We hope this document inspires meaningful community engagement for future public projects. It shares methods learned through California's Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP). These methods have been proven effective in urban, rural and suburban settings. This effort resulted in over one hundred thousand residents participating in the development of over 1,300 project proposals during three rounds of competitive applications.
California's Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP) is the country's largest state-administered grant program for community parks. This historically significant grant program provided over $1 billion in grant funding through Proposition 84 in 2006 and Proposition 68 in 2018.
All photos in this document are authentic to SPP and used with permission from grantees.
Since 1965 over 7,580 parks have been created or improved with grants administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation's Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS). OGALS is within the Department's Community Engagement Division. Currently, over 700 local agencies partner with OGALS in an effort to improve the health and wellness of California's 40 million residents by providing close to home park access.
With $1 billion in local assistance grants, SPP is creating park access in underserved areas throughout California. SPP's grant guidelines, written with feedback from hundreds of local park agencies and nonprofit organizations, led to the development of a three-step public engagement model for designing community parks.
The steps include:
To inform future planning efforts over the next five years, the California Department of Parks and Recreation's Community Engagement Division will continue to share successful methods learned through this SPP model.
This process encourages meaningful engagement between neighbors, local government, and organizations. These steps lead to authentic park designs representing each community's unique recreation needs and values.
This document shares community based planning methods learned through three competitive funding rounds. SPP has funded the creation of 130 new parks and 60 park expansions or renovations throughout California. With $5.2 billion in grant requests received for $623 million in available funding between three rounds, thousands of residents became civically engaged in their local park designs.
SPP Rounds One and Two: Proposition 84 (2006 Bond Act) made $368 million available for SPP grants. Nine hundred project proposals were received requesting $2.9 billion.
SPP Round Three: Proposition 68 (2018 Bond Act) made $650 million available for SPP grants. Round Three made available $254.9 million. On August 5, 2019, four hundred seventy eight (478) project proposals were received requesting $2.3 billion.
SPP Round Four: The remaining $395 million of Proposition 68 SPP will be awarded through a Round Four competitive process in 2020/21.
Below are two examples showing how SPP projects transform communities. To see more statewide "Before and After" photos, visit www.ParksforCalifornia.org
From 2000 to 2005, OGALS administered approximately $2 billion in local park construction projects funded by Proposition 12 (2000 Bond Act) and Proposition 40 (2002 Bond Act). Through discussions at project site inspections, OGALS began to discover differences between how some projects were designed and the value of asking neighborhood residents for park design input before projects were built. Engaging residents in park design increased care for the park and decreased vandalism. OGALS learned from various community groups the importance of creating a sense of ownership, and its powerful impact on a park's long term success.
During this period OGALS started introducing competitive grant program criteria to evaluate whether a project's design included a "significant," "average," or "minimal" range of ideas from neighborhood residents. Grant applicants often asked what was needed to include a "significant" range of residents' ideas. However, specific goals and technical assistance for community-based planning were not available for competitive grant applicants during this timeframe.
During this early era, we also learned of challenges with using traditional council, board and commission meetings as park design sessions due to the following reasons:
The passage of Proposition 84 (2006) Bond Act and Assembly Bill 31 (2008) created the SPP. SPP statute is found in California Public Resources Code §§5640 through 5653. SPP provides funds for land acquisition and development to create, expand, and improve parks in underserved communities. It also gives priority to "project applicants that actively involve the public and community based groups in the selection and planning of the project."
The passage of these measures presented an opportunity to develop and introduce a new strategy for crafting a community-based planning formula with clear and specific goals. In 2008/2009 when the new strategy was introduced to focus groups and at public hearings, there was some public resistance. Some potential applicants shared the following concerns:
"We have had meetings in the past and no one shows up." "We do not have a meeting space in the project area." "The public are not park designers."Because of the initial concerns presented from the public, the SPP team challenged hundreds of park professionals at thirty statewide focus groups and public hearings to offer solutions and feedback on the proposed community-based planning goals. Solutions were added to a technical assistance section for grant applicants within the SPP Application Guide. The final guidelines were adopted, and SPP served as an effective touchpoint for residents, local government agencies and community organizations to collaborate in park design efforts that embraced the spirit, needs and culture of communities statewide.
According to residents, park design meetings held in their neighborhoods helped them develop personal connections with their local government and neighbors. Park directors, staff, and city managers shared their satisfaction with working with their constituents and how residents’ ideas contributed to the better project design. This process encourages a thoughtful exchange of knowledge by professional project managers who offer technical expertise, and neighborhood residents, who offer insight about their community's needs based on their daily life experiences.
"What we have seen in this process is a working partnership between our residents and our city. When residents take part in the planning of a park and provide their own input, and the city responds in kind, both sides take ownership of the project and benefit together. It's a win-win for everyone."
Richard Belmudez | City Manager, City of Perris.
"This model is a standard for community empowerment that leads to healthy, livable, and viable communities. SPP projects in underserved communities create a sense of place while promoting social justice through equity of and access to close-to-home parks. When community residents are engaged in a local park's design, residents become more likely to appreciate the role parks play in their daily lives. With that appreciation, park advocacy increases."
Sedrick Mitchell | Deputy Director, Community Engagement Division, California Department of Parks and Recreation
"Authentic community engagement is critical to ensure a design that reflects the community's needs and priorities for parks in their neighborhoods."
Alina Bokde | Deputy Director, Planning and Development, County of Los Angeles Parks and Recreation
Clarity and guidance are crucial for the success of the collaborative process. Having universal terms allows for consistency and promotes participant creativity. In this model, three core definitions are: "residents," "broad representation," and "meetings." In summary, these definitions guide planners to meet with a representative cross-section of groups surrounding the project. These definitions also encourage dynamic park design discussions resulting in popular parks that serve multiple generations.
"Residents" is defined as "the population living within a half-mile of the project site including youth, families, and seniors."
What is the intent behind this definition?
Defining 'Residents' guides park planners to focus their engagement on those who live within walking distance of the project and are most likely to be affected by the benefits and potential challenges of living close to public spaces. Engaging residents has proven to be critical for these reasons:
Encourage engagement of all age groups to design a park that serves multiple interests in the community.
"Broad Representation" is defined "inclusion of design ideas from residents that may have different recreational needs, including youth, seniors, and families. Inclusion of people with disabilities, single adults, and immigrants is also encouraged. The sole involvement of an advocacy group or league likely to promote a specific recreation feature does not meet this intent."
What is the intent behind this definition?
This definition guides park planners to encourage a dynamic discussion that considers the varied interests of the community. Park designs that incorporate various interests and meet a wide range of needs will likely be more popular and heavily used.
"Meeting" is defined as "residents working together as a group in person with the applicant or with the applicant's partnering community-based organization(s) to design the park. This type of meeting can be creative, cost-effective, and non-traditional. Formal public hearings are not required."
What is the intent behind this definition?
This definition guides park planners to encourage brainstorming and group thinking. By supporting dynamic group discussions, residents will often build off of each other's ideas; resulting in project designs that more accurately reflect their collective vision. Things to consider:
The first community based planning step involves strategizing how to make meetings as accessible as possible for residents.
The second community based planning step involves strategizing how to welcome all age groups to the meetings.
The third community based planning step involves strategizing how to conduct dynamic meetings where residents work together to share park design ideas.
The following goals lead to an authentic and vibrant park design that is unique to the community's insight and needs.
Park Design Goal 1 – Selection and design of recreation features. Park Design Goal 2 – Location of selected recreation features. Park Design Goal 3 – Safe public use and park beautification ideas.A site drawing and list of accepted design ideas informs the project's construction phase.
From the SPP Application Guide:
"The applicant or partners facilitated at least five meetings, between June 5, 2018, and the application deadline, to obtain ideas from the residents."
Why five meetings?
During SPP focus groups and public hearings, participants indicated that five meetings were a reasonable amount to accommodate the needs of residents with various employment schedules. Participants also felt that meetings should be relatively recent to ensure that recommendations meet the needs of current residents.
Location Access: Meeting locations should occur, if possible, at the project site or within the project site's half-mile radius. By listening to the residents who live nearest to the project site, and incorporating their ideas, a sense of ownership is fostered which can strengthen the project's long-term success. Scheduling accessible meeting locations is also critical for increasing residents' participation. Meetings held outside the project area require additional transportation resources and travel time, which can make it more challenging for residents to access.
The phrase "or within a convenient distance" allows for some flexibility in rural areas in cases where there are no neighborhoods within a half-mile walking distance of the project site. If, however, a neighborhood or school exists within the project area's half-mile radius, every effort should be made to schedule meetings close to the project site. When facilities are available, conducting meetings outside of the project area should require substantial justification.
From the SPP Application Guide:
"The meetings were located within the critically underserved community, or within a convenient distance for residents without private transportation."
"At least two of the meetings occurred on a weekend or in the evening."
Dates and Time Access: Providing five meeting opportunities for people with varying work or family schedules is challenging, but essential. Schedule at least two of the meetings during evenings or weekends. Please read the guidance below to learn about scheduling meetings on a weekend or in the evening.
"In the evening": Weekdays helps to reach working people who may not be able to meet from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. A 6:00 p.m. or later start time may accommodate people who are commuting from work and picking up children on their way back to their neighborhood. Meetings with students at school or from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. after school may be ideal for youth. A morning to midday meeting might work well for elders.
"On a weekend": Weekend meetings target all groups and allow for multi-generational work sessions.
Application Tip: Scheduling meetings well in advance of an application deadline, will likely strengthen your application, since the content of your application will be rooted from a community-based process. Places to meet: Community leaders or residents might help identify the best meeting locations and times. Cost-effective strategies for meeting locations, dates, and times include:
"We've held meetings at school cafeterias or libraries where that part of town feels more comfortable in attending, rather than going to City Hall for instance."
Mikal Kirchner | Recreation and Community Services Director, City of Selma, California
"[The process led to] building a stronger relationship with the community, particularly the McKinley Elementary School parents and faculty and families living near the park."
John Alita | Director of Community Services, City of Stockton
"Having community engagement meetings at project sites shows people the relationship between the site and design, adds a level of reality, and really helps the community be able to start visualizing their design. It is a fun and unique way to gather input and increase community interest and participation. People who are driving or walking by tend to want to know what is going on. It's another way to get people involved. We witnessed people passing by stop in to join community meetings happening on the site and then went on to contribute to the project design by adding their comments. This is an approach that can be adopted readily and really pays off in the end."
Todd Schmit | Section Head for Landscape Architecture and Design, Planning and Development Agency, County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation.
"Being able to meet in the park (project site) is key. Walking around and visualizing elements is less abstract than a paper exercise. It also helps the project planners with thinking through issues by bringing users directly to the site and asking, what about this? What about that? Users will typically teach you how it should work or poke holes in your plans. Physically communicating and exploring your project is crucial to the design process which can sometimes be done in a vacuum, to the detriment of the project."
Travis Menne | Community Projects Manager, City of Redding, Community Services
From the SPP Application Guide: "For the combined set of meetings, at least three methods were used to invite a Broad Representation of Residents." Guidance for inviting different age groups of residents are listed on the next page.
From the SPP Application Guide: "The number and general description of the Residents who participated in the combined set of meetings consisted of a Broad Representation of the critically underserved community."
This step encourages applicants to engage all age groups, including youth, seniors, and families within the project area. The goal is to get perspectives so the park is designed to meet a broad range of needs.
A reasonable number of residents in the project area should participate in the meetings. However, in heavily urbanized communities, over 20,000 people may live within the project's half-mile radius, while in rural areas, 100 people may live in a half-mile radius of the project.
What is an appropriate number of meeting participants? In general, past SPP applicants engaged approximately 30 to 300 residents between five meetings.
Successful outreach requires thoughtful planning. To increase participation, residents should be contacted at least one week prior to a meeting. Successful outreach should help lead to a Broad Representation of Residents.
"We learned that the in-person outreach received the most feedback compared to the online survey method. It is important to have multiple methods for feedback; however, our community didn't have a large response online."
Noel Castillo | Public Works Director/City Engineer, City of Montclair
"At each door, staff personally invited each resident to attend and explained why it was important. Given the feedback from the public online and at the meetings, staff believes that the electronic postings and newspapers were effective to provide notice but not necessarily to convince them to act. Quite a few of the individuals who attended the meetings in the parks said they attended because of a visit by a staff member. Just one attendee in all the meetings stated that he came to the meeting specifically due to seeing a post."
Jami Westervelt | City of Gustine
Different methods should be used to invite and encourage residents to participate. Examples include:
"A favorite planned engagement activity was our city preschool students partaking in a "Design Your Park" activity with our Perris Senior Center members. Each student was paired with a senior member to draw and design their park. Perris seniors really enjoyed this activity, and have since requested staff to plan more activities of the type. Not even the language barrier amongst a few impeded the success of this activity; it was priceless to witness!"
Richard Belmudez | City Manager, Perris
Engaging in interactive group discussions can lead to a more in-depth understanding of what the residents need, and also allow for detailed design ideas to enhance the park's use. SPP encourages three park design goals for the meetings. These three goals offer a blueprint for a popular, functional, beautiful, and safe park of which all generations of residents may enjoy. This section provides detailed guidance about how to achieve the park design goals during the meetings.
The three park design goals to achieve during the meetings are:
Park Design Goal 1: Selection and design of the recreation features.
Park Design Goal 2: Location of the selected features within the park.
Park Design Goal 3: Safe public use and park beautification.
"As Recreation Professionals, we often have a general idea as to what our community wants and needs in our neighborhood parks; however, Community Based Planning allows for a much deeper connection to the neighborhood and ultimately leads to a much better project with much more community pride.
It brought the whole neighborhood closer together."
Tina Cherry | Community Services Director, City of Monrovia, Lucinda Garcia Park pictured above.
Before we share specific ideas for park design goals, the following three pages provide general ideas about conducting thoughtful and productive community engagement meetings.
"While partnering with the Soledad Youth Leadership Group and providing a translator at meetings, we used creative methods such as:
Then, in groups, they discussed their choices and embellished conceptual plans with their ideas."
Linda Palmquist | MNS Engineers
From the SPP Application Guide:
"Describe how the Residents were enabled to identify, prioritize, and then select recreation feature(s) for the proposed project. The goal is to ask Residents what facilities they want in the park."
Identify: How will the meeting allow for creative brainstorming of recreation features? Will they start with a blank slate or a list of features to choose from? Will residents be given the opportunity to add recreation features to a list?
Prioritize: Once a list of recreation features is created, how will they be prioritized? For example, will a voting system be used, and how will it be managed?
Select: How will the process of identifying and prioritizing recreation features result in the project's final scope?
Methods to select recreation features include:
Generally, grant applicants and the general public will want to know the range of possible recreation features available. The following list, created from statewide feedback, illustrates an extensive range of community park features. The list is in alphabetical order and is not intended to show a preference from top to bottom. Please be aware that there may be other recreation features that can be included beyond this list.
"In all communities engaged, what seemed to resonate with people was that they had a blank slate to work with...hearing them and taking to heart what they wanted to see in their parks."
Bill Jones | Chief Management Analyst, City of Los Angeles, Department of Recreation and Parks.
"The Sycamore neighborhood gave enthusiasm, creativity, and support for designing their park. The Antioch Police Department, churches, and nonprofits stepped up. One of our best meetings was during drop-in summer camp. The kids talked and drew their pictures. When asked about the oval he drew, one boy said '…I need a path to ride my scooter!' It will happen." ,
Nancy Kaiser | Director, City of Antioch Parks & Rec
After selecting the highest priority features for the park, it's time to gather design ideas for those features.
From the SPP Application Guide:
"Describe how the Residents were enabled to provide design ideas for the selected recreation feature(s). The goal is to ask Residents for detailed design ideas of the features, after the features are selected."
Ask for detailed design ideas to enhance a recreation feature's function, materials, themes, color, size, shape, etc. Methods may include:
Design detail examples of play areas, basketball courts, and soccer fields are shown on the following pages.
Finalizing a list of design ideas for the recreation features completes the step above.
From the SPP Application Guide:
"List the residents' ideas that will be included in the design of the recreation feature(s). Avoid listing ideas that will not be included."
Throughout the meetings, maintaining a list of accepted design ideas for the recreation features is helpful. Eventually, the list will be incorporated in bid packages and construction documents. For this reason, only the final accepted ideas should be on the list. The list for the design of the selected recreation features should represent detailed design ideas, such as function, materials, theme, color, size, shape, and number.
Examples of design details can be found on the next three pages.
Are All Playgrounds Alike?
These are examples of different playground "design details" that enrich park use.
Are All Basketball Courts Alike?
Full vs half court, backboard, goal standards, surfacing are examples of different court "design details."
Are All Soccer Fields Alike?
For athletes, coaches, spectators, these are "design details." Surfacing, space, netting, fencing, lighting, sun orientation, and safety ideas are important when designing sports fields, courts, and other features.
From the SPP Application Guide:
Describe the process that enabled the residents to express their preferences for the location of the recreation feature(s) within the park."
Finalizing a list of locations for the recreation features completes the step above.
From the SPP Application Guide:
"List the reasons that will be used for the location of the recreation feature(s) within the park. Avoid listing reasons that will not be used."
Throughout the meetings, maintaining a list of accepted ideas for the location of recreation features within the park is helpful. Eventually, the list must be incorporated in bid packages and construction documents. For this reason, only the final accepted ideas should be on the list.
For the new fully accessible Empowerment Park, the Sacramento Parks Foundation and O'Dell Engineering set up temporary features to test the layout of the park. "The engagement process...brought a level of energy...that helped uplift the effort. The interactive nature of the drop-in meeting produced good feedback."
- Sacramento Parks Foundation
"The enjoyment of scenery employs the mind without fatigue and yet exercises it; tranquilizes it and yet enlivens it; and thus, through the influence of the mind over the body gives the effect of refreshing rest and reinvigoration to the whole system." Frederick Law Olmsted in 1848
From the SPP Application Guide:
"Describe the process that enabled Residents to provide park design ideas for safe public use and park beautification."
This third goal for the park's design seeks residents' ideas about safe public use and beautification. Both safety and beautification are critical to a park's success.
Safe public use: If residents do not feel safe, they will be less likely to use the park.
Park Beautification:
The community's physical environment and mental health of residents can be improved through a scenically pleasing park. This final design goal involves landscaping or public art.
Explain to residents that this goal is to make their park beautiful!
Art to beautify the park:
Landscaping to beautify the park:
Examples can be found on the following pages.
From the SPP Application Guide:
"List the Residents' (safe public use) ideas that will be included in the proposed project. Avoid listing ideas that will not be included."
Throughout the meetings, maintaining a list of accepted design ideas for safe public use is helpful. Eventually, the list will be incorporated in bid packages and construction documents. For this reason, only the final accepted ideas should be in the list.
"I think the most significant benefit (and somewhat unexpected as well) is that the community engagement process truly did result in a better park design for both the community and the County! The community came up with ideas beyond what Parks and Recreation staff had discussed. Community ideas allowed the project to progress and garner wide-range support. For instance, one of the neighbors near Walnut Park was very concerned about the park going in next to her mother's home. She was actively against the projectvinitially, but as she joined one of the groups at a community engagement event and began to discuss her concerns, she changed her mind on the project. She alone came up with the idea of having a sheriff's office on the site to help with possible crime and vandalism. That idea was adopted by all the groups. It was her input that helped create a better park design and a better 'fit' in the neighborhood by addressing ongoing neighborhood concerns. In the end, she was one of the biggest proponents of the project."
Todd Schmit | Section Head for Landscape Architecture and Design, Planning and Development Agency, County of Los Angeles Department of Parks and Recreation.
From the SPP Application Guide:
"List the Residents' (park beautification) ideas that will be included in the proposed project. Avoid listing ideas that will not be included."
Based on asking for park beautification ideas, this is the "outcome" of the process.
Throughout the meetings, maintaining a list of accepted design ideas for park beautification is helpful. Eventually, the list will be incorporated in bid packages and construction documents. For this reason, only the final accepted ideas should be on the list.
Art examples for park beautification:
"Placemaking"is an interactive community based planning technique where park beautification art celebrates a sense of place.
"The most significant unexpected benefit of the community engagement process has been the unique opportunity to envision a park plan that celebrates our diversity while honoring Black history. We have opened a conversation with our community that has empowered their voices. Together we are building a beautiful park for the future designed by the residents that live here now. It will be a joyous occasion to see the results."
Jackie Flin | Executive Director, A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI)
"Growing up in Westminster my whole life, I never heard about Mendez v. Westminster until I was in college. This park will mark the City of Westminster's place as one of the birthplaces of civil rights."
Councilmember Sergio Contreras
"India Basin (900 Innes Boatyard) is the most ambitious park project in a generation, and we wanted to design something not just for the surrounding community, but with them. It's going to be an anchor of health, safety, economic development, culture and environmental justice in the neighborhood. We are so proud to be working alongside them to make it happen."
Phil Ginsburg | General Manager, San Francisco Recreation and Parks
"The most significant unexpected benefit of the community engagement process has been the unique opportunity to envision a park plan that celebrates our diversity while honoring Black history. We have opened a conversation with our community that has empowered their voices. Together we are building a beautiful park for the future designed by the residents that live here now. It will be a joyous occasion to see the results."
Jackie Flin | Executive Director, A. Philip Randolph Institute (APRI)
Park entrances which celebrate the community's identity while beautifying the park.
"We will be able to honor a fallen soldier, Tyrone Edward Carney, who was the first African American from Sobrante Park to die in Vietnam 51 years ago. The park will also provide a much-needed space of healing and peacefulness for residents of all backgrounds."
Cynthia Arrington | Community leader and president of the Sobrante Park Neighborhood Crime Prevention Council and Resident Action Council
"For 40 years my mother, then I, tried to have this lot full of weeds cared for. It was rodent-infested and developers dumped here late at night. Everybody is excited waiting for the grand opening. We all fought for this. It brings me a lot of joy seeing the community look out for this park at all times of night while it's being built."
Ronald "Kartoon" Antwine
In summary, the framework of the steps learned through SPP are:
Park Design Goal 1 - Selection and design of recreation features.
Park Design Goal 2 - Location of selected recreation features.
Park Design Goal 3 - Safe public use and park beautification ideas.
Site Plan Drawing: This is a "bird's eye view" of what would be built in the park.
Descriptive List: This is a numbered list to help document the design details that a drawing does not explain. The list can correspond to the site plan by describing these design details.
"Community based planning allows the opportunity to give community members a voice and creates relationships that bring insight and perspectives that are normally ignored. Regardless if the grant is awarded, it is a worthwhile experience in future revitalization opportunities."
Francesca Sciamanna | Community Services, City of Bell
As a state agency, we traditionally emphasize how park development projects improve the physical environment of communities. During conversations with Round 3 SPP applicants throughout California, an interesting and unexpected statewide pattern about this process began to emerge:
By designing a park, SPP community based planning also builds "social capital!"
As defined by Oxford Dictionary, "Social Capital" means:
"The networks of relationships among people who live and work in a particular society, enabling that society to function effectively."
Designing a park is a catalyst that brings residents, local agencies, and community organizations together to serve their community. When residents work together to transform an area into a vibrant park, it becomes a symbol of community pride.
The following pages provide quotes from communities about how this process strengthened relationships between local government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and neighborhood residents.
"Just planning the park has brought the community together. Boorman Park is the community's baby. This project reflects in-depth community planning to represent what we really want and need in a park. This grant gives us the inspiration to keep active in the community. We are so proud of this effort. The community has finally been heard and our kids will benefit for years!"
Maria Isabel Barrera | West County Regional Group member and resident of the Boorman Park area.
"Having the community deeply involved in the design is key. Because sometimes people see things that you don't. We had a team of people from the community to plan and do all the outreach themselves. That really worked. We had to work together, collaborate together, to figure out how to approach and bring in the whole community. That process of people from the community working together breaks down barriers, connects families, and builds trust."
Carmen Lee | Resident, Richmond's Pogo Park
"An unexpected and exciting benefit of the process was seeing new relationships and even friendships being created between diverse community members where none existed before as a result of them meeting each other at the community meetings. It made our meetings better and it made the community stronger."
Doug Pickard | Parks Project Specialist, City of Fullerton
"An unexpected benefit of the process was the community building - I liked meeting fellow neighbors and hearing their ideas."
Yanel Saenz | resident
"It was wonderful to see how much a person's attitude towards a project or amenity could change through the enthusiasm of other community members that they may rarely interact with. For example, a woman who came in staunchly against a skate park because she had preconceived notions about the type of person who would use the skate park became a supporter by listening to the members of the Skate Movement and what they were doing for youth in our community. Broadening horizons and understanding the wider needs of the community is awesome!"
Jennifer Moore | Recreation Supervisor, City of Redding
"A significant benefit is the number of people I met whom I've never had the pleasure of meeting….new park 'sparked' their interest."
Mikal Kirchner | Director, City of Selma Recreation & Community Services
"Many were happy to know their voices were being heard."
Noel Castillo | Public Works Director/City Engineer, City of Montclair
"I think it was great to see such a diverse group of community members come together with a common goal - improving community health and open space access for all. Everyone's goals are the same."
Gabriel Teran | City of Oxnard Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Commissioner, about Campus Park Planning
"Participants worked surprisingly well together as a group to develop a plan that would best benefit all. They took ownership of the project and interest in the process."
Jami Westervelt | City of Gustine
"The community engagement process cast a wide net in its scope and hearing what the seniors wanted for their recreation needs was a significant benefit."
Laura Fischer | General Manager, Heber Public Utility District
"Residents were encouraged to assume the role of landscape architects and design their ideal park for the community as a whole, integrating diverse themes and park elements that had been voiced. A significant benefit of the community engagement process was having diverse residents' ideas coalesce into a consensus approved design that integrated passive, active, and cultural elements. For example, Mixteco residents in need of a Pelota Mixteca court shared their needs, and everyone at the workshops supported their idea and integrated them into their preferred park designs."
Eric Humel | City of Oxnard
"One of the young people that I walked up to and asked them to do this survey turned out to be our committee leader. She has a natural leadership quality… I would also constantly refer to it as ‘their park'. That made them want to be there and put their heart into making this park something special...This park represents who they are and their heritage; it tells a story."
Sonia Hall
"The community leaders in the Airport neighborhood selected to make improvements to Oregon Park as a first step towards revitalizing this challenged neighborhood. The Airport Neighborhood Collaborative is composed of parent leaders, organizations, business leaders, non-profits, elected officials, city and county departments in the interest of supporting the neighborhood health, safety, and well-being."
Lourdes Perez | Program Manager, Cultiva La Salud
When residents are empowered to work together with local government or non-profit organizations, some may show a natural ability to inspire community-driven efforts. Enthusiastic and talented resident leaders discovered through the process have been recruited to join an organization's or agency's workforce. Here's an example!
"My name is Kimberly McCoy and I am from Fresno, California. In 2012, I was frustrated with local political decisions affecting my family. I was looking for a way to get involved in my community and volunteered. I received training on how to connect with other neighbors and be civically involved, which I enjoyed. I became a team leader and led door-to-door and phone banking campaigns throughout the Central Valley to connect everyday people to decision-making processes and help them understand how to engage in issues they care about. In 2014, I was promoted to a community organizer. I conducted one-on-one visits and led house meetings with residents in communities that wanted to create change.
I learned about the importance of:
In 2018, I was hired as Project Director for Fresno Building Healthy Communities and led signature gathering efforts to advance local measures such as Measure P on the November 2018 ballot for parks, arts, and trails in the City of Fresno. I continue to support community groups in identifying, planning, and implementing strategies to advance a common agenda of community health. In 2019, I was selected to be a voice for the community on the AB 617 Community Air Protection Program Steering Committee, to elevate community priorities and emission reduction opportunities in Fresno's most impacted communities.
I have enjoyed being able to connect and build relationships with residents, shaping decision-making processes and supporting my neighbors to leverage their power by using their voice. That is how we will continue to build healthy communities with authentic community engagement. I hope my story can inspire other residents to become a leader for their community. Thank you."
Kimberly McCoy | Project Director, Fresno Building Healthy Communities
Historically, in competitive programs, grant writers and even grant guidelines cited national, state, or regional surveys to determine what types of recreation facilities should be in a community park. For example, the results of regional or statewide surveys were used to prioritize which type of facility ranked higher in California's competitive Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) applications. A picnic area ranked higher than a playground, a baseball field ranked higher than a soccer field, and a tennis court higher than a basketball court.
During application workshops of prior grant programs, however, local government applicants frequently reported that their community's needs were different from the statewide or regional survey results. National, state, or regional surveys may not capture the priorities of cities, and even more specifically, of neighborhoods within different areas of the same cities. Community parks provide close-to-home park access, particularly for seniors and children. Each community has unique unmet recreation needs for park access and infrastructure.
For these reasons, SPP prioritizes new park access while encouraging flexibility in park design responsive to each community's unique recreation needs. Due to the recent 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, new community based planning methods following health guidelines will be tested for the next round of SPP grant funding. To inform future planning efforts over the next five years, the California Department of Parks and Recreation's Community Engagement Division will continue to share successful methods learned through the SPP model.
We hope you find both inspiration and confidence to use this model.
By doing so, you will design a vibrant park reflecting the community's unique needs and identity. Further, it fosters an added benefit by bringing together neighbors, local government, and community organizations. Using the SPP model builds social capital when participants realize their common goals.
Engaging neighbors to plan a park for all to use can be a life-changing experience.
Enjoy the journey!
Parks are unique places where children can play, families and friends bond, people exercise, seniors socialize, youth are mentored, cultures are celebrated, and everyone connects with nature. For these reasons and more, vibrant parks funded by the Statewide Park Program create healthier communities.