Back in September, the Kansas City Parks and Recreation department did an online survey that asked about people's perceptions and attitudes of the KCMO Parks System.
You may note, that just this month, the city released its 2008 Citizen Satisfaction Survey, and 6 of the 16 parts of the city that got the lowest satisfaction scores relayed directly back to the parks board and department including:
City's Adult Athletic Programs
Ease of registering for parks and recreation programs
Other City Recreation Programs
Reasonableness of Fees for Recreation Programs
City's Youth Athletic Programs
City Swimming Pools
For the record, on the individual Parks and Recreation survey, I have no idea what the audience sample was -- or how it was promoted. I didn't really know anything about this survey ahead of time, so I don't really know how the 400 people who filled out the survey found it. However, it appares as if the online survey was filled out by the people who were mostly satisfied with the parks department, as about 250 of the 400 surveys that were filled out said that they were at least somewhat satisfied with the parks department (the highest parks satisfaction score on the entire larger city sruvey was "location of city parks" at 51%).
The survey has a variety of people who used a variety of different park functions (Parks, lakes, golf courses, trails, zoo, community centers, athletic fields, tennis courts, etc).
What is probably the most interesting piece of this survey is the comments section. Of the 400 surveys that were filled out, 99 of them had comments left in the comments section of the survey. I made a list of the thing that were mentioned in the comments section and here is a list (obviously people could comment on multiple items):
More, better, dog parks -- 84 mentions
Trails/Hiking/Biking - 9 mentions
Better maintenence/beautification - 9 mentions
Safer/nicer bathrooms -- 7 mentions
Answer/return calls/better responsiveness -- 7 mentions
Safety -- 6 mentions
Special events/arts programs - 6 mentions
Less than 5 mentions: Parking, too much grass (plant more indigenous flowers), water fountains, playgrounds, lighting, too many homeless people, more community centers, recycling along with trash and more shade.
Needless to say, the demand for dog parks is pretty high -- with 84 mentions. And before we just assume that the WOOF group block voted in this survey, there was a surprisingly large number of people who were requesting for more dog parks up in the Northland -- where there is a TON of open land and park space, but no dog park. The Parks Board heard from some of the folks at WOOF 18 months ago regarding the building of more dog parks (with one location in particular that was requested). At the time, the Parks Board assigned a task force to look into dog parks. It appears as if there is a meeting tonight of the task force group --but the most recent meeting minutes on the website are actually from all the way back in February of this year. Have they really not met for 10 months?
Either way, this is pretty embarrassing that a task force that was assembled over a year ago still has not come forward with any type of recommendation on dog parks for the city. It's time for the city to step up responsiveness in this matter, and quit letting beauracrcy stand in the way of progress.
BTW, I can't find the survey posted online -- but if anyone wants a copy of it, I will be happy to provide it.
I hope this carries some weight with Council. The thing is, where pet issues are involved, it doesn't seem to matter how many people want (or don't want somethng. They seem to march to an invisible drummer.
Posted by: Selma | November 26, 2008 at 03:50 AM