SCORP is a five-year plan that establishes grant priorities to address unmet needs for public outdoor recreation land throughout California. By creating the five-year SCORP action plan for grant-making priorities, California maintains eligibility for federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grants.

Executive Summary

SCORP is a product of the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) — Community Engagement Division (CED) — Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS). OGALS administers LWCF on behalf of California. The LWCF Act of 1965 intends to "strengthen the health and vitality of citizens" by creating and preserving outdoor recreation land in perpetuity. Since 1965, nearly 7,600 parks in California have been created or improved with federal and state grants administered by OGALS, including over 1,000 parks funded by the LWCF. Currently, more than 700 local agencies partner with OGALS to create and improve close-to-home park access for the health and wellness of California's 40 million residents.

Grants: Five-Year Action Plan

Local agency grantees* will create, expand, or improve park access within a half mile of underserved communities. For park design, community-based planning methods give local agencies flexibility to propose features authentic to each community's unique recreation needs. Projects will increase athletics, art, and nature-based recreation opportunities for the health and wellness of all age groups.

* Local agencies propose projects to OGALS through a statewide competitive process.

State agency grantees* will enhance the resiliency of California's natural resources including but not limited to wetlands, forests, deserts, watersheds, coastal areas and other open space through acquisition or development projects to improve public outdoor recreation access and advance solutions to confront climate change. Per Executive Order N-82-20, California has pledged to conserve 30 percent of land and coastal waters by the year 2030. Each eligible state agency has its own action plan priorities in this SCORP.

* California's Public Resource Code §5099.12 makes a percentage of annual LWCF funds available to State Parks, Department of Water Resources, California Wildlife Conservation Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the California Coastal Conservancy.

All local and state agency lands funded by LWCF are protected in perpetuity for the benefit of future generations through Section 6(f)(3) of the LWCF Act.

From 2016 to 2020, park access, community-based planning, and health partnerships were the overarching themes associated with park development grant programs awarded in California. These themes emerged during four years of statewide discussions:

2016–17: Thirty-seven focus groups, which included more than 500 public participants, park and recreation providers, university professors, and health sector professionals, supported a SCORP emphasis on increasing access to parks and recreation services for community health and wellness.

2018: Californians passed the Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018 (Proposition 68). This action strengthened the nexus between park access and improving the physical and emotional health of communities, and sought to address rising health care costs and obesity-related illnesses.

2018 to 2020: Over 500 local agencies discussed park access, community-based planning, and health partnerships in over 20 hearings and workshops for the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP). These efforts resulted in $2.3 billion in competitive park projects requests during the most recent 2019–20 cycle.

The California Department of Parks and Recreation

California has benefited greatly from both public and private agencies that have made public outdoor spaces a priority. The California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) serves an important public agency role that administers the following:

State Park System — Protects landscapes where nature is primary and facilities complement natural and cultural/historic values. With 280 state park units, over 340 miles of coastline, 991 miles of lake and river frontage, more than 14,000 campsites, and more than 5,000 miles of motorized and non-motorized trails, DPR contains the largest and most diverse recreational, natural, and cultural heritage holdings of any state agency in the nation.

Develop and maintain the SCORP — Develops analysis, goals, tracking systems and range of partnerships to achieve a five year action plan, which includes facilitating discussion and outreach regarding the action plan's goals and programs.

Fund Local Needs — Develops and administers local assistance grant programs from bond acts or federally or state funded annual programs through OGALS, Division of Boating and Waterways and Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation, and Office of Historic Preservation. Since 2000, DPR administered over $3 billion in grants.

Facilitates planning, technical assistance, and partnerships — between the health, educational, environmental sectors and local park agencies to build healthier communities through new parks and programs.

The 2021–2025 SCORP continues the analysis of park access in California using the following inventory and tools:

California Protected Areas Database (CPAD)

Provides an inventory of over 14,000 public parks and open space areas statewide. calands.org

Park Access Tool

Provides a broad analysis at larger geographic scales to calculate 1) the ratio of park acres per thousand people, and, 2) the percentage of people who live within a half-mile of a park. In 2015, when OGALS first launched this tool for the 2015–2020 SCORP, findings indicated that:

• Over 60% of Californians live in Census Tracts with less than 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
• Nearly 9 million people, 24% of Californians, have no park within a half mile of their homes.

In the update for the 2021–2025 SCORP, OGALS found that:

• Over 61% of Californians live in Census Tracts with less than 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.
• Nearly 8 million people, 21% of Californians, have no park within a half mile of their homes.

To better understand how these communities that lack park access fit within the larger picture in California, statistics are available for cities, counties, regions, and legislative districts.
parksforcalifornia.org/parkaccess

Park Access Investments by the Numbers

The following provides a 10-year review of statewide park investments.

Proposition 84 SPP Rounds One and Two

• Between two competitive rounds in 2009/10, 125 SPP parks were funded through $368 million, with an average grant amount of $2.7 million.
• Approximately 1 million Californians live within a half-mile of the 125 grant funded sites.
• These numbers show that in 2009/10, an investment of $368 million created new park access for every 1 million Californians.
• Considering a 2010 investment for 30 years of public use through 2040, providing new park access within a half mile of 1 million Californians calculated to $11 per person per year, or 94 cents per month, or 3 cents per day.

Proposition 68 SPP Round Three

• In 2019/20, 62 parks were funded through $255 million, with an average grant amount of $4.1 million.
• Approximately 500,000 Californians live within a half-mile of the 62 grant funded sites.
• These numbers show that in the 2019/20 SPP Round Three, an investment of $255 million created new park access for nearly 500,000 Californians within a half mile radius of 62 projects.
• Considering an investment for 30 years of public use through 2050, providing new park access within a half mile of every 500,000 Californians now calculates to $17 per person per year, or $1.41 per month, or 5 cents per day.
• The upcoming Round Four will make an additional $395.3 million available. Competitive project applications are due in March 2021. This final round of Proposition 68 SPP may provide park access for an additional 500,000 or more Californians within a half mile of their neighborhoods.

Conclusion

Based on these patterns between three SPP rounds of funding for community park development, an average of approximately 60 park projects per round are creating new park access for approximately 500,000 Californians within a half mile radius per round. Land acquisition and construction prices have increased by approximately $1,500,000 per project site over the past decade from 2010 to 2020. Based on current projections, for each $600 million investment, an additional 1 million Californians will have new or expanded park access within a half mile of their neighborhoods.

This picture of the larger landscape provided by the Park Access Tool is important, but the site-specific Community FactFinder is essential for making the most informed decisions about project areas.

Community FactFinder

The Community FactFinder provides DPR and the public site-specific data within the half-mile radius of any park project area. The data helps users evaluate a specific area where a grant applicant proposes to build a project, in comparison to all competing statewide applications. Additionally, the Community FactFinder helps steer local park planners and grant applicants to locate projects in underserved communities.

Prioritizing Projects for Local Assistance Grant Programs such as the LWCF

Considering California's almost 40 million residents and the complexity and high need for parks throughout urban, suburban, and rural communities, local assistance grant programs, including LWCF, do not "pre-select" a few communities to receive grant funding. Instead, California's LWCF and the Statewide Park Program provide these tools to applicants to help them identify high priority areas in their jurisdictions. Once applications are submitted to CED/OGALS, the competitive applications go through a statewide analysis using the same tools. While the use and ranking of consistent data to measure park deficiency and poverty is valuable to help prioritize projects, any competitive grant review process should also include analysis and professional judgment of other factors including the project's need and benefits.

For more information about the evolution of these tools, challenges, and lessons learned, the 2021–2025 SCORP includes an additional report named California's Vision for Park Equity 2000–2020: Transforming Park Access Data and Technology. This report is available at ParksforCalifornia.org

2021–2025 SCORP Action Plan for Using Geospatial Technology to Identify Park Access Priorities

1. Continue updating the California Protected Area Database (CPAD) as a vital inventory and resource for assessing park acreage statewide.
2. Continue using the Community FactFinder for site-specific data analysis of proposed projects.
3. In 2025, release the next version of the Park Access Tool for the 2025–2030 SCORP, building upon the 2015 and 2020 editions.
4. Monitor data and technology for improvements, especially in these forms:

1. Network analysis for walking routes specifically, to increase the accuracy of the 10-minute walk shed of each park, excluding areas that are impassable due to freeways, railroads, or other areas impassable to pedestrians.
2. Accessible mapping technologies for low- and no-vision users.
3. Participatory mapping technologies that enable community members to provide spatially specific comments, images, and stories about park design and park access in their neighborhoods.

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 included 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 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.

However, during LWCF application workshops, 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 recreation feature priorities of cities, and even more specifically, of neighborhoods within different areas of the same cities. Each community has unique unmet recreation needs for park access and infrastructure.

For these reasons, California's SCORP encourages flexibility in park design responsive to each community's unique recreation needs. SCORP provides methods learned from hundreds of local park agencies and nonprofit organizations, using a three-step public engagement model for designing community parks. The three-step model was developed and tested through California's Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (SPP).

Three-Step Public Engagement Model

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:

1. Scheduling five accessible park design meetings at or near the project site, at different times including weekends or evenings.
2. Inviting and involving youth, seniors, and families living in the project area to engage in an active planning process.
3. Conducting interactive and dynamic meetings to achieve the following park design goals:
• Selecting and designing recreation features.
• Locating the selected recreation features within the park.
• Identifying safe public use and park beautification ideas.

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.

To learn more, see Designing Parks Using Community-Based Planning — Methods from California's Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program.

Historical Significance of SPP Community-Based Planning

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 has provided more than $1 billion in grant funding through Proposition 84 in 2006 and Proposition 68 in 2018.

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. A total of 478 project proposals requesting $2.3 billion were received on Aug. 5, 2019.

SPP Round Four: The remaining $395 million of Proposition 68 SPP will be awarded through a Round Four competitive process in 2021.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, new methods for remote park design meetings and tools are currently being tested in preparation for a March 2021 SPP Round 4 application deadline. Methods that are proven to be successful may be featured in California's 2025–2030 SCORP if remote web-based meetings are necessary. To inform future planning efforts over the next five years, DPR's Community Engagement Division will continue to share successful methods learned through this SPP model.

Below are two examples showing how SPP projects transform communities. To see more statewide "Before and After" photos, visit ParksforCalifornia.org

"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

"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

"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.

The following describes key findings between the seven statewide Advisory Council Focus Groups:

Findings

Sense of Purpose and Image

The most surprising discovery from the 2016 discussions was sensing the park and recreation profession was suffering from an identity problem.

In summary:

• Marketing park and recreation services to the general public requires a different approach than trying to gain budget support from governing bodies. Local park agencies typically market their services as being "fun" to encourage the public to use local parks and recreation programs. However, city council, or county board of supervisors generally do not prioritize "having fun" over public health and safety such as police and fire. Local directors often feel that they are competing with other public service agencies for budget support.
• Local park agencies were being required to become revenue generators, renamed or merged into broader non-park agencies such as "Community Services" or "Public Works."

"Pay to Play" and "Revenue Generation" Trend

An intriguing discussion arose about how marketing the "fun" of parks and recreation often works well to attract the public, but may affect the image and perception of these services as essential. Local park agency directors candidly expressed, "I feel we are not taken seriously" and "we need to do a better job telling our story."

The focus groups touched on our country's work-driven culture that generally does not recognize "fun" or "play" as an essential activity. The work-driven cultural norm appears to clash with the park and recreation sector's belief that play and fun are critical for personal wellness and a community's social health. "Play is not valued as a priority in our society but is fundamental to the development of people." Sedrick Mitchell, Deputy Director, Community Engagement Division, DPR.

Local park agency directors reported that they are required to function under a business model in order to support operations due to budget constraints. "This shifts our service focus and mission" said a local agency director. The business model emphasis may cater to those who can afford to pay, while widening the "equity" service gap for economically disadvantaged members of the public.

Participants pointed out that trying to explain the benefits of parks and recreation has been a long-standing effort within the profession. Advocacy must go beyond saying how great current park and recreation services are, to include a vision for greater investments in parks and recreation to achieve new health benefits. Expanding services to confront health challenges may require a philosophical change in the profession. Some directors spoke passionately about being on the "front line" and "in the trenches." Many park agencies are providing social services such as meals, counseling services, health screenings, clothing distribution, after school tutoring, providing a positive alternative to gangs, life skills classes, etc. Therapeutic recreational programs for war veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and employment development programs were also cited as examples of park agency functions.

People Who Are Homeless and Local Parks

Local park directors explained that there is an increasing amount of people who appear to the general public as being homeless in local parks. The directors had different views of solutions, from collaborating with other local service providers and faith-based organizations to serve people who are homeless, or to design parks that attract more public use. Various ideas were shared to make parks less likely to be sites for encampments, such as designing parks for more active use (skate parks, dog parks, sports courts, running tracks, outdoor gym equipment, etc.) or scheduling supervised recreational events and activities (sports leagues, exercise groups, music, dance, art, movie nights, community events, etc.).

The Words "Recreation" and "Parks" have Different Meanings to Different Audiences

The Advisory Council also pointed out a basic, fundamental issue often not recognized by park professionals: the word "recreation" and "park" is not universally understood for these reasons:

• Some people think the word "recreation" means how people generally spend free time such as watching television, shopping, playing video games, tourism, etc.
• The word "recreation" is also a complex public service to define. Recreation may mean team or individual sports and leagues to some, or viewing wildlife in remote natural areas to others. From arts and crafts, music, dance, theater, to exercise groups, walking, biking, hiking, picnicking/barbeques, camping, fishing or hunting, paddling, boating, horse-back riding or riding off-highway motorized vehicles, and visiting historic sites, "recreation in parks" means a wide range of possibilities.
• The word "park" may also need to be more clearly defined in context depending on the intended audience or purpose because it may not evoke a consistent image. Neighborhood pocket parks, community parks, city, county, regional, state, and national parks all meet diverse needs and interests. In addition, a public beach or "open space" preserve with a trail is often not envisioned or labeled as a "park," but provides public recreational opportunities comparable to many regional, state, or national parks.
• Therefore, a specific type of "recreation" or "park" may need to be clear depending on the communication goal and intended audience.

Park Access

Advisory Council members mentioned that distant parks are more difficult to access on a daily basis due to economic, daily schedule, and physical barriers. Some Californians cannot afford to drive to distant parks or do not have time to visit travel destinations due to busy schedules.

SCORP Public Focus Group Locations

The SPP makes available significant park development funding for the construction of running tracks and walking loops, outdoor gym stations, sports courts and fields, community gardens that produce fresh food, amphitheaters for performing arts programming, swimming pools and aquatic features, skate parks and play areas, and natural areas.

Connecting Health and Park Agencies

DPR and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) can help introduce local health departments (LHDs) to park agencies.

• Health agencies and other entities interested in partnering with local park agencies can contact DPR's Community Engagement Division via email at scorp@parks.ca.gov .
• To find LHDs local park agencies can search the CDPH website by city or county under the Local Health Services page.
  https://cdph.ca.gov/Pages/LocalHealthServicesAndOffices.aspx

California's Health in All Policies (HiAP)

California's Health in All Policies Task Force (HiAP) engages over 20 State departments to view each department's work through a public health lens.

During HiAP conversations, DPR's Community Engagement Division shared the belief that local parks, in communities, can become thriving resources for health especially when programs are offered to help activate the park. DPR further explained that in some areas, when an ideally located park has no programming and insufficient infrastructure, the park may be under-utilized. To test this theory, the "Active Parks, Healthy People" Pilot Program involved offering a program in a park and testing if it will lead to increased physical activity for health and wellness. Details and findings from the Pilot Program are included in the next few pages.

Active Parks, Healthy People Pilot Program

In 2019, the Nutrition Policy Institute developed and implemented an Active Parks, Healthy People Pilot Program in three California counties (Fresno, Los Angeles, and Stanislaus) to explore whether offering a structured physical activity opportunity in community parks would enhance park utilization and increase program participants' physical activity levels.

Participants rated the classes highly. Although some increases in physical activity among park users and program participants were observed, the number of participants were too small to arrive at definitive conclusions. Challenges recruiting participants led the research effort to focus on barriers to park program participation.

Lack of childcare and park safety were the top barriers cited by participants. Health department staff and their partners report that a two-pronged approach that includes both 1) improvement to park infrastructure and safety and 2) support for long term, community-tailored park programming is needed to address barriers to park use and create physical activity opportunities that best fit community need.

The Active Parks, Healthy People Pilot Program report discusses, on page 13, the three communities reported that getting community members out to the park for a program or activity is a good idea for increasing park use.

The evaluation report's quotes from stakeholders provide a personal validation to the concept. Specifically, the quotes on page 16 about the benefits of giving residents a leadership role, and building trust over time through sustainable programming, are especially important.

This is a direct response to the work and conversations that originated in the Health in All Policies (HiAP) parks and green space workgroup.

"It's just getting programming at the park and getting people to see that it's being used and being used for positive things. You know like leagues for kids or even for adults. It's just getting rid of that stigma that the park is abandoned, and it's only used for crime."

— Stanislaus County stakeholder

The report is available on the Nutrition Policy Institute's website: https://npi.ucanr.edu/Publications

Gerstein DE, Plank K, Woodward Lopez G, Crawford P. Active Parks, Healthy People Pilot Program, Evaluation Report. Nutrition Policy Institute. May 2019. https://ucanr.edu/sites/NewNutritionPolicyInstitute/files/310880.pdf

Examples of Health and Park Agency Partnerships

In 2019, a study from the University of California, Los Angeles Institute of Environment and Sustainability found "Park Prescription" programs are an example of community public health infrastructure in action. This study further found that information about parks can be integrated into healthcare providers' electronic records systems. Pediatricians can search for parks based on their patients' locations and interests and write prescriptions for park use. Park Rx programs have been shown to increase the number of families who visit parks, the days per month that people spend in parks, and the time they spend physically active. There are currently more than 20 park prescription programs across California. Collaborating with healthcare providers represents a growing potential.

Citation: Christensen J, Rigolon A, Robins S, and Alemán-Zometa J. California State Parks: A Valuable Resource for Youth Health. UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. September 2019.
https://www.ioes.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/UCLA-report-on-California-State-Parks-and-Youth-Health.pdf

In 2011, the Healthy Parks Healthy People (HPHP) was created with the goal of improving the well-being of Bay Area residents through over 50 park, health, and community organizations. Health-focused programs include family fitness classes, guided hikes and nature walks that provide free introductory experiences for first time or infrequent park visitors. HPHP Bay Area piloted "Park Prescription" programs where health care and social service providers encourage their patients to take advantage of First Saturday and other programs to get into the parks for their health and well-being. As of 2018, each of the nine Bay Area counties are designing and implementing their own Park Prescription programs.

In Los Angeles, the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation launched Summer Parks After Dark (PAD) at 33 county locations, with free programs and events for children and families. In 2018, the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) awarded PAD with the Best in Innovation Award. PAD is led by the county's Department of Parks and Recreation, with strong support from partners including the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Chief Executive Office, Sheriff's Department, Department of Mental Health, Department of Public Health, Department of Workforce Development, Aging and Community Services, Probation Department, Department of Children and Family Services, and many community-based organizations.

The Summer PAD programming ranges from concerts in the park, summer Olympics, art classes, bicycle workshops, CPR/First Aid training, walk/run events, gardening classes and sports clinics, etc. PAD started with only three parks in 2010. Since then, the program expanded to 33 parks in 2019.

Other health-in-parks findings:

• In 2018, California's Proposition 68 reported that "the California Center for Public Health Advocacy estimates that inactivity and obesity cost California over $40 billion dollars annually, through increased health care costs and lost productivity due to obesity-related illnesses, and that even modest increases in physical activity would result in significant savings. Investment in infrastructure improvements such as biking and walking trails and pathways, whether in urban or natural areas, are cost-effective ways to promote physical activity."
• Adults and youth who live close to parks experience higher physical activity levels. An international study by the University of Exeter's Medical School (Environ. Sci. Technol., 2014, 48 (2). pp 1247–1255) also found that parks nearby provide psychological benefits — as much as a one-third decrease in mental health issues, such as anxiety and depression.
• In distressed neighborhoods where vacant lots were converted into small parks and community green spaces, residents reported significantly less stress and more exercise, according to a 2011 study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
• "Children and families are more likely to consistently exercise when in groups or social environments. Providing easy to use equipment dramatically increases physical activity and improves the well-being of most parks" said Frank Meza, MD, Kaiser Permanente's East Los Angeles Medical Center.
• A study of 174 neighborhood parks found that marketing, programming, plus active design, can result in up to 63% more hours of physical activity per week in parks by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine (Volume 51, Issue 4, pages 419–426).

Public parks and recreation opportunities serve as gateways to a healthier America. Parks provide affordable places to exercise. Youth join teams, and cultural celebrations such as concerts, dances, and other performing arts occur in parks. Parks serve as strong catalysts in reclaiming urban run-down areas, and even contribute to environmental health — where landscaping can clean air pollutants and clean stormwater runoff.

A Public Wellness Intervention

Health and Safety Benefits of Parks and Recreation Programs

Physical and Mental

• Affordable alternative to private health clubs through outdoor gym equipment, calisthenics zones, tracks, sports courts, and fields.
• Youth and adult sports leagues for physical fitness, sense of belonging, team work, esteem.
• Release stress, places to exercise and play.
• Therapeutic recreation, a place for people to heal from illnesses and trauma.
• Wellness resource, place for social services like health screenings and nutrition/meals.
• Places to connect with nature and be outdoors.

Economic

• The outdoor recreation industry in California generates $85.4 billion in annual spending, and $6.7 billion in state and local taxes. It helps support 732,000 jobs and internships, in construction, maintenance, program, lifeguards, rangers, vendors, and administrative staff.
• Higher property values.
• Tourism revenue.
• Concessionaire, equipment rentals, and sales revenue for sports leagues, camping, boating, skiing, hiking, surfing, biking, boating, and motorized recreation, etc.