Exhibit E - 2018 Recreation Survey Report.pdf

BEND PARK & RECREATION DISTRICT

COMMUNITY RECREATION SURVEY RESULTS

JANUARY 2019

INTRO, METHODOLOGY & TOP FINDINGS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEMOGRAPHICS

SATISFACTION

COMMUNICATION

SUGGESTIONS

FINANCIAL CHOICES$

CURRENT USAGE

PROGRAM, ACTIVITY, & SERVICE PRIORITIES

VALUES & VISION

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to gather community feedback on Bend Park & Recreation District

(BPRD) organized recreation programs and services.

This survey research effort and subsequent analysis were designed to assist BPRD in building upon the recently completed Comprehensive Plan survey by focusing on recreation programs and services.

METHODOLOGY

The survey was conducted using four primary methods: 1) a mail-back survey sent to a random sample of City of Bend residents (referred to throughout this report as the “Invite” sample),

2) an online, invitation-only web survey to further encourage response from those residents already within the invitation sample, 3) paper surveys collected in Spanish at two group functions organized by BPRD’s Latino Community Outreach Specialist1, and 4) an open survey for members of the public who were not part of the invitation sample (referred to as the

“Open Link” survey throughout this report)2.

The primary list source used for the mailing was a third party list purchased from Melissa Data

Corp., a leading provider of data with emphasis on U.S., Canadian, and international address and phone verification as well as postal software. Use of the Melissa Data list also includes renters in the sample who are frequently missed in other list sources such as utility billing lists.

1 Spanish language surveys have been included in the overall “Invite” results in order to be more representative of Bend’s population as a whole.

2 Open link surveys were collected using multiple methods, including sending a survey invite to the BPRD email database, promoting the survey on the BPRD website, and hosting drop-in open house survey collection events at three different low-income housing developments in the community, among other methods. These results have been combined into one “Open Link” sample.

METHODOLOGY

A total of 5,000 surveys were mailed to a random sample of Bend residents in October 2018.

The final sample size for Invite survey was 863, resulting in a margin of error of approximately

+/- 3.3 percentage points calculated for questions at 50% response. The Open Link survey received an additional 1,029 responses.

The analysis herein primarily focuses on responses from the statistically-valid invitation sample.

However, Invite sample results are compared to those from the Open Link sample throughout the report.

Furthermore, results were segmented and analyzed by presence of children in the household, area of residence, respondent age, and length of time lived in Central Oregon (invitation sample only). Those results are presented in cases where meaningful differences were observed.

Worth noting is that respondents had the opportunity to sign up for participation in potential future follow-up research (e.g., focus groups) by BPRD at the end of the survey. A total of 657 respondents opted in (about 35% of all respondents).

For the total invitation sample size of 863, margin of error is +/- 3.3 percent calculated for questions at 50% response (if the response for a particular question is “50%”— the standard way to generalize margin of error is to state the larger margin, which occurs for responses at 50%). Note that the margin of error is different for every single question response on the survey depending on the resultant sample sizes, proportion of responses, and number of answer categories for each question. Comparison of differences in the data between various segments, therefore, should take into consideration these factors. As a general comment, it is sometimes more appropriate to focus attention on the general trends and patterns in the data rather than on the individual percentages.

WEIGHTING THE DATA

The underlying data were weighted by age, whether the respondent owns or rents their home, and ethnicity to ensure appropriate representation of Bend, OR residents across different demographic cohorts in the sample.

Using U.S. Census Data, the age, home ownership, and ethnicity distribution in the sample were adjusted to more closely match the population profile of Bend.

Due to variable response rates by some segments of the population, the underlying results, while weighted to best match the overall demographics of residents, may not be completely representative of some sub-groups of the Bend population.

TOP 10 FINDINGS

Through this survey effort, BPRD was able to get feedback from non-users of BPRD organized programs and services (about 17% of all invitation respondents). This was also the first time measuring usage of the Pavilion Ice and Sports Center and Art Station, which will serve as a foundation for future benchmarking.

Respondents are very supportive of BPRD’s provision of youth-oriented programs and services. However, results show that BPRD’s scope extends beyond youth. Invitation households were about as likely to have participated in youth programs (45%) as adult programs (40%).

Level of service is similar throughout the community, with about 83% of invitation households having participated in BPRD recreation programs and 90% having visited a BPRD recreation facility regardless of quadrant in Bend where the respondent lives.

The longer residents have lived in Bend, the more likely they are to have used

BPRD

programs/services and to have visited recreation facilities. As Bend continues to grow, it will be important for BPRD to reach out to new members of the community and beyond its more tenured participant base.

Affordability is the #1 reason for choosing BPRD. In contrast, fees being too high was cited by many as an obstacle to participation.

Affordability is particularly a concern for renters, younger, and lower income residents.

Crowding is also a participation barrier and is more of a concern now than it has been historically.

TOP 10 FINDINGS

All the programs and services offered by BPRD were considered important, with high shares of respondents providing ratings of 4 and 5.

However, youth activities earned the highest average rating (4.6), while advanced/ competitive sports leagues and camps and 4th of July Pet Parade and Festival received the lowest (3.5 each).

When households rated the importance of programs and services for the community vs.

their own households, differing priorities emerged. For the community, youth activities were a top community priority. At the household-level, open/public drop-in times and fitness and exercise activities are considered more important.

Providing safe and enriching activities for youth;

contributing to a physically active community; and providing activities for adults 60+ are important functions of BPRD and BPRD is considered effective. Serving diverse populations is also considered important, but BPRD has room to improve its effectiveness.

Respondents are most supportive of tax dollars being allocated toward services that support youth, individuals with disabilities, and low income individuals/ families. In contrast, respondents are least supportive of financial support toward private/ commercial use, followed by non-profit/sport club use.

BPRD is considered very effective in reaching households with information about recreation activities, programs and facilities.

Additionally, the printed Playbook continues to be an important source of information, with 80% of invitation respondents using it to some degree for program selection.

6 7 8 9 10

DEMOGRAPHICS

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

About three in five invitation respondents own their residence (61%). The invitation sample averages about 17 years of residency in the area. The largest share of invitation respondents live in Northeast Bend (34%), followed by those living in the Northwest (26%), Southeast (21%), and Southwest (18%). Open link respondents are more likely to own their residence (85%), live in the area for fewer years on average (13.8), and with a greater share residing in the Northwest quadrant of the City (33%).

Eight percent of invitation respondents reported a need for ADA-accessible facilities and services (compared to 6% of open link respondents). There was a wide income range noted for respondents who answered the income question, with 33% of invitation respondent households earning less than $50k annually, 38% earning between $50k and $100k, and 29% earning over $100k annually. Open link respondents skewed somewhat more affluent, with 43% of households earning at least $100k annually.

The average invitation household size is 2.8 people, similar to the open link (2.7). Most respondents live in two-person households (37% invitation, 45% open link). The invitation sample was comprised of a larger share of 5+ person households (13%, vs. 8% open link). Invitation respondents were more likely to have household members in each age group (with the exception of 60-79), particularly in the 0-4, 15-19, 20-29, and 30-39 categories.

Almost half of invitation respondents are under age 45 (42%), while the remaining 58% are age 45 or older.

About two-thirds (67%) of invitation respondents are female. About one in ten invitation respondents are of

Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin (11%). The open link sample had a generally similar profile, but skewed older, more female, and less diverse.

CURRENT USAGE

CURRENT USAGE: ACTIVITIES

Overall, 83% of invitation respondents have had a household member participate in BPRD activities (vs. 96% of open link respondents). Participation levels were relatively similar for non-instructed drop-in activities

(49%), youth activities (45%), and adult activities (40%). Open link respondents were notably more likely to have participated in adult (62%) or non-instructed drop-in (60%) activities. A greater share of open link respondents have also had a household member participate in older adult activities (25% vs. 17%).

CURRENT USAGE: FACILITIES

Juniper Swim & Fitness Center is, by far, the most visited BPRD recreation facility, with 79% of invitation and

87% of open link respondents having had at least one household member visit the facility. The Pavilion Ice and

Sports Center was about equally visited by both samples (43%-44%). Open link respondents were more likely to have visited the Bend Senior Center (43% vs. 38%) and the Art Station (22% vs. 16%). In total, about 90% of invitation households and 98% of open link households have previously visited a BPRD recreation facility.

BY AGE

Invitation respondents age 18-34 were less likely to have participated in a recreation program (79%) or have visited a recreation facility (85%). In contrast, those 35-44 were more likely to have participated in a program

(87%) or have visited a facility (94%). Worth noting is that participation in adult activities increases with age, and that the Pavilion Ice and Sports Center is more popular among those 54 or younger than those 55 or older.

BY PRESENCE OF CHILDREN

Invitation respondents with at least one child at home were much more likely to have participated in BPRD programs than those without children at home (93% vs. 76%)—particularly youth programs. They were also more likely to have visited a BPRD facility (95% vs. 86%)—particularly Juniper Swim & Fitness. Respondents with children were about twice as likely to have visited the Pavilion and Art Station as those without children.

BY AREA OF RESIDENCE

Regardless of the quadrant in which invitation respondents live in the City, they are about as likely to have participated in a BPRD program or have visited a BPRD recreation facility. This highlights that while usage of particular facilities or programs may vary somewhat depending on household preferences, that there is still a similar level of service for households throughout the community.

BY LENGTH OF RESIDENCY IN CENTRAL OREGON

Invitation respondents who have lived in Central Oregon for longer are more likely to have participated in a

BPRD program or have visited a BPRD recreation facility. This suggests that as Bend continues to grow and new residents move into the community, that BPRD will have to be proactive in its efforts to reach out to new households.

REASONS FOR CHOOSING BPRD

Respondents who have used BPRD programs and facilities were asked to indicate why. The number one reason cited by both samples was affordability/good value (65%-66%). Other top reasons selected by invitation respondents included convenient location (43%), offerings meet interests (43%), convenient times/hours

(33%), and facility quality (32%). These also arose as top reasons for open link respondents, although open link respondents were additionally likely to select instruction quality as a factor (23%).

Invitation households with children at home were more likely to select affordability as a reason for choosing

BPRD than those without children (71% vs. 61%), although it was a top for both groups. Households with children were also more likely to cite convenient times/hours, safe/secure environment, well organized/run, and no other options available. Meanwhile, households without children were more likely to select convenient location, quality of facilities, good customer service, instructor quality, and prefer public vs. private services.

BY ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Affordability was cited as a top factor for choosing BPRD programs and facilities, regardless of annual household income level. However, invitation households earning under $50k annually were slightly less likely to select this as a reason (63%) as compared to households earning more per year (68%-73%).

BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION

About one in five respondents have no concerns/barriers (19%-20%). The remainder of respondents cited at least one factor that, if addressed, would increase their usage of BPRD recreational programs or facilities. The top reason cited among both samples was that activities are full or overcrowded (26% invite, 38% open link).

Invitation respondents also noted that fees are too high (25%), they don’t have time to participate (21%), and that times are not convenient (16%), with progressively smaller shares of respondents citing other reasons.

BY AGE

Younger respondents were more likely to have concerns/barriers to participation than older respondents, with

97% of those 18-34 citing at least one barrier as compared to 70% of those 65 and older. In particular, fees being too high was a larger concern for younger versus older invitation households. Younger respondents were also more likely to select not being aware of programs/activities offered.

Households with children were more likely to identify concerns/barriers than those without children (89% vs.

74%). They were notably more likely to select activities being full or overcrowded and lack of childcare as obstacles. Households without children were more likely to indicate that BPRD doesn’t have the programs they want and that they use another program provider.

BY AREA OF RESIDENCE

Northeast Bend residents were more likely to identify a number of barriers than residents of Northwest or

Southeast Bend. In particular, fees being too high was an area of concern for these respondents (37%). Those in

Southwest Bend were more likely to cite not having time (29%) and a difficult registration process (14%) as barriers than other residents. Northwest residents were more likely to select inconvenient locations (16%).

BY HOME OWNERSHIP

About one-quarter of home owners have no concerns (26%) as compared to 12% of renters. Renters were more likely to identify fees being too high, not having time, not aware of programs/activities offered, inconvenient locations, difficult registration process, and lack of public transportation as obstacles. Homeowners were more deterred by activities being full or overcrowded and not having facility features they desire.

BY ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Barriers to participation varied by household income level. Lower income residents were more likely to identify fees being too high, not having time to participate, difficult registration process, and lack of public transportation as obstacles. Higher income residents were more likely to select activities being full or overcrowded.

SATISFACTION

SATISFACTION

Satisfaction levels were quite high for all aspects of BPRD recreation programs and facilities among both samples of respondents. Open link respondents gave particularly high ratings for BPRD customer service

(average rating of 4.5). The lowest rating received was for affordability (4.0 average provided by invitation respondents), although satisfaction was still quite high overall.

PROGRAM, ACTIVITY,

& SERVICE PRIORITIES

IMPORTANCE OF BPRD PROGRAMS

High shares of invitation respondents indicated that it was “important” (provided a rating of 4 or 5) for

BPRD to provide a number of programs for the community. Top among them was youth activities (91%), closely followed by open/public drop-in times (90%), older adult activities (87%), therapeutic recreation programs for individuals with disabilities (84%), fitness and exercise classes (84%), adult activities (83%), free recreation activities (81%), and instructional sports classes (80%).

IMPORTANCE OF BPRD PROGRAMS

Average importance ratings were generally quite similar between invitation and open link households, with youth activities and open/public drop in times rising toward the top of the list. However, invitation respondents provided slightly higher average importance ratings for most all items. In contrast, fitness and exercise classes were rated as more important by open link respondents (4.4 vs. 4.3).

COMMUNITY PROGRAM PRIORITIES

When asked to identify the top three most important programs and activities for the community as a whole, youth activities was, by far, the most prioritized item. Forty-three percent of invitation respondents chose it as their first community priority and 61% chose it as one of their top three.

COMMUNITY PROGRAM PRIORITIES

TOP 3 COMBINED

Invitation and open link respondents were similar in their level of prioritization for youth activities (60%-61%) and open/public drop-in times (34% each). However, open link respondents were more likely to rank open/public drop-in times (34% vs. 28%), adult activities (31% vs. 23%), and fitness and exercise classes (31%

vs. 17%) as community priorities. In contrast, invitation respondents were more likely to prioritize free recreation activities (23% vs. 13%) and therapeutic recreation programs (19% vs. 13%).

HOUSEHOLD PROGRAM PRIORITIES

When asked to identify which items were most important to their households, priorities shifted somewhat. Invitation respondents were most likely to select open/public drop-in times as a top three priority (43%), followed by youth activities (35%), fitness and exercise classes (31%), adult activities

(30%), older adult activities (25%), and free recreation activities (24%). However, the largest share of respondents still select youth activities as a first-rank household priority (25%).

TOP 3 COMBINED

Invitation and open link respondents generally chose the same items as top household priorities (with the exception of free recreation activities, which a greater share of invitation respondents selected).

However, open link respondents were more likely to prioritize fitness and exercise classes (44% vs. 31%) and older adult activities (32% vs. 25%).

TOP 3 COMBINED, BY AGE

Household program priorities varied somewhat by respondent age. Older invitation respondents were more likely to prioritize fitness and exercise classes, older adult activities, and therapeutic recreation programs for individual with disabilities. Meanwhile, younger respondents were more likely to prioritize youth activities, free recreation activities, and youth-oriented programs.

TOP 3 COMBINED, BY PRESENCE OF CHILDREN

Household programming priorities vary notably by whether there are children present in the household.

Households without children were notably more likely to prioritize fitness and exercise classes, adult, and older adult activities. Households with children were much more likely to prioritize youth activities, instructional sports classes, and before and after school care programs.

VALUES & VISION

IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY VALUES

Invitation respondents indicated that the following community issues/values were most important for

BPRD to address: providing safe and enriching activities for youth outside of school (91% provided a rating of 4 or 5 where 5 means “very important”), contributing to a physically active community (88%), providing social, wellness and enrichment activities for older adults (85%), serving diverse populations

(78%), and connecting and strengthening families/communities (77%).

IMPORTANCE OF COMMUNITY VALUES

Invitation respondents were more likely than open link respondents to rate each item as important, particularly contributing to enrichment opportunities (4.0, vs. 3.4 for the open link) and attracting tourists/visitors (2.6 vs. 1.9). However, the importance of attracting tourists/visitors was rated much lower than other issues/values by each sample of respondents.

CURRENT EFFECTIVENESS OF BPRD

Respondents also indicated how effective BPRD is in addressing these priorities currently. Invitation respondents were more likely to rate BPRD as “effective” (rating of 4 or 5) than “ineffective” (rating of 1 or 2) for each item. They were particularly likely to rate BPRD as effective in addressing values of contributing to a physically active community, providing safe and enriching activities for youth outside of school, and providing social, wellness and enrichment activities for older adults.

CURRENT EFFECTIVENESS OF BPRD

Both samples provided the highest average effectiveness ratings for the degree to which BPRD contributes to a physically active community (average rating of 4.2). Again, invitation respondents provided higher average ratings than open link respondents for most all items; this was particularly the case with regards to attracting tourists/visitors (3.7 vs 3.2) and contributing to community enrichment (3.7 vs. 3.4).

TOP 3 COMMUNITY PRIORITIES

The items deemed most important to the community as a whole by both samples included providing safe and enriching activities for youth outside of school (77%-78%) and contributing to a physically active community

(77%-81%). Both samples were most likely to select contributing to a physically active community as a first-rank priority (47%-53%). Meanwhile, similar shares of invitation respondents prioritized connecting and strengthening families/communities (44%) and providing social, wellness and enrichment activities for older adults (41%, vs.

53% of open link respondents).

TOP 3 COMBINED, BY AGE

Providing safe and enriching activities for youth outside of school and contributing to a physically active community are top priorities regardless of age. However, older respondents are more likely to prioritize providing social, wellness, and enrichment activities for older adults and younger respondents are more likely to prioritize connecting and strengthening families/communities.

TOP 3 COMBINED, BY PRESENCE OF CHILDREN

Providing safe and enriching activities for youth outside of school and contributing to a physically active community are top priorities regardless of presence of children at home. However, households with children are more likely to prioritize connecting and strengthening families/communities and households without children are more likely to prioritize providing activities for older adults.

TOP 3 COMBINED, BY HOME OWNERSHIP

Providing safe and enriching activities for youth outside of school and contributing to a physically active community are top priorities regardless of whether respondents own or rent their home. However, homeowners are more likely to prioritize providing activities for older adults and renters are more likely to prioritize connecting and strengthening families/communities and serving diverse populations.

IMPORTANCE-PERFORMANCE MATRIX

High importance/ Low effectiveness

High importance/ High effectiveness

Low importance/ Low effectiveness

Low importance/ High effectiveness

These values are important to most respondents and should be addressed in the future, but are less of a priority for improvements as BPRD is currently seen as effective in these areas.

These are key areas for potential priority improvements. Addressing these values would likely positively affect the degree to which community needs are met overall.

Future discussions evaluating whether the resources supporting these values outweigh community benefit may be constructive.

These “niche” values are less important to community members and BPRD is seen as less effective in addressing.

While important to monitor, these are less likely to be an area of concern.

High importance/ Low effectiveness

High importance/ High effectiveness

Low importance/ Low effectiveness

Low importance/ High effectiveness

High importance/ Low effectiveness

High importance/ High effectiveness

Low importance/ Low effectiveness

Low importance/ High effectiveness

COMMUNICATION

COMMUNICATION EFFECTIVENESS

BPRD is considered very effective at reaching households with information about recreation activities, programs and facilities. Nearly three-quarters of respondents in each sample provided a rating of 4 or 5 where 5 means “very effective” (72%-73%). About one in five respondents provided a mid-range effectiveness rating of 3 (18%-19%), while nearly one in ten indicated BPRD was ineffective by providing a rating of 1 or 2 where 1 means “not at all effective” (8%-10%).

METHODS OF RECEIVING INFORMATION

A notable 86% of invitation respondents and 93% of open link respondents use the Playbook or consult BPRD information online when considering in which BPRD programs to participate. The largest share of either sample use a combination of the printed Playbook and online information, although this method is more common among open link respondents (45% vs. 33%).

METHODS OF RECEIVING INFORMATION

Looking at just respondents who utilize BPRD program information, invitation respondents were more likely to exclusively or mostly used the printed Playbook (41%, vs. 22% of open link respondents). Invitation respondents were also less likely to exclusively or mostly use online information (20%, vs. 30% of open link respondents).

FINANCIAL CHOICES

FUNDING MECHANISMS

Respondents indicated at least some level of funding support for each of the program populations, with youth receiving the most support and adults receiving the least. There was somewhat less support for

BPRD program and drop-in use and non-profit/sport club use, and notably less support for private/commercial use. Invitation respondents were more likely to indicate significant support for youth (64% vs. 48%) and at least some support for private/commercial use (52% vs. 27%).

SUGGESTIONS

OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS

Respondents provided thousands of open-ended comments, including 733 comments received for the question, “Do you have any further comments about the programs/activities BPRD currently offers or should offer in the future?” asked at the end of the survey.

Comments, provided as a separate appendix to this report, should be read in their entirety for the full depth and breadth of respondent opinions.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS

Themes that came up frequently through the survey were prominent in the comment field at the end of the survey. These themes included pricing of programs/services, concerns around overcrowding, and desire for additional amenities and programs (i.e., pool, weight room equipment, more drop-in times). A selection of verbatim invitation responses is shown below.

Youth swim lessons- more times and options. Pavilion skate times- more family skate times for public use.

Locals pay taxes.

Taxes support (in part) the BPRD.

BPRD programs should benefit locals. Tourists are essential, naturally, and their use of local facilities should be offset by usage fees for non-residents.

Being the parent of a special needs child, BPRD has been crucial to our family

The programs are great and very accessible to everybody. Thank you so much for your great effort and hard work

I think the Juniper Swim and Fitness Center is too crowded. I think you should build another

Swim and Fitness Center in NW

Bend with association/ linkage to COCC and /or OSU.

Better reminders about enrollment deadlines (i.e., Fall soccer deadline is

June 19, before school is out); many of us aren't thinking of Fall registration so early. Thanks!

Would like to see larger facility for strength training and more strength weight classes

Used to use more activities when children were still home.

Now as a senior I find activities are too expensive for me to use.

More after school programs with bus services for working families

This community is in desperate need of another public pool. It is ridiculous how many kids are forced to practice together during water polo and swim season.