 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Is the SRA boom of the '70s and '80s headed for a bust?
By John N. McGovern Conventional wisdom says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But there are times when you can see something breaking and can step in and save it, and this is one of those times. We are talking about the award-winning model of providing recreation programs for people with disabilities: special recreation associations or SRAs. Political, social, and legal forces are amassed and unless they are diverted, they will ruin the special recreation association model. This article reviews those forces, and proposes some changes that could allow the 32-year-old special recreation association movement to thrive for another three decades. 1960s: Do it alone or do it together In the late 1960s, park districts were asked with increasing frequency to provide recreation opportunities for children with disabilities. More and more families were seeing their children with disabilities receive education services in school districts and the popular question was "If the schools can do it, why can't the park districts?" Some park districts experimented with summer programs and the occasional bowling or social program. Adding to interest in this area, the Chicago Park District hosted the first Special Olympics competition in 1968 at Soldier Field.
In 1969, the park districts in the northern suburbs asked for help from the Illinois General Assembly. The Illinois Association of Park Districts supported the issue and worked with legislators and park district officials to solve the problem. Ultimately, the General Assembly created Section 8-10.1 of the Park District Code, which
30 Illinois Parks and Recreation
authorizes park districts to establish, maintain, and manage recreation programs for persons with all types of all disability. The statute authorizes park districts to provide transportation, hire professional employees, and to charge fees for these services. This was the important first step: establishing authority for park districts, acting alone, to provide recreation for people with disabilities. But the problem was one of scope and size, not just authority. Even in large park districts of 50,000 or more residents, there were too few people with disabilities to provide adequate programs. The incidence of disability was even less in park districts with 10,000 or fewer residents. So the General Assembly, at the same time it established authority for park districts to act alone, granted legislative authority for park districts and municipalities to form special recreation partnerships. Section 8-10.2 provides that two or more park districts can join together for the express purpose of providing recreation programs for people with disabilities who live in the cooperating districts. The organizations, called special recreation associations or SRAs, have the same authority that a single park district has and can also own real property for the use of the special recreation association. Specifically, Section 8-10.2 provides the authority for individuals, municipalities, or park districts, to work together to maintain staff, to define the relationship between the various partners, to constitute a governing board, and to provide other requirements for operations of programs as are believed to be necessary. In the Municipal Code, Section 11-95-13, and 11-95-14 similar authority exists and was approved on May 29,1969. "It is a pretty simple idea," says Kevin Kendrigan, the executive director of the Northwest Special Recreation Association, the largest of the 25 SRAs. "By cooperating, the partner communities can provide more service to their residents, at less cost to the taxpayer."
1970s and 1980s: Funding issues and answers spur SRA growth Eager to serve their residents, park districts formed four special recreation associations within four years of the General Assembly's action, from 1970 to 1974. The Northern Suburban Special Recreation Association (NSSRA) was first, followed closely by the South Suburban Special Recreation Association (SSSRA).
"We knew this was a need, we just were not sure how to do it," says Mary Gregoire, director of the Olympia Fields Park District. "We knew we couldn't do it on our own, so as soon as the General Assembly gave us the ability to form an SRA we did." In the first several years of their existence, the park district partnerships were funded with support from townships (using now-extinct federal Revenue Sharing funds) and park district sources. Within three years it was clear that these sources were inadequate. It was equally clear that more park district partnerships would form if a stream of funding was available. In 1975 the General Assembly acted again and established Section 5-8 of the Park District Code. This section authorized a park district that was a partner in a special recreation association to levy up to $.02 per $100 of equalized assessed valuation (EAV), pursuant to referendum by petition. It also restricted the expenditure of those funds to costs directly related to the costs of operating the special recreation association. The same authority was incorporated into the Municipal Code. This dedicated source of funds spurred an explosion in the number of communities receiving special recreation services. Between 1975 and 1980, park districts formed 15 special recreation associations. Five more were formed in the 1980s. A little more than ten years later, park districts and special recreation associations were concerned about the growing demand for recreation for people with disabilities. More and more of the park districts and cities in special recreation agreements were at the $.02 levy rate maximum and demand was rising faster than resources. In 1987 the General Assembly removed the referendum by petition requirement and doubled the allowable tax rate to $.04. This September/October 2002 31 measure passed with the support of the Illinois Taxpayers Federation. The existence of this stable source of funds has benefitted hundreds of thousands of Illinois residents with disabilities. It also resulted in another surge in the creation of special recreation associations, with six more being created. 1990s: SRA growth slows to a stop Up until this point, the history of special recreation associations in Illinois has been one of constant growth. The General Assembly acted in the interest of the public and at the request of the public and the park districts. SRAs won award after award at the national level. Then, things changed and not one special recreation association was created in the 1990s, and the number of communities joining special recreation associations slowed to a trickle. Why? One reason is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which has had a dramatic impact on the types of services that are being provided by special recreation associations in Illinois. The ADA became effective January 26, 1992. It requires that recreation programs be available for people with disabilities in the "most integrated setting." Among all the park districts in an SRA, between $1,500,000 and $2,000,000 is spent annually to support participation in recreation programs in the most integrated setting as required by the ADA "The impact of inclusion has been staggering for some of the partnerships," says Jane Hodgkinson, executive director of the Western Du Page Special Recreation Association. "In three of the partnerships, a combined amount of more than $1,000,000 annually is expended to meet high demand for inclusion. That $1,000,000 has come from revenue that would other wise have been expended for conventional recreation programs for persons with disabilities." Another reason is that the model doesn't work as well in rural areas or less densely populated communities. In the metropolitan Chicago area or in developed areas like Rockford, Champaign-Urbana, and Peoria, communities are in close proximity and have enough population base to make the partnerships advantageous. However, in Macomb, Kewanee and Roxana, neighboring communities are too far away to make a partnership practical. Indeed, it has become extremely difficult under the Property Tax Extension Limitation Act (or tax cap) for any new communities to enter into joint agreement programs. Since the tax cap became effective in 1991, only four communities have joined a special recreation partnership: the Village of Lincolnshire, the Village of Riverwoods, the Grayslake Area Park District, and just this April, the Village of Harwood Heights. "The Village of Harwood Heights is a logical partner for us, being so close to Norridge Park District and the Village of Elmwood Park," says Sandy Gbur, executive director of the West Suburban Special Recreation Association. "If the Village had not been a home rule municipality, this would have been a much more difficult decision for the Village to make." This is because under the Property Tax Extension Limitation Act, to provide the funds required to join a partnership requires taking those funds from other levies or other revenue sources, or passing a referendum. Many municipalities and park districts fear that because of the relatively small incidence of disability that a referendum question will fail. 2000s: The impact of medical technology/economics/and lawsuits Today, advances in medical technology save the lives of many newborns who just five years ago would have died. These children live on with disabilities and stay in the community. They demand services, including recreation. At the other end of the spectrum, doctors save more adults who experience traumatic injuries or conditions, and they too return to home and live with disabilities in the community. As a result, many SRAs are facing very difficult financial times. As demand rises due to demographic reasons, and as the stable source of revenue shrinks because of the implementation of the tax cap, both the quality of service and the quantity of service are jeopardized. Each of the 26 existing special recreation associations reports one of these symptoms of problems ahead: • deficit budgets • program reductions • service waiting lists • employee reductions • rapidly rising fees for service Another stress on SRAs is a nationwide trend in court and
administrative decisions to declare acts by units of local government to be discriminatory when people with disabilities don't receive appropriate service or when service is denied. From Barrington to San Francisco to New York, federal courts and hearing officers are forcing parks and recreation agencies to comply with ADA requirements, and no entity has successfully defended a case by claiming that it could not afford the service requested. Park districts that cry poor, pointing to the restrictions of the tax cap, will receive little sympathy in court. 2002: Searching for a solution It is clear the current funding method for public recreation opportunities for people with disabilities is inadequate now. In three years, it will be a crisis. Continued service reductions, growing demand, growing waiting lists, and growing inclusion demands in communities where that demand has not yet evolved, will erode the stability of the special recreation associations. The challenge today is to develop revenue streams that will provide for continued local support of people with disabilities, and to, where possible, revise the current system. Says Terry Porter, director of the Wilmette Park District: "We have to think differently about SRAs. We either have to change the way they are funded, or change what they do, or consider cutting services provided by SRAs." One suggestion is to ask the General Assembly to enact a once-only exemption that would permit a park district or non-home rule municipality to become a partner in an SRA by raising its tax levy above the aggregate. In subsequent years, the increased levy would be subject to the Property Tax Extension Limitation Act. This would enable communities not yet in a special recreation association to join one. Another suggestion is to exempt the Section 5-8 levy from the tax cap. Another suggestion is to allow a unified referendum in all SRA communities. Present law would require each park district or city served by an SRA to hold separate referenda to increase tax support for the SRA. Conducting six, ten, or fourteen referenda would be very difficult and unwieldy. But, holding one referendum across all six to fourteen communities would be more manageable and consistent with the intent of the tax cap.
Another suggestion is to seek state funds. The special recreation associations have been working together to become eligible for funds from the State of Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS). Many DHS program outcomes are identical to SRA outcomes: increased independence, better employability, acquisition of social skills, and better inclusion into the community. This solution is part of the legislative platform of the Illinois Association of Park Districts and the Illinois Park and Recreation Association. Fees, too, are an issue. The ADA prohibits park districts and SRAs from charging people with disabilities fees that are higher than fees charged to people without disabilities for similar recreation programs. The challenge in a special recreation setting is to identify where fee revenue can be in creased without having a discriminatory result. Bottom line, recreation for people with disabilities is a park district issue, not an SRA issue. The problems facing special recreation associations will be solved when park district elected officials and administrators treat it as a priority, not as an issue the "SRA people" are solving. Most communities want the same level of service or greater service for people with disabilities. So the trick in the next two years, to avoid a crisis, is to determine what that source of revenue will be. If we work together, we can "fix it" before it is broken. If we wait, we may never be able to fix it. John N. McGovern is the executive director of the Northern Suburban Special Recreation Association. A long-time member of the Joint Legislative Committee, he writes and speaks frequently about recreation and people with disabilities.
September/October 2002 33
34 Illinois Parks and Recreation
|
|
|
