAR UNUSUAL FOR SOME REASON AS FAR AS SPARE TIME ANO TRIPS GO? DID YOU (OR
YOUR FAMILY) HAVE ANY PROBLEMS THAT PREVENTED YOU GOING TO PLACES YOU USUALLY
WENT IN PREVIOUS YEARS?

V»

0 ■

No

0

Ilf “ ye*":) IN WHAT WAY WAS THE PAST YEAR UNUSUAL?
G nre detatli

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP'
THE RESULTS OF THIS SURVEY WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE MODEL CITIES BOARD AND ClTY COUNCIL

131

(Than arii H you can intarviaw each w w separately or leave to rim for absent household m am bert and call back. H Iattar,
maria a iM M m appomtmmnt.
H fftrO T M rvaw num tei’ o n a K /i

indiridust form (Art you c a r i v

Aaava /

PART IV—PERSON AL INFORMATION
FINALLY. WE NEEO TO KNOW ONE IMPORTANT PERSONAL FACT ABOUT THIS HOUSEHOLD IT WILL HELP
US TO UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS WHICH YOU FACE.
.W H A T IS THIS HOUSEHOLD'S PRIMARY SOURCE OF INCOME f (check only onal
Salary or a a g n

□

Pension

I

Public aMistance

l~~l

I

Investm ent income

□

O thar

1 1

*S3. DO

YOU/DOES THIS HOUSEHOLD/RECEIVE INCOME EVERY WEEK, EVERY TWO WEEKS. OR EVERY MONTH/
(chuck ona)

Week

Q

;

Two weeks

Q

;

Month

[ ] ;

Othar

I

I

fUaa raapondant'a answer to aalact appropriate flaahcard)

.PLEA SE WILL YOU TELL ME THE LETTER ALONGSIDE THE FIGURE WHICH BEST INDICATES YOUR TOTAL
HOUSEHOLD INCOME BEFORE TAXES ARE TAKEN O F F ? (chuck only onal
A
B
C
D

a

□
□
□
□

(If household la in tho "other" category in Q uestion 33, aak respondent
(o autimuta to tal houaahold aarninga bafora tees* in calandar yaar 1970
Show annual flaahcard I

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FO R YOUR ASSISTANCE
(Bafora you laava tha dwalilng un it, gbuM t chock that you hawa
11|
(21
(3|
(4|

Triad to gat a r n p o n a for a/i partinam quaatioria.
Marked every Queer/an Including "d o n 't know*” and taros.
Triad to gat individual interviews with all 12 year olds and over
Mark ad any individual Quasi ion nairas you iaft and m ade an appointm ent to call back.I

SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES EQUIPMENT.
BICYCLES
BASKETBALLS
BATHING SUITS
HARD OR SOFT BALLS
BASEBALL BATS
FOOTBALLS
FISHING RODS
GOLF CLUB SETS
TENNIS RACKETS
ICE SKATES
TOBOGGANS OR SLEDS

ANY OTHER EQUIPMENT FOR INDOOR OR
OUTDOOR SPORTS, HUNTING, OR FISHING

133

PLACES FOR SPARE TIME ACTIVITIES WITH SOME EXAMPLES
1.

AT HOME AND_IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
- Pl a y

- Re l a x

T.V,

- Wa t c h

- V isit

- Ea t

out

- Da n c e

- S ee

a

- Dr i n k

friends

show

beer

- Bo w l

pool

AT YMCA,YWCA.CHURCH,CLUB AND OTHER SIMILAR RECREATION CENTERS
- Pl a y

4,

children

AT COMMERCIAL RECREATION ESTABLISHMENTS

- Pl a y
3.

the

- Ho b b i e s

- Re a d
2,

with

indoor g a me s

- Ke e p

fit

classes

- Ba s k e t b a l l

- Sw i m m i n g

- Ar t s

- Ch i l d r e n 's

and

crafts

camping

program

AT CITY OF LANSING PARKS
- Ch i l d r e n 's

play areas

- Zoo

- Re l a x i n g

- Pl a y

- P icnicking

- Ic e

golf
skating

- Sw i m m i n g
5,

AT CITY RECREATION CENTERS
- Cr a f t s

- Vo l l e y b a l l

- Ba s k e t b a l l

- Se n i o r

- P ing
6.

c i t i z e n 's a c t i v i t i e

pong

BOARD OF EDUCATION AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS AT SCHOOLS
- Sp o r t s

-

Sc h o o l

- At h l e t i c s

- Da n c e s

clubs

DOWNTOWN AND OTHER MAIN CITY OF LANSING PARKS

SEVENTH STREET

OAK PARK

LARCH

SYCAMORE

REASONER

ST.JOSEPH

ELM

GIER

CLIFFORD

SCOTT - COOLEY

FERRIS

POTTER

QUENTIN

FRANCES

PORTER

FENNER

BANCROFT - ORMOND

GROESBECK GOLF COURSE

HUNTER

RED CEDAR GOLF COURSE

MOORES

SYCAMORE GOLF COURSE

MARSHALL

135

Trvrfli HnnsFHnin iwrnHF
FVFRY WEEK

to t al household

INCOME

EVERY TWO WEEKS

-Un d e r

$ 6 0 ------- A

-Un d e r

-$60

to

$8A

-$115 t o $ 1 6 9

B

-$85

to

$114

C

-$170 t o $229

C

D

-$230 to $309

D

------- B

-$115

to

$154

-$155

AND OVER- - -

- E

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME
EVERY MONTH
$250 - - - —

-Un d e r

A

-$310

$115------- A

AND OVER

-

- E

TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME
ANNUAL
-U n d e r

$3,000 - - —

A

-$250

to

$374- - - - - - - B

-$3,000

to

$4,499 - -

B

-$375

to

$499 . . . . . . . C

-$4,500

to

$5,999 - -

C

-$500

to

$664 - - - - - - - D

-$6,000

to

$7,999 - -

D

-$665

and o v e r

------- E

-$8,000 a n d

over

—

E

APPENDIX B

City
I. A N

•

of
I N

O

LANSING
♦

M I C H I G A N

CITY D E M O N S T R A T I O N A O C N C Y
M ODEL CITIES
Z D 6 H E. M I C H I O A N A V E .

November 3, 1971

The Model Cities Task Forces end previous studies have Indiested that
having enough spare time opportunltlee Is Important. As part of our program
to Improve the quality of life In the model neighborhoods, we are trying to
find out what types of spare tine opportunities are needed so that adequate
facilities and programs can be planned.
Please will you assist by having the enclosed questionnaire considered by
the appropriate cosmlttee of your organization.
We are anxious that the
answers given be the agreed "official" attitudes of the organization and
not just the personal opinions of an Individual.
It is also important that your organization's answers be perfectly candid.
If you feel that complete honesty could cause possible personal embarrass­
ment or other problems if the Identity of your organization were known, you
may specify in the final question that your group is to remain completely
anonymous. In this case, the questionnaire will only be Identified by its
code number and we guarantee that your organization's name will not be re­
vealed under any circumstances.
Please feel free to call Hr. Robert McKenna at 371-2110 if you have any
questions. An early response would be appreciated. A stamped addressed
return envelope is enclosed for your convenience.
Sincerely.

Model Cities Program
JW/ylz
enclosure

13 6

137

LIST OF COWUNITY SOCIAL AND WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS
Q u e stio n n a ir e s to go t o d i r e c t o r s ,
o r g a n iz a tio n s
A m erican Red C r o s s
B ig B r o t h e r s o f L a n s in g
B ig S i s t e r s o f L a n s in g
B lack L i b e r a t i o n F r o n t
In te r n a tio n a l
*Boy S c o u t s o f A m e r ic a
* Boys' C lub o f L a n s in g
C a th o lic S o c ia l S e r v ic e s
C it iz e n 's C ongress
C ity R escue M issio n
Community U n i t y
Consumer S e r v i c e s P r o j e c t
♦ C r i s t o Rey C e n t e r
F a m ily H e l p e r s
F a m ily S e r v i c e A g e n c y
* G ir l S c o u ts
G rea ter L a n sin g C o n fe r e n c e
O r g a n iz a tio n
G r e a t e r L a n s in g Y ou th f o r
C h r ist
Human R e l a t i o n s C o m m issio n
J u n i o r A c h ie v e m e n t o f G r e a t e r
L a n s in g
L a n s in g A rea C o u n c i l o f
C h u rch es
L a n sin g Community C o l l e g e
* L a n sin g S c h o o l D i s t r i c t
La Raza U n id a d e M ic h ig a n
L ejo n E x t e n s i o n C e n t e r f o r
Urban A f f a i r s
Master* s H ou se
M ic h ig a n C o u n c i l on Crim e
and D e l i n q u e n c y
M ic h ig a n E co n o m ic O p p o r t u n i t y
O ffic e
M ich ig a n L ea g u e f o r Human
S e r v ic e s
M in iste r ia l A llia n c e
*L e isu r e -tim e a g e n c ie s
Que s t i onn a i r e

c h a ir m e n , o r p r e s i d e n t s o f t h e
Model C i t i e s D e m o n s t r a t io n A g e n c y
M o t h e r ' s C lub
N a tio n a l A s s o c ia tio n fo r th e
A d van cem en t o f C o lo r e d P e o p l e
♦ N o r t h s i d e A t h l e t i c and
R e c r e a t i o n Club
O f f i c e o f E conom ic O p p o r t u n i t y
O p e r a t io n B o o t s t r a p
P a r e n t s W ith o u t P a r t n e r s , I n c .
* P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n D ep a r tm e n t
P e o p l e s ' L e a r n in g C e n t e r
P ro ject L iste n
PTA C o u n c i l , L a n s in g S c h o o l s
S a l v a t i o n Army
S o c ia l S e r v ic e s
Urban L ea g u e
V o l u n t e e r s o f A m erica
West S i d e N e ig h b o r h o o d
A sso c ia tio n
*Young M en 's C h r i s t i a n A s s o c i a t i o n
*Young Women's C h r i s t i a n
A sso c ia tio n

i n c l u d e d on l i s t

t o r e c e i v e L eaders*

138

LIST OF CHURCHES IN MODEL CITIES AREA
B e t h le h e m Tem ple ChuTch
C h r i s t * s Tem ple
Emmanuel T a b e r n a c l e
G a l i l e e B a p t i s t C hurch
God* s F a i t h C h a p el
L a n s i n g Church o f God i n C h r i s t
L i g h t o f D i v i n e T r u t h Church
Mohammad Temple
Mt. Z io n M i s s i o n a r y B a p t i s t Church
New Mount C a l v a r y B a p t i s t Church
N o r t h L a n s in g C hurch o f God
N o r t h S t r e e t C hurch o f t h e N a z a r e n e
O r i g i n a l Church o f God
P a r a d i s e M i s s i o n a r y B a p t i s t Church
P e n n s y l v a n i a A venue B a p t i s t Church
P e n t e c o s t a l Church o f God i n C h r i s t
P r im e r a I g l e s i a B a u t i s t a H is p a n o - A m e r ic a n a
Sam ara Church o f God i n C h r i s t
S o u t h B a p t i s t C hurch
S p a n i s h Am erican F r e e M e t h o d i s t Church
S p a n i s h Church o f God
T r u e L ig h t B a p t i s t C hurch
U n ion B a p t i s t C h u rch
W est L a n s in g C hurch o f God

139

MODEL CITIES/RECREATION RESOURCE CONSULTANTS
1971 RECREATION NEEDS STUDY

NO.

ORGANIZATION QUESTIONNAIRE
PART A.
* 1

__
1 I

INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION
YOUR ORGANIZATION IS BEST CLASSIFIED ASi

________________________
(Check one)

(a)

Church or other religious organization......

□

(b)

Private organisation (club or other group with
restricted membership)......................................

i— i
I— I

(c)

Neighborhood group or organization.......

□

r~i

(d)

A public, tax-supported agency.............................

I— I

(a)

Quasi public or voluntary agency (membership open to
the public, but supported by fees and charges and
voluntary contributions)......... ..........................

|— i
I— I

Other

□

(f)

(Specify nature or purpose of organization).. ......

WHAT IS THE "SERVICE AREA" OF YOUR ORGANIZATION IN RELATION TO
LANSING AMD THE MODEL CITIES AREA?

□

PART B.

(a)

Servea entire City of Lansing or larger area.... .........

□

(b)

Primarily serves the entire Model Cities a r e a .............

CD

(c)

Serves a specific neighborhood or segment of the Model
Cities a rea ..................................................

i— i
I I

(d)

Service is not restricted by boundaries o r similar
jurisdictional guidelinee..................................

i— i
1— 1

(e)

Other

□

(Please specify)

SPARE-TIME ACTIVITY NEED8 IN THE MODEL CITIES AREA

The rest of this questionnaire is primarily concerned with sparetime activities in the Model Cities area.
By spare-time activities
we mean all types of leisure-time activities whether they take
place at home, at a commercial establishment, at a church, at a
social club, or in a city park or recreation center. Examples of
epare-time activities include! watching T.V., playing cards, read­
ing, hobbies, playing pool, eating out, going to a movie, winter
sports, relaxing in the park, or attending a church social.
Every­
thing that is not a bodily necessity, work, or duty, will be
considered a spare-time activity.
The boundaries of the Model Cities areas are shown on the enclosed
map.

DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION OFFER ANY SPARE-TIME ACTIVITIES TO
RESIDENTS IN THE MODEL CITIES AREA7

(S)

Y e t ...

□

; (If "yes,** please proceed with the rest
of this question)

N o . ..

□

; (If "no," go to question 4)

PLEASE L15T OR SUMMARIZE THE TYPES OF SPARE-TIME ACTIVITIES
THAT YOUR ORGANIZATION PROVIDES FOR RESIDENTS OF THE MODEL
CITIES AREA AND GIVE THE LOCATIONS WHERE THEY ARE OFFERED.
If possible, please also give the approximate number of
enrollments, registrations, or attendees.

(b)

WHO M A Y P A R T I C I P A T E I N Y O U R O R G A N I Z A T I O N ' S L E I S U R E - T I M E
A C T I V I T I E S IN THE MODEL C I T I E S A R E A ?
(C heck on e)
O n ly

m em bers

M em bers

o f

o f

our

our

who

p ays

A nyone

who

w ish es

(P lea se

o r g a n i z a t i o n ................... .............................................................

o r g a n iz a tio n

A nyone

O ther
(c)

Approx. n o .
involved

Where offered

Kinds of Activity

th e

and

req u ir e d

to

th e ir

a c t iv it y

p a r t ic ip a te

(n o

g u e s t s . . . .

□

...............................

□

...................................

□

f e e s ) . . . . ......................................

□

f e e s

e x p l a i n ) _______________

□

D O ES YOUR O R G A N IZ A T IO N CONDUCT A C T IV E C A M PA IG N S TO
IN T E R E S T MODEL C I T I E S A R E A R E S I D E N T S IN YOUR S P A R E -T I M E
PROGRAMS?
Y e s , . .

□

No . . .

□

(If "no," p le a se
p a rt
< e ) .)

I f - y e s , " WHAT G R O U P S I N TH E M O D E L C I T I E S A R E A
HOPE TO A T T R A C T ?
(P le a se ch eck o n e or m ore)
E lem en ta ry
J u n io r
H igh
Young

h ig h

sch o o l

sch o o l
sch o o l

s t u d e n t s ..........................
s t u d e n t s ..........................

s t u d e n t s ................................

a d u l t s ...................................

p ro ceed

DO

to

YOU

□
□
□
□

W o m e n ............................................

□

O ld er

p e o p l e ...................................

□

O th er

(P lea se

□

s p e c i f y ) __ __ __ __ __ __ __

141
(d)

□

(e)

□

4
□

WHAT ARE THE CHIEF MAYS IN WHICH YOUR ORGANIZATION HAKES
ITS SPARE-TIME ACTIVITY PROGRAMS KNOWN TO RESIDENTS OF
THE MODEL CITIES AREA?
(Check up to three)
Lansing State Journal advertising.......

□

Distribution of notices through the schools.... ..........

□

Announcements at other functions of our organization.. ...

a

Radio or T.V. announcements........

□

Mailed notices or letters to homes in the Model
Cities are a ..................................................

i— i
I— 1

Personal contact (phone* visit, etc.) in the Model
Cities are a .............. ...................................

t— i
I— J

Other

□

(S p e d fy)______________

HOW WELL INFORMED ARE THE RESIDENTS OF THE MODEL CITIES
AREAS ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION'S SPARE-TIME ACTIVITY
PROGRAMS?
(Check one)
Very well informed...........

□

Well informed..........

□

Somewhat informed...........

□

Poorly informed............

□

DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION FEEL THAT ADEQUATE KINDS AND NUMBERS OF
SPARE-TIME OPPORTUNITIES ARE AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTS OF THE
MODEL CITIES AREAS?
(Check one)
Y e s . ...

□

t

N o . ...

□

I

Don * t k now....

□

If "no," WHAT SUGGESTIONS DO YOU HAVE FOR IMPROVING THE
SITUATION?

□
HOW DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION FEEL THE CITY PARKS AND THE CITY
OPERATED RECREATION PROGRAMS IN AND ADJOINING THE MODEL CITIES
AREA COMPARE WITH CITY PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS ELSEWHERE
IN LANSING?
(Check one)

□

Better than in other areas... □

About thesame... □

Not as good as in
i— i
other areas.................. L_l

i— |
Don't k n o w ........ I— J

If "better than other areas" or "not as good as other areas'
have been checked, please briefly give your organization's
reasons for having this opinion.
Reasonsi

□

142

*

W

D O ES YOUR O R G A N IZ A T IO N F E E L T H A T TH ER E A R E WAYS
C IT Y PARX AND R E C R EA TIO N DEPARTM ENT CAN IM PROVE
IN THE MODEL C I T I E S A R E A S?
Y e a --------

□
I f

" y es,"

□

p le a se

I

No ■*# •

□

;

D on 't

IN W HICH TH E
IT S SERVICES
kn ow . . . .

□

e x p l a i n * _________ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

□
*

J

[

|

D O E S YOUR O R G A N IZ A T IO N F E E L T H A T TH E R E A R E ANY P R O B L E M S W HICH
PR EV EN T C H IL D R E N OR A D U L T S FROM THE MODEL C I T I E S A R E A S G O ING
TO C I T Y PARK S A S O FTEN A S TH EY L I K E ?
Y e»,
If

" y es,"

. .

.

C D

p le a s e

I

No.

. .

.

□

I

Don 't

Know. .. .

□

e x p l a i n t _ _ ______

□ --------------------------------------*

9

D O E S YOUR O R G A N IZ A T IO N F E E L T H A T T H E R E A R E ANY P R O B L E M S W HICH
PR E V E N T C H IL D R E N OR A D U L T S FROM T H E MODEL C I T I E S A R E A S T A K IN G
PART IN C IT Y RECREATION PROGRAMS A S OFTEN A S THEY L IK E ?

□

Y e s . . . .
If

" y es,"

□

p le a se

I

No . . . .

□

j

Don *t

know . . . .

□

e x p l a i n : ________________________________________________________

□
HOW D O E S Y O U R O R G A N I Z A T I O N F E E L A F T E R - S C H O O L P R O G R A M S O F F E R E D
BY THE BOARD OF ED U C A T IO N A T SC H O O LS A TTEN D ED BY C H IL D R E N
FROM MODEL C I T I E S N E IG H B O R H O O D S COM PARE W ITH PROGRAM S O F F E R E D
BY THE BOARD A T SC H O O LS ELSE W H E R E IN THE C I T Y ?

□

B e tte r

th an

in

o th era r e a s . . . □

N ot as good
o th e r a r e a s

as

in

I f " b e tte r th an in o th e r a re a s" or
areas" have been ch eck ed , p le a s e
z a t i o n ' s rea so n s fo r h avin g t h i s

□

About th e

sam e. . .□
i— i

i— j

Li

D o n ’ t k n o w ......................

L-l

"not as good as
in o th e r
b r i e f l y g iv e your o r g a n i­
o p in io n .
R e a s o n s : ________________

143

•1 0

n

DOES YOUR ORGANISATION FEEL THERE ARE MAYS IN WHICH THE BOARD
OP EDUCATION COULD IMPROVE ITS AFTER-SCHOOL ACTIVITIES PRO­
GRAMS IN MODEL CITIES AREA SCHOOLS?
y «b.

... □ ;

no....

□

j

Don't k n o w . ...

□

If "yaa," WHAT IMPROVEMENTS DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION SUGGEST?
luggaationai______________________________________________________

□
1 1

DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION FEEL THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS WHICH
PREVENT MODEL CITIES AREAS STUDENTS FROM TAKING PART IN BOARD
OF EDUCATION SPONSORED ACTIVITIES AS OFTEN AS THEY LIKE?
t

N o ■•*•

□

I

D o n 11 k n o w ....

□

If " y * * , ” p l a n a * a x p l a i n i ______________________________________

□
.12

□

HOW DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION FEEL THE MODEL CITZES AREA COMPARES
TO OTHER AREAS IN LANSING WITH REGARD T O SPARE-TIME ACTIVITIES
OFFERED BY THE YMCA, Y W C A , SCOUTS, CHURCHES , CLUBS AND OTHER
SIMILAR ORGANISATIONS?
Battar than othar

araaa... □

Not aa good aa
othar araaa

About

tha S a n a ...

i— i
. L J D o n ’t know........

□
i— i
l__l

If "battar than othar araaa” or "not aa good aa othar araaa”
haa ha an chackad, plaaaa briafly glva your organization'a
raaaona for having thia opinion.
Raaaonai______________________

□

1 3

n

DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION FEEL THERE ARE WAYS IN WHICH THE YMCA,
YWCA, SCOUTS, CHURCHES, CLUBS AND SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS COULD
IMPROVE THE SPARE-TIME ACTIVITIES THEY OFFER PEOPLE IN THE
MODEL CITIES AREA?
**•—
If "yaa,” WHAT
Suggaationa <

□

Q

i

no....

improvements

□

j

Do n

’t

know...,

□

DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION SUGGEST?

144

* 1 4

DOSS YOUR ORGANIZATION TEEL THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS WHICH
PREVENT MODEL CITIES AREA RESIDENTS FROM PARTICIPATING AS
OFTEN AS THEY WISH IN YMCA, YWCA, SCOUTS, CHURCH, CLUBS OR
OTHER SIMILAR SPARE-TIME ACTIVITIES?
Yaa

1 |

15

□

?

N o . ...

□

t

Don 11 know....

I

If "yes," please explaint____________

HOW DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION PEEL THE MODEL CITIES AREA COMPARES
TO OTHER AREAS OF THE C'TY IN PROVIDING COMMERCIAL RECREATION?
(Bowling, movies, bars, pool halls, a t e . )
Battar than othar a r a a a . . .□

□

Not aa good aa
othar araaa....... .

About tha s a m e .. .□
r— i

l_J

i— i

Don't k n o w .......

LJ

If "battar than othar araaa" or "not aa good aa othar araaa"
haa baan chackad, please briefly give your organisation'a
reasons for having this opinion.
R e a s o n s i ______________

n

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 6

DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION FEEL THAT THE MODEL CITIES AREA NEEDS
MORE COMMERCIAL RECREATION ESTABLISHMENTS?

□

Yaa....

□

t

N o ....

□

i

Don 11 know,,..

□

If "yes," WHAT KINDS ARE NEEDED?_______________________________

17

(a)

[ |

DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION FEEL THAT THE MODEL CITIES AREA
SHOULD HAVE MORE OR DIFFERENT KINDS OF AFTER-SCHOOL,
WEEKEND, AND SUMMER ACTIVITIES rOR CHILDREN UNDER 12?
Y a a ....

(b)

□

i

□

r

Don 11 know....

□

If "yas," WHAT DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION FEEL SHOULD BE
PROVIDED, WHERE SHOULD IT BE, AND WHAT AGENCY OR
ORGANIZATION SHOULD DO IT?
Activity Needed

□

N o ....

Where (location)

Agency or
Organlzation

145

18

IP A 8PARS-TIME (LBISURE-TIKE) CENTER WITH INDOOR AND/OR
OUTDOOR FACILITIES WERE 8UILT IN THE MODEL CITIES AREAt
(A)

WHAT DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION FEEL ARE THE FIVE SPARE­
TIME ACTIVITIES WHICH MODEL CITIES AREA RESIDENTS
12 YEARS OLD AND OLDER WOULD MOST LIKE TO BE ABLE
TO DO THERE?
Activity

For What Aq» Group?

1 . _________________________________________________________________
2.

□

,__________________________________________________________

3 . ______________________________________________________________
4 . ______________________________________________________________
5.
4b)

□

_________ _

HOW FAR DOES YOUR ORGANISATION FEEL TYPICAL MODEL CITIES
AREA RESIDENTS WOULD TRAVEL TO A CENTER WHICH OFFERED THE
ACTIVITIES THEY WANTED?
Tunagtrn

Number of blocks_______o r , Number of miles____

Adults t
4c)

Number of blocks______ or. Number of mi lee____

DOES YOUR ORGANISATION FEEL THAT A LEISURE—TIKE CENTER OF
THIS KIND SHOULD HAVE BOTH INDOOR AMD OUTDOOR SPARE-TIME
ACTIVITIES AT THE SAME'LOCATION OR SHOULD OUTDOOR
FACILITIES BE AT ANOTHER LOCATION?
Both et the
|— |
seme location.... I I j

.

Outdoor at
t— i
another location.... 1 1 j

Don't k n o w . . ...... □
4d)
|1

Agency name
4e>

1 |

WHAT AGENCY OR ORGANIZATION DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION FEEL
SHOULD OPERATE CENTERS OF THIS TYPE?
Don't know.... □

DOES YOUR ORGANISATION FEEL THAT OTHER SERVICES SHOULD BE
OFFERED AT A CENTER LIKE THIS?
4Such aa social aervicas,
health clinics, and legal services).
Ye a ....

□

i

N o ... .

□

i

Don *t k n o w ....

□

iientei
PART C.

19

INFORMATION ABOUT COMPLETION Of THIS QUESTIONNAIRE
PLEASE WILL YOU GIVE THE FOLLOWING BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE
PERSON WHO WAS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR FILLING IN THIS
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE ORGANIZATION.
Poaition in O

tale. . . .

r

g

a

d]

i

n

i s a t i o n ______
(executive, aupervlaor, leader, teacher,
voluntear, e t c .)

Female....

How long with organisation?

Li

Age_

i 40

2 0

DO YOU (THE PERSON COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE] PEEL THAT
THERE ARE ANY MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SOME OF THE OFFICIAL
ANSWERS OF YOUR ORGANISATION TO QUESTIONS 1 THROUGH 18 AND
YOUR OWN PERSONAL OR PROFESSIONAL OPINION?
Yes....

□

*

Noiit>

□

If *yes,* pleas* place a check mark {/) in the square provided
in the left-hand margin alongside each question.

21

PLEASE INDICATE THE DEGREE TO WHICH YOUR ORGANIZATION WISHES
THE RESPONSES TO THIS QUESTIONNAIRE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL.
(Check one)
The name and responses of our organization may be
mentioned in the final report...................................
The name of our organization may be listed as a participant
but no indication given of the responses made to specific
questions.............. .................. ........................
Please do not mention the name of our organization as
being a participant........................................... . ..

□
□
□

Thank you very much for taking time to complete this questionnaire.
If
you have any additional comments or suggestions, please include them on a
separate sheet of paper.
The results of this survey will constitute an important part of the total
assessment of leisure-time needs and resources in the Model Cities area.

APPENDIX C

RectteaCion R e s o a i s c e C o n s u l t a n t s

S / u

i

i a U

I N

1306 Ram blew ood Drive
East Lansing, Michigan 48823
5 1 7 /3 3 2 2970

S u r v t'

P a r k
D

S y s t c

e v e l t ) p

Recreation Resource Consultants is conducting a recreation needs survey of
the original Model Cities area under a contract with the Lansing Model
Cities Agency. An important part of this study is the soliciting of ideas
and opinions from leaders and planners who are involved in the development
of leisure-time activities and facilities for the residents of this area.
You have heen recommended as one such person who could assist with the
assessment of recreation needs and resources in the Model Cities neighbor­
hoods . The cover sheet on the enclosed questionnaire further explains the
project. Please will you give this project the benefit of your experience
and viewpoint by completing the questionnaire?
telephone shortly to see if you have any questions.
know if there are other leaders or planners in your
feel should receive this questionnaire*
In the
free to call Mr. Bob McKenna of the Model Cities
you have any questions.

Sincerely,

W. Donald Martin

WIMrcp
cc:

r.v

a n d

107 1

I will contact you by
We would also like to
organization whom you
meantimej please feel
Agency at 371-2110 if

z n

l / s t T

Mr. Robert McKenna

147

n

u

148
PROGRAM LEADERS AND/OR PLANNERS IN
LEISURE-TIME AGENCIES

Boy S c o u t s o f A m erica

E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r and Program S t a f f

B oys' C lub o f L a n s in g

E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r and Program S t a f f

C i t y P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n
D ep a r tm e n t

D i r e c t o r or A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r
O th e r C e n t r a l O f f i c e S t a f f
N e ig h b o r h o o d C e n t e r D i r e c t o r s i n
M odel C i t i e s A rea

C r i s t o Rey C e n t e r

E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r and Program S t a f f

G i r l S c o u t s o f A m erica

E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r and Program S t a f f

M odel C i t i e s Agency^

C h ie f P la n n er

N o r t h s i d e A t h l e t i c and
R e c r e a t i o n C lu b

E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r and Program S t a f f

Youth M e n 's C h r i s t i a n
A s so c ia tio n

E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r and Program S t a f f

Young Women's C h r i s t i a n
A sso c ia tio n

E x e c u t i v e D i r e c t o r and Program S t a f f

L a n s in g S c h o o l D i s t r i c t :
Community S c h o o l Program

D i r e c t o r o f C o n t i n u i n g E d u c a t io n
Program D e v e lo p m e n t S p e c i a l i s t
Community S c h o o l C o o r d i n a t o r s i n
Model C i t i e s A rea

P r in c ip a ls o f S c h o o ls in
M odel C i t i e s Area

H igh S t r e e t E le m e n t a r y S c h o o l
Oak Park E le m e n t a r y S c h o o l
Main S t r e e t E le m e n t a r y S c h o o l
M ic h ig a n A venue E le m e n t a r y S c h o o l
P a t t e n g i l l J u n i o r H ig h S c h o o l
Grand R i v e r S c h o o l

149

MODEL CITIES/RECREATION RESOURCE CONSULTANTS
1971 RECREATION NEEDS SURVEY

NO.
Cover page

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR LEADERS AND PLANNERS
OF LEISURE—TIME OPPORTUNITIES
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to determine the need for
spare-time activities and programs in the original Lansing Model
Cities area.
The boundaries of this area are shown on the
attached map.
This questionnaire is one part of the overall
study being conducted under the auspices of the Model Cities
Agency.
The questionnaire is designed to gain knowledge about spare­
time facility and program needs of Model Cities area residents as
seen by leaders of organizations or groups which provide leisure
time opportunities of any type to these people.
Persons in this
category include club or activity leaders, scoutmasters, agency
supervisors, planners, administrators, or anyone else in a
position to conduct, plan, or recommend spare-time activities
for residents of the area.
By spare-time activities, we mean
anything that is not a bodily necessity, work or preparation for
work, a duty, or a personal obligation.
Spare-time activities
may include activities that take place at home, at commercial
recreation establishments, in a park or recreatior center, or at
a church, school or other semi-public place.
The information obtained will be used in planning improve­
ments in the quality and quantity of recreational opportunities
available in the model neighborhoods.
All responses will be
treated as confidential. The results will be reported as totals
or percentages and neither you nor your organization will be
identified as being associated with a particular response.
Please could you spare about 30 minutes of your time to
fill out the questionnaire and return it in the enclosed selfaddressed, stamped envelope?
Each response provides an im­
portant contribution since the number of leaders involved is
comparatively small.

150

MODEL CITIES/RECREATION RESOURCE CONSULTANTS
1971 RECREATION NEEDS SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR LEADERS OR PLANNERS OF LEISURE-TIME OPPORTUNITIES
PART A.

INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION

.

YOUR ORGANIZATION IS BEST CLASSIFIED ASt

(Check one)

□

Church or othar religious organization
Private organization
<club or other group with restricted
org
memberahip)

|— j

Neighborhood group or organization...... .........................

□

A public, tax-aupported agency .........
Quasi public or voluntary agency (membership open
to the public,
but supported by fees and charges and voluntary contributions)
..
Other

(specify nature or purpose of organization)

□
j— i

□

WHAT IS THE SERVICE AREA OF YOUR ORGANIZATION IN RELATION TO
LANSING AND THE MODEL CITIES AREA?
(Check one)
Serves entire City of Lansing or larger area...... ...............

□

Primarily serves the entire Modal Cities are a ........ ...........

O

Serves a specific neighborhood or segment of the Model Cities
a rea......... ........................................................

i— i
I— I

Service is not restricted by boundaries or similar Jurisdictional guidelines................................................

i— >
I— I

Other (please specify)

I 1

PLEASE GIVE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT THE PERSON PRIMARILY
RESPONSIBLE FOR FILLING OUT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE t
M a l e . ..

□

,

Female...

□

Age

P o s i t i o n i n t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ ___ ___
(E x e c u tiv e , s u p e r v iso r , c o o r d in a to r , le a d e r , te a c h e r ,
v o lu n te e r , e t c .)

How long have you been with the organization?__________
DOES YOUR ORGANIZATION OFFER ANY SPARE-TIME ACTIVITIES TO
RESIDENTS IN THE MODEL CITIES AREA?
Y e ai ., . .,

□L— I

NO. ..

□

( I f " y e s , , ""
q u e s t i o n .>
(If

"no,"

p l ee aa ss *e
g o

to

proceed

q u estio n

w ith
5-)

th e

r e st

of

th ii

(*)

P L E A S E L I S T OR SU M M A R IZ E TH E T Y P E S OF S P A R E -T I M E A C T I V I T I E S
W HICH YO U R O R G A N IZ A T IO N P R O V ID E S FO R R E S I D E N T S OF T H E M O D EL
C I T I E S AREA AND G I V E THE LOCATION WHERE THEY ARE O F F E R E D .
I F P O S S I B L E , P L E A S E A LSO G I V E THE A P P R O X IM A T E NUMBER OF
E N R O L L M E N T S , R E G I S T R A T I O N S , OR A T T E N D E E S .
K in d s

(b)

W here

A c t i v i t y

m em bers

M em bers

of

o f

our

o r g a n iz a tio n

who

pays

Anyone

who

w ish e s

O ther

(p le a se

L E ISU R E -T IM E

o r g a n i z a t i o n ....................... ...................................................

our

A nyone

A p p ro x . n o .
in v o lv e d

o ffe r e d

WH O M A Y P A R T I C I P A T E I N Y O U R O R G A N I Z A T I O N ' S
A C T I V I T IE S IN THE MODEL C I T I E S AREA?
O n ly

(c)

of

th e

req u ired

to

and

th e ir

a c t i v i t y

p a r t ic ip a t e

(no

.................................

□

.....................................

□

.......................................

□

g u e s t s . . . .
f e e s
f e e s )

D

e x p l a i n ) ______________

□

D OES YOUR O R G A N IZ A T IO N CONDUCT A C T IV E C A M PA IG N S TO IN T E R E S T
MODEL C I T I E S AREA R E S ID E N T S IN YOUR S P A R E -T I M E PROGRAM S?
Y e a . . .

□

;

N o . . .

□

If "no" p l e a s e
par t
(e ) .

I f " y e a , " WHAT G R O U P S IN TH E M O DEL C I T I E S
TO A T T R A C T ?
(P lea se check one or m ore.)
E lem en ta ry
J u n ior
High
Young

hiyh

sch o o l

sch o o l

s tu d e n ts.

sch o o l

................

s t u d e n t s ......................

s t u d e n t s ............................

a d u l t s ...................................

proceed

AREAS

DO

to

YOU

HOPE
□
□
□
□

W o m e n .........................................

□

O lder

□

p e o p l e ...................................

j

4 ( d )

WHAT A R E T H E C H I E F WAYS IN W H ICH Y O U R
S P A R E - T I M E A C T I V I T Y PRO G RAM S KNOWN T O
C IT IE S AREA?
(C heck up to t h r e e . )
L an sin g

S ta te

D is tr ib u tio n

n o tic e s

th ro u gh

th e

o th e r

fu n c tio n s

R a d io

a n n o u n c e m e n t s ..........................

or

T .V .

n o tic e s

to

hom es

in

th e

□

s c h o o ls

a t

o f

our

M odel

.......................................

□

o r g a n i z a t i o n . . . ................

□

D
C i t i e s

a r e a . . . .

..........................

|— [
I—- I

O th er

□

( s p e c i f y ) __________________

HOW W E L L I N F O R M E D A R E T H E
A BO U T YOUR O R G A N IZ A T I O N 'S
(C h eck o n e)
V ery

w e ll

W ell

i n f o r m e d .......................................

P o o rly

in fo r m e d

R E S ID E N T S OF THE MODEL C I T I E S
S P A R E -T IM E A C T IV IT Y PROGRAMS?

AREA

.............

□
□

i n f o r m e d ....................................

□

i n f o r m e d ....................................

□

SURVEY OF SP A R E -T IM E (L E IS U R E -T IM E ) A C T IV IT IE S , NEED S AND
O P P O R T U N IT IE S OF MODEL C I T I E S R E S ID E N T S A S SEEN BY O R G A N I­
ZATIO NAL OR GROUP L E A D E R S.
If you f e e l th a t a q u e s tio n
is
n o t a p p lic a b le to your o r g a n iz a tio n or you a re n ot in a
___ ___ ___ ___ __ p o s i t i o n t o a n s w e r , p l e a s e s o i n d i c a t e . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
*

B.

5

□

P er so n a l c o n ta c t
(p h on e, v i s i t ,
e t c . )
in th e M odel
C i t i e s a r e a .............................................................................................................................................................

Som ew hat

PART

o f

HAKES ITS
TH E MODEL

a d v e r t i s i n g .......................

A nnouncem ents

M a iled

(e)

J o u r n a l

O RG A NIZATIO N
R E SID E N T S OF

DO YOU P E R S O N A L L Y F E E L T H A T A D E Q U A T E S P A R E - T I M E A C T I V I T I E S
ARE PR O V ID ED FO R THE R E S ID E N T S IN TH E MODEL C I T I E S A R E A ?
Yes . . .

□

I f " n o , " WHAT
SIT U A T IO N ?

;

N o . . .

SU G G ESTIO NS

□
DO

;
YOU

D o n 't know . . ,
HAVE

FOR

□

IM PR O V IN G

THE

153

6

HOW W O U L D V O U C O M P A R E T H E C I T Y P A R K S
R ECREATIO N PROGRAMS IN AND A D J O IN IN G
TO OTHER AREAS IN L A N S IN G ?
B e tter

th an

in o th e r

N ot as
a r e a s

good

a s in

a r e a s . . . □

o th e r

AND
THE

THE C I T Y OPERATED
MODEL C I T I E S AR EA

A bout

■— ■
1 J D on 't

th e

aam e. . . □

|— i
K n o w ..................... I I

I f

" b ette r than o th e r a rea s" or "not as good as o th e r a rea s"
c h e c k e d , p le a s e b r i e f l y g iv e your r e a so n s fo r h a vin g
t h i s o p in io n .
(C om m ent o n p a r k f a c i l i t i e s a n d /o r r e c r e a t i o n
p r o g r a m s . ) _______________________________________________________________________________

has b e e n

A R E TH ER E WAYS I N W HICH THE C I T Y
MENT CAN IM PROVE I T S S E R V IC E S IN
Y e s . . . .
If

8

" y e s /

□

p le a se

N o . . . .

PARK AND RECREATION D E P A R T ­
THE MODEL C I T I E S AREA?
□

;

D o n 't

Know . . . .

e x p l a i n : _____________________________________________________ _

DO YOU F E E L T H A T T H E R E AR E ANY P R O B L E M S W HICH P R E V E N T
C H I L D R E N OR A D U L T S I N T H E M O DEL C I T I E S A R E A FROM G O I N G
C I T Y PARKS A S OFTEN A S THEY L I K E ?
Y e s . . . .
If

"yes,"

□

p le a s e

n

N O ....

□

;

Don *t

TO

know . . . .

□

e x p l a i n : _______________________________________________________

D O YOU F E E L T H A T T H E R E A R E A N Y P R O B L E M S W H IC H P R E V E N T
C H I L D R E N O P A D U L T S FROM THE MODEL C I T I E S AKKA P A R T I C I P A T I N G
IN C I T Y R EC R EA TIO N PROGRAMS a s o f t e n a s t h e y
like.'
Yes . . . .
If

"yes,"

□

p le a s e

N o. . . .
e x p la in :

n

;

Don ’ t

know . . . .

□

154
I O

HOW D O Y O U F E E L A F T E R - S C H O O L P R O G R A M S O F F E R E D B Y T H E B O A R D O F
E D U C A T IO N A T SC H O O L S A T T E N D E D BY C H I L D R E N FROM M O D E L C I T I E S
A R E A S C O M PA R E W ITH PR O G R A M S O F F E R E D BY T H E BO ARD O F E D U C A T IO N
ELSEW HERE IN THE C IT Y ?
B e tte r

th an

in

o th e r

a re a s

N ot a s good a s in o th e r
a r e a s .........................................................

A bout

th e

sam e

D o n ’t

know,

□

If " b e tte r th an o th e r a re a s" o r "not a s good a s o th e r a rea s"
h as b e en ch eck ed , p le a s e b r i e f l y g iv e your r e a so n s fo r h a vin g
th is o p in io n .
R eason s i

I I

ARE T H E R E WAYS IN W HICH T H E
IT S A FT E R -SC H O O L A C T IV IT IE S
SCHOOLS7

□

Y e s . .
If

1 2

"yei

WHAT

□

No.

IM PROVEM ENTS

WOULD

E D U C A T IO N C O ULD IM PROVE
IN MODEL C IT Y AREA

,

YOU

D o n 't

know . . . .

□

SUGGEST:

DO Y O U P E R S O N A L L Y F E E L T H E R E A R E A N Y P R O B L E M S W H I C H P R E V E N T
M ODEL C I T I E S AREA S T U D E N T S FROM T A K IN G P A R T IN E X I S T I N G BOARD
OF EDU C A TIO N SPONSORED A C T IV IT IE S AS OFTEN AS THEY L IK E ?
Yes . . . .
If

I3

BOARD OF
PROGRAMS

" y e s,"

□

p le a s e

;

N o . . . .

□

;

D on 't

k n o w ., . .

□

e x p l a i n : ________________________________________________________

HOW W O U L D Y O U S A Y T H E M O D E L C I T I E S A R E A C O M P A R E S T O O T H E R
A R E A S IN L A N S IN G W ITH R EG A R D TO S P A R E - T I M E A C T I V I T I E S O F F E R E D
BY T H E Y M C A , Y W C A , S C O U T S , C H U R C H E S , C L U B S A N D O T H E R S I M I L A R
O R G A N IZ A T IO N S?
B e t t e r

than

o th e r

a r e a s . . . □

A bout

N ot as good as o th e r
[— |
a r e a s ...................................................................... I I D o n ’ t

th e

sam e . , . □

i— i
k n o w ......................I _ 1

If " b e tte r
th an o th e r a r e a s " o r " n ot a s good as o th e r a re a s"
has b een ch eck ed , p le a s e b r i e f l y g i v e your r ea so n s fo r h a vin g
t h i s o p in io n .
R e a s o n s : ___________________________________________________________

1 4

A R E TH E R E HAYS IN W HICH THE YMCA, YW CA, S C O U T S , C H U R C H E S,
C L U B S AND SIM IL A R O R G A N IZ A T IO N S COULD IM PROVE THE S P A R E ­
T IM E A C T I V I T IE S THEY O F F E R PEOPLE IN THE MODEL C I T I E S AREA?

Yes.
If

1 5

" y e s,"

p le a se

H o i «•■

□

;

D on ’t

k n o w .. . .

I f

" y es,"

I

□

p le a se

than

N o . . . .

□

,

D on 't

C IT IE S
IN

□

know.

e x p la in ;

HOW W O U L D YOU S A Y
A R E A S OF THE C IT Y
(B o w lin g , m ovies,
B e tte r

□

e x p la in ;

DO YOU F E E L TH ER E A R E A N Y PR O BLEM S P R E V E N T I N G THE M O DEL
A R E A R E S I D E N T S FROM P A R T I C I P A T I N G A S O F T E N A S THEY W IS H
Y M C A , Y W C A, S C O U T S , C H U R C H , C L U B S OR S I M I L A R S P A R E - T I M E
A C T IV IT IE S?
Y e a . * *.

I 4

I

□

THE MODEL C IT IE S AREA COMPARES TO OTHER
I N P R O V ID IN G COM M ERCIAL R E C R E A T IO N ?
b a r s ,
p o o l h a lls , e t c . )
o th e r

a r e a s . . . □

N ot aa good aa o th e r
a r e a s ............................................. ..

A bout

th e

s a m e ... □

D o n 't

know,

I f " b e tte r than o th e r a r e a s ” or " n ot a s g o o d as o th e r a r e a s"
h as b een ch eck ed , p le a s e b r i e f l y g iv e y o u r r ea so n s fo r h avin g
t h i s o p in io n .
R e a s o n s ; ______________________ ____________________________________

1 7

DO YOU P E R SO N A L L Y F E E L T H A T THE MODEL
COM M ERCIAL RECREATION E S T A B L IS K M E N T S ?
Y e s . . . .
If

18

(a)

'yes,"

l_J

WHAT K I N D

;

NO... .

ARE

NEEDED?

CITIES
;

AREA

D on' t

NEEDS

know . . . .

MORE
□

D O YOU F E E L T H A T T H E M O DEL C I T I E S A R E A S H O U L D H A V E MORE
OR D IF F E R E N T K I N D S OF A F T E R -S C H O O L , W EEKEND, AND SUMMER
A C T I V I T I E S FOR C H IL D R E N UNDER 1 2 ?
Y e s . . ..

□

N o . . ..

□

Don *t

know. . . .

□

1S6

* I 8

(b)

I f " y e s , * WHAT S H O U L D B E P R O V I D E D , W H E R E S H O U L D
A N D W H A T A G E N C Y OR O R G A N I Z A T I O N S H O U L D D O I T ?
A c tiv ity

19

Needed

W here

IT

BE,

Agency or
O rgan isation

(location )

I F A S P A R E - T I M E ( L E I S U R E - T I M E ) C EN TER WITH IN D O O R A N D /O R
O U T D O O R F A C I L I T I E S WERE B U I L T I N T H E MO DEL C I T I E S A R E A :
(a)

W H A T D O YO U F E E L A R E T H E F I V E S P A R E - T I M E A C T I V I T I E S
W H I C H M O D E L C I T I E S A R E A R E S I D E N T S 1 2 Y E A R S O F A G E AN D
O L D E R WOULD M O ST L I K E T O B E A B L E TO DO T H E R E ?
A ctiv ity

For

what

age

group:

1.

___________________

2.

________________________

3 .___________________________________

___________________

4 . __________________________________________________

___________________________

5.
(b)

(c)

HOW F A R DO YO U F E E L T Y P I C A L M O D E L C I T I E S A R E A R E S I D E N T S
WOULD T R A V E L TO A C E N T E R W HICH O F F E R E D T H E A C T I V I T I E S
T H EY WANTED7
T eenagers:

Number

of

b l o c k s _____

or

Number

of

mi lee

Adults:

Number

of

b lo ck s

or

Number

of

m iles

S H O U L D A L E I S U R E - T I M E C E N T E R OF T H I S K I N D H A V E BOTH
I N D O O R AND O U T - D O O R S P A R E - T I M E A C T I V I T I E S A T T H E SAME
LO C A T IO N OR SHOULD OUTDOOR F A C I L I T I E S BE AT ANOTHER
LOCATION?
B oth
sam e

at the
lo c a tio n ....

D on 1t
(d)

know.

i— i
I :

□

O utdoor
another

W H A T A G E N C Y OR O R G A N I Z A T I O N
T HIS TYPE?
Agency

(«)

I

n

a

m

e

at
location. . . .

SHOULD OPERATE

__________________________ _ _ _ _ _

j— i
L_J

CENTERS
Don ' 1

OF

Know . . .

□

DO YOU F E E L T H A T O T H E R S E R V I C E S SH O U LD BE O F F E R E D A T A
CENTER LIKE T HI S ?
(T H IN G S SUCH AS S O C IA L S E R V I C E S ,
HEALTH C L I N I C S , AND LEGAL S E R V I C E S ) .
------------

□

J

No . . . .

□

j

Don't

know . . . .

□

C o m m e n t s : _________________________________________________________________
Thank you v e r y much fo r ta k in g
you h ave any a d d it i o n a l com m ents on
separate sh eet of paper.
The r e s u l
portant part of th e to ta l assessm en
th e M odel C i t i e s a r e a .

tim e t
th is t
ts of t
t o f le

o com p lete t h i s q u e s tio n n a ir e .
if
o p i c p l e a s e i n c l u d e them on a
h i s s u r v e y w i l l c o n s t i t u t e an im ­
is u r e - t im e n e ed s and r e s o u r c e s in