Let A Computer Be Your Guide

By Carol Arslander, Instructor
Western Illinois University

Recreators must stop paying lip service to the concept of comprehensive community recreation programming. Numerous studies, and observations indicate there is a serious shortage of recreation leadership, facilities, and services in many communities. The problem is compounded by forecasts for the future. Demographers, urban planners, and recreators predict a recreation explosion is close at hand. Accordingly, the phenomenon will be preceded by a dramatic change in our pattern of living; characterized by a significant increase in population, leisure time, affluence and mobility. Both issues represent serious challenges for the recreator. Bold and innovative approaches must be undertaken if recreators are to meet the needs of the present and future. CAP, or Computer Activity Programming offers one possible approach and a promising potential. As the title indicates, "Let a computer be your guide!"

The time has come for recreators to make use of new technology. Some recreators have begun to employ computers in recreation administration; in such areas as cash control, usage and enrollment reports, and general recordkeeping. This is only the beginning! The use of computers and data processing in recreation offers a whole new vista of opportunities in programming and planning.

CAP in application involves two steps. One, the matching of people with similar interests and needs. The second step, is allocating limited resources in accordance with the distribution of needs. The CAP approach requires comprehensive community research. It is recommended that the following types of data be collected.

I. Information on Clientele

A. Scaled recreation interests of each person or family unit in the community
B. Personal available leisure time
C. Personal disposable income
D. Present recreation pastimes and time engaged in recreation activities

II. Information on Recreators

A. Scaled recreation interests and skills
B. Daily work load distribution

III. Information on the Community

A. Existing recreation programs and services
B. Available facilities and equipment
C. Financial resources
D. Population description and breakdown

The above listing should not be considered inclusive. Data collected would have to conform to the needs of the recreator and community. Additional information such as master plans, community growth rates, etc., should also be collected. In order to maintain current information, possibly an agreement could be made with one of the community's public utilities to share information on population immigration and migration. Periodic surveys every five to ten years would also be necessary, so that recreators could keep abreast of socio-economic and recreational changes and trends in the community and maintain a viable program.

The CAP approach could regenerate the spontaneity and vitality of earlier neighborhood programs that were characterized by self support, self determination, and decentralization. By matching people of similar interests the recreator could set up groups or "happenings" throughout the community. The range of activities could be as varied as the composition of the community and the imagination of the recreator. The structuring of the groups would largely be determined by the participants. The employment of volunteers and indigenous leadership would be encouraged. Cooperative efforts and arrangements between public, private, and commercial interests would also be promoted. The sharing of leadership, equipment, and facilities would greatly enhance the overall quality of a community's services. To decentralize the thrust of the services a wide variety of facilities should be used, including schools, churches, homes, and other private facilities. Recreators would be able to channel resources more equitably under this approach because they will know what and where resources are available and the needs of the people.

Effective public relations are also crucial to the CAP approach. Recreators would still perform some of the various "traditional" tasks associated with the position. However, the redefinition of the recreator's primary role is in order. The recreator would have two key functions to perform: as a referent and as a consultant. As a referent, the recreator would focus on informing the public of the various community recreation services and activities or "letting them know where the action is!" Here, knowledge and coordination of existing

Illinois Parks and Recreation 26 March/April, 1973

programs is imperative to avoid duplication of services and to promote good will rather than competition amongst the recreation providers. It is important to note that I'm not proposing that public recreators provide all or even a majority of a community's recreation services. Rather, recreators should take the lead in promoting recreational opportunities generally, regardless of the sponsor.

The consultant role is equally important to the success of the CAP approach. In order to expand the scope of recreation programming, a consultant task force would be developed. Their purpose would be to instruct or educate the public in leisure-time activities. Considerable time would be allocated to consultive and educational activities rather than supervisory activities. The emphasis is on making individuals recreationally self-sufficient. Also, to broaden the outreach of the public recreation agency, roving leaders, traveling workshops and clinics would be utilized.

Planning under the CAP approach would be less complex and more rational. Decisions could be based on the possession of facts. The use of computers would enhance rather than replace the ability of the recreator to make broader, faster and more effective decisions. The tool will greatly extend the scope of the recreator and enable him to serve more efficiently and effectively.

The initial expenditure for the CAP approach would be high, but the per unit cost would be extremely low. As time passed, the overall cost would decline. The CAP approach would prove invaluable considering its programming, planning and administrative potential. We as recreators must seize opportunities for creative programming and for potential contributions to the well-being of the people we serve. Let us be innovators rather than reactors. Let us move forward with progress and let computers be our guides (or help us be more effective)!

Caterpillar Gives Land to Pekin Park District

The Caterpillar Tractor Company has donated 385 acres of land to the Pekin Park District.

This national company is vitally concerned about the recreational opportunities of the people on the tri-county area, and has a strong desire to preserve green space for parks use.

The Pekin Park District forsees a great recreational potential for the land due to its strategic location. The Board of Commissioners expressed their appreciation of Caterpillar's vision and generosity in making possible the opportunity for future development of park and recreational facilities for the area.

Mr. W. L. Neumann (right) Vice Chairman, Caterpillar Tractor Company, presents deed for
385.5 acres of land to Park Commissioner Tim G. Soldwedet (left).

Illinois Parks and Recreation 27 March/April, 1973