REVENUE SHARING STUDY

by Robert Humke and Ann Kief

The federal revenue sharing system for disbursement of funds to local governments has presented many possibilities as well as problems to the public park and recreation agencies of Illinois. Though it is known that some park districts, not directly eligible for funds, have been successful in obtaining grants from other local governments, it has not been known how many achieved success or for what purposes the funds were used. Similarly, it has generally been known that municipal park and recreation units have been receiving revenue sharing funds for their projects, but the extent of their success has been unknown.

These and other questions resulted in an Office of Recreation and Park Resources (ORPR), University of Illinois, study that began early in 1974. A survey instrument was devised and mailed to 443 park districts and municipal park and recreation agencies in Illinois. Respondents were asked whether or not federal revenue sharing funds were requested in 1973, and whether or not funds were received. If funds were received, respondents were requested to indicate the source of the funds, how much was received, and for what purposes the money was used. Respondents also were requested to indicate possible reasons for not receiving the funds. A final question asked whether or not federal revenue sharing funds would be requested in 1974.

A 50 percent response rate was achieved on the mailed questionnaires, with 155 of 294 park districts, and 65 of 149 municipal departments, returning the forms.

Charts were made up indicating each community's success, or lack of success, in obtaining federal revenue sharing funds. All of this detailed information will be available in a separate publication from the ORPR office, 312 Armory Building, Champaign 61820.

Chart I indicated that 40 percent of all the respondents requested revenue sharing funds in 1973. Only 36 percent of the park districts applied, while over half (52 percent) of the municipal units requested funds. Of those applying, 66 percent were successful. Park districts achieved a 51 percent success rate and municipal departments a whopping 91 percent success. Chart I further shows that just half of all the agencies indicated they would apply for funds in 1974. This included 49 percent of the park districts and 54 percent of the municipal agencies.

Charts II and III indicate the source of revenue sharing funds for successful applicants. While 38 percent of the park districts received their funds from the local municipal unit, it was not surprising to find that 88 percent of the successful city

Illinois Parks and Recreation 27 November/December, 1974

recreation and park departments received funds from their own local government.

Park districts were more successful than municipal units in requesting funds from township governments, with 48 percent reporting this source. Nine percent of the municipal units received funds from their townships, but none reported success in requesting county funds. Just four percent of the park district respondents received county revenue sharing money.

Charts IV and V show how much money the successful fund applicants received, and tor what purposes the income was used It should be noted that two park districts and five municipal respondents who received funds, did not report how much they obtained. Thus, the total of $1,880,145 received by 28 park districts, for an average of $67, 148 each, is less than the actual total and average. Similarly the $1297,340 total reported from the 30 successful municipal units, and resulting $43,244 average per city, falls somewhat short of the actual experiences.

Charts IV and V indicate that both park districts (37 percent of funds) and municipal departments (52 percent of funds) considered new facilities the top priority for revenue sharing funds. However, park districts used 29 percent of their funds for improvements of existing areas and facilities, while city units spent 20 percent for this purpose. Cities spent a slightly higher rate than park districts on land acquisition. Seven percent of the park districts' funds but only half of one percent of the municipalities' funds were spent on new programs. "Other uses of various types were reported by eight percent of the park districts and six percent ot the cities. Expansion ot existing programs accounted for Just one percent for park districts, and half of one percent of municipal revenue sharing expenditures.

Finally, those respondents who were unsuccessful in obtaining revenue sharing funds for local park and recreation purposes were asked to state their opinions on why they failed. The answers reveal some differences between park district and municipal respondents. For instance, while almost half of the park districts reported that they simply did not request funds or did not believe they were qualified to get funds, the chief reason for lack of success by municipal

Illinois Parks and Recreation 28 November/ December 1974

units was that other city programs were given higher priority. Municipal respondents stated that the "money was used to ease the property tax burden," or that other programs such as police and fire departments, sewage treatment, flood control, and drug prevention were allotted the funds.

Some 25 percent of the park districts indicated that the unit of government from which they requested funds either "simply said no" or that "funds were committed to other ventures." Meaningfully, an additional 13 percent experienced poor relationships with the local municipalities in general, felt that "funds were distributed in a political manner," or that "the park district was given the run-around by both the township and city." Also of interest was the fact that a few municipal departments still were unaware that revenue sharing funds were available or could be used for park and recreation purposes. Some felt funds would be made available after additional planning was accomplished.

This study was avaluable not only because it aided in bringing generally known facts about revenue sharing into sharp focus, but because the survey questionnaire served in many instances as an "awareness device" for park districts or municipal units. It can be expected that additional park and recreation agencies are requesting funds in 1974. Further, the results of this Illinois study can be compared with the national survey conducted by NRPA. Hopefully, the most important result of this and other similar studies will be to aid park and recreation districts and departments in Illinois to achieve greater success in obtaining the necessary funds for their operations.

(Editors note: Robert P. Humke, is Community Recreation Specialist, and Ann Kief is Personnel Development Specialist in the Office of Recreation and Park Resources, University of Illinois.)

Illinois Parks and Recreation 29 November/December, 1974