Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2015, 12, 1017 -1022 http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2014-0214 © 2015 Human Kinetics, Inc.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Opening the Doors for Health: School Administrators’ Perceived Benefits, Barriers, and Needs Related to Shared Use of School Recreational Facilities for Physical Activity Mary Chace and Heather Vilvens Background: Shared use agreements (SUA) that allow the use of public school facilities by the community are recommended as a key public health strategy for increasing physical activity (PA). The purpose of this study was to examine the current nature and extent of SUA in Ohio, as well as school administrators’ perceived benefits, barriers and needs. Methods: School administrators were recruited to respond to an e-mail survey through the predominant state-level professional membership organization’s listserv in September 2013. Results: Respondents (n = 96) were mostly superintendents who reported a lower prevalence of formal SUA (38.5%) than informal (65.6%), with a total of 9.3% reporting neither formal nor informal SUA. The most commonly perceived benefits included improved relationships with taxpayers and community organizations and increased PA options. Top barriers were costs and liability concerns. Conclusions: According to this sample of school administrators, their doors are open to some extent, but the majority SUA were informal agreements. Advocacy efforts for SUA should include the passage of a state-level law that provides reasonable immunity from liability. Outreach to the school community should include examples of written formal agreements, innovative cost management examples, and updated research on the connection of PA to learning and academic performance. Keywords: exercise, public health, public health practice, obesity, sedentary behavior
Healthy People 2020, which is a set of 10-year national objectives designed to attain high-quality, longer lives free of preventable morbidity and mortality and to eliminate health disparities, provides 15 objectives toward increasing physical activity in our country. Objective PA-10 calls on us to increase the proportion of public and private schools that provide access to their physical activity spaces and facilities for all persons outside of normal school hours from a baseline measure of 28.8% in 2006 to a target of 31.7% in 2020.1 Shared use agreements (SUA) that allow use of public school facilities have been recommended for years as a key public health strategy for increasing PA by several prominent organizations,2–5 and most recently show promise for increasing PA in under-resourced communities.6 Model SUA, successful case studies and toolkits are available,7–12 but for public health practitioners working at a grassroots level, the translation of national recommendations13 to a local level remains a challenge. Shared use in Ohio is a home-rule based system; while liability issues are addressed at the legislative level; there is no state repository or legislation addressing documentation, data or the implementation of SUA in Ohio. Now is an opportune time to gather data on the nature and extent of SUA in Ohio for 4 main reasons: 1) Many new school facilities were recently constructed due to a $4.2 billion Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement reappropriation;14 2) In 2012, the Governor’s office released a directive for Ohio schools and governments agencies to share facilities and services for improved efficiency and costs;15 3) Ohio Senate Bill 290, passed through the senate education committee in April of 2014 to clarify liability coverage and provide immunity for schools entering into SUA;16
and 4) a multidisciplinary coalition with funding from a well-known national foundation has been formed to further advance advocacy and education about SUA.17 To address potential barriers to SUA, we reviewed both national and state-level data from a neighboring state with economic and social similarities. Kentucky school administrators acknowledge several benefits of SUA: improved partnerships, PA opportunities for the community, and utilization of existing resources.7(p9) Liability concerns are the predominant barrier not only in Kentucky, but nationwide.18 Other obstacles reported by school administrators include security, cost, and lack of trust in community partners.7(p11),19 The purpose of this study is to gain insight into school SUA relative to physical activity parameters in Ohio. Specifically, this is a strategically vital time to answer 2 exploratory questions: What is the nature and extent of SUA addressing PA in Ohio? What are school administrators’ perceived benefits, barriers and needs surrounding SUA?
Methods Process This cross-sectional survey is part of a larger data collection plan facilitated by a statewide nonprofit agency, the Buckeye Healthy Schools Alliance (BHSA), to gain information from school administrators regarding selected health-related school policies. This present study will report only issues surrounding SUA.
Questionnaire Chace ([email protected]) is with the Dept of Kinesiology and Health, Wright State University, Dayton, OH. Vilvens is with Buckeye Health Schools Alliance, Ohio.
The web-based survey was developed from a previously used instrument, 7(p4-13) taking into account relevant literature regarding barriers and challenges reported in similar studies.10(p101),11(p30-33),13(pS22-S24),18(p416-420),19(p175-179) 1017
1018 Chace and Vilvens
Downloaded by Western University on 09/23/16, Volume 12, Article Number 7
Input for survey modification was received from 3 state-level colleagues representing: the Safe Routes to School National Partnership-Ohio, BHSA, and the Health Policy Institute of Ohio, who are all funded by various initiatives to focus on SUA. The instrument was pilot-tested in late July 2013 by 10 school administrators and minor edits were completed. The final survey tool (see Online Appendix) contained 13 items consisting of closed-option questions and was organized into 3 categories: 1) Respondent school district demographics for classification purposes; 2) Current state of shared services in your district or school; 3) Perceptions of advantages, challenges and needs regarding SUA. Respondents indicated the presence of 2 different types of SUA: 1. Formal: “. . . formal partnership between 2 or more entities, often schools and local government agencies (eg, parks and recreation or nonprofit organizations) to open up spaces such as playgrounds, athletic fields, pools, and gymnasiums to the community for recreational purposes during non-school hours. Formal shared-use agreements are based on a legal document such as a written contract that both parties sign.” 2. Informal: “. . . use of their school facilities during non-school hours without a formal, written shared-use agreement. This means that schools allow the community to use school facilities informally, as a “good faith effort” to the community.”7(p6-7)
Participants The e-survey was distributed through a listserv maintained by a state-level professional membership organization of school administrators, of which approximately 80% of all Ohio superintendents are members, on behalf of the Buckeye Healthy Schools Alliance and the researcher. An introductory e-mail with a request to complete the survey, and a survey link were emailed to all members (n = 527) through their listserv on 9/11/13, and reminders with the survey link were sent on 9/18/13 and 9/25/13. The introductory e-mail offered the optional incentive of a raffle drawing for 1 gift card for those completing the survey. A total of 6 emails bounced back as undeliverable. Out of a total of 521 possible responses, a total of
96 were received, for a response rate of 18%. The study plan was submitted to the researcher’s university IRB, and was found to be exempt from approval because it was e-mail survey-based only and therefore did not meet the definitions for human subjects research.
Statistical Methods The software package Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, Utah 2013) was used to administer and collect responses. Descriptive frequencies and chi-square tests to detect differences in the presence of SUA between school district typologies were performed using SPSS (SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). A significance level of α < .05 was used for all statistical analyses.
Results The majority of survey participants (80%) were superintendents, followed by other district-level administrators (11%), assistant superintendents (5%), principals (3%), or treasurer, finance or facilities manager (1%). Of the 88 Ohio counties, responses were received from at least 1 administrator in 53 counties (60%). The standard school district typology classification scheme devised by the Ohio Department of Education20 (ODE) was used for comparison purposes. This sample of school administrators was generally representative of overall Ohio school districts in terms of location, poverty level and student population size (Table 1). Overall, respondents indicated a lower prevalence of formal SUA (38.5%) than informal SUA (65.6%), with a total of 9.3% reporting neither formal nor informal SUA (Table 2). The top 2 types of facility usage with both formal and informal agreements were “organized programs/activities” and “general community use.” According to respondents, most frequently addressed issues in formal SUA were “liability issues” (86.5%) and “responsibilities of school and organization” (86.5%), followed by “insurance issues” (73.0%), “payment process” (67.6%), and “other” (8.1%). Other issues addressed were donations to school and parameters regarding the use of facilities.
Table 1 Comparison of Respondent School District Type to Established Ohio Department of Education Categories
Frequency
Percent of respondents
Actual percent of total districts within typology classificationa
Rural, high poverty, small student population
19
19.8
20.3
Rural, average poverty, small student population
20
20.8
17.6
Small town, low poverty, small student population
10
10.4
18.2
Small town, high poverty, average student population
19
19.8
14.6
Suburban, low poverty, large student population
9
9.4
12.6
Suburban, very low poverty, large student population
4
4.2
7.6
Urban, high poverty, average student population
10
10.4
8.0
Urban, very high poverty, very large student population
1
1.0
1.0
Type of district
Missing/no answer
4
4.2
Total
96
100
a Source: b Does
99.9b
Ohio Department of Education (http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Data/Frequently-Requested-Data/Typology-of-Ohio-School-Districts). not total 100% due to rounding error. JPAH Vol. 12, No. 7, 2015
Opening the Doors for Health 1019
Downloaded by Western University on 09/23/16, Volume 12, Article Number 7
Responses to whether specific facilities are open and available for community use during nonschool hours, either formally or informally, are shown in Table 3. Formal SUA are more predominant with indoor gym/basketball courts, weight rooms, and football fields, whereas informal SUA are found with playgrounds, outdoor basketball courts, etc. The top 5 types of facilities open through either formal or informal SUA were playgrounds (73%), baseball fields, (63%), outdoor tracks (60%), indoor gym/basketball (59%), and outdoor basketball courts (50%). Some facilities were reported not open to the public (weight rooms, football fields) or not available within the school district (swimming pools, tennis courts, soccer fields), so efforts to promote SUA should keep these availability restrictions in mind. Six respondents reported no playground at all. To determine whether any of the types of school districts were more or less likely to have a formal shared-use agreement, the
standardized Ohio Department of Education20 district typology was reclassified into 4 geographical location types (urban, suburban, small town, or rural school districts) and a chi-squared test was performed. Suburban school districts were more likely to have no formal (χ2 = 15.243, df = 6, P = .018) or informal (χ2 = 13.715, df = 6, P = .033) agreements or to be unsure about whether such an agreement exists than the other 3 geographical types of districts. There was no significant difference in responses between urban, small town and rural school districts. When asked to choose the top 2 or 3 benefits of sharing school facilities during nonschool hours (Figure 1), a majority of school administrators chose “improved relationship with taxpayers” (97.5%), “improved relations with community organizations” (72.5%), and “increased physical activity opportunities” (67.5%). Just under half (48.8%) of respondents indicated that benefits of
Table 2 Characteristics of Shared Use Agreements (SUA) and Comparisons of Activities Allowed in Both Formal and Informal SUA Response
SUA type Formal SUA: written document and signed contract
Response
Frequency (%) n = 37 (38.5)
Types of activities permitted (can choose more than 1 type)
Frequency (%)
Response
Included in SUA
Organized programs/ activities
31 (83.8)
Liability issues
32 (86.5)
General community use
28 (75.7)
Payment process
25 (67.6)
Summer camp
18 (48.6)
Responsibilities of school and organization
32 (86.5)
Other
5 (15.5)
Insurance issues
27 (73.0)
Organized programs/ activities
44 (69.8)
General community use
52 (82.5)
Summer camp
27 (42.9)
Other Informal SUA: “handshake” agreement
n = 63 (65.6)
Other No SUA
Frequency (%)
3 (8.1)
6 (9.5)
n = 9 (9.3)
Table 3 Comparison of Specific Facilities That are Open, Available, and Nonexistent for Community Use During Nonschool Hours, in Reference to Type of SUA (Shared Use Agreement) Yes, formal agreement
Yes, informal agreement
Facilities not open
Don’t have this facility
I’m unsure
Missing/ no answer
Playground
2
68
4
6
1
15
Indoor gym/basketball court
41
16
12
9
Soccer field
14
22
9
30
2
19
Outdoor basketball court
2
46
2
26
2
18
Weight room
17
13
35
10
2
19
Football field
23
18
21
13
Baseball field
22
38
6
10
1
19
Tennis court
5
28
3
38
3
19
Swimming pool
3
1
3
65
2
22
Outdoor track
1
57
5
15
0
18
Facility
JPAH Vol. 12, No. 7, 2015
18
21
Downloaded by Western University on 09/23/16, Volume 12, Article Number 7
1020 Chace and Vilvens
SUA include “increased opportunities for family activities.” Benefits rated the lowest were shared costs (11.3%), improved academic performance (6.3%), improved safety (6.3%), and reduction of juvenile delinquency (6.3%). The top 4 barriers to opening school facility doors to the community were “costs related to maintenance, cleaning or supervision” (68.8%), “liability concerns” (60.0%), “security” (56.3%), and “fear that facilities will not be left in the same shape as found” (53.8%). Finally, school administrators were asked what would help their district either continue allowing or begin allowing school facilities for community use during nonschool school hours (Figure 1). For this question, respondents were encouraged to check all options that apply. Over half indicated that “clearer shared-use liability laws in Ohio” (56.3%) and “funding” (53.8”) would be helpful, followed by “learning about other shared-use agreements” (36.3%), “shared-use agreement samples” (32.5%), and “communication tools” (27.5%). Respondents were less interested in receiving a “list of potential partners” (13.8%) and “technical assistance for effective shared-use agreements” (10%).
Discussion Overall, this study contributes to the growing literature on the nature and extent of SUA, and provides state-level data relative to school administrators’ perceived benefits, barriers and needs. Our sample of school administrators reported some community use of their facilities, albeit in a limited capacity. Informal SUA (65.6%) appear
to be more common than formal written agreements (38.5%) in all districts, with some exceptions when considering type of facility. Some facilities may be more difficult to share, as supervision is required for safety, and our data did indicate that they are open to the public at a lesser frequency (ie, weight rooms, football fields). The higher prevalence of informal versus formal agreements has been previously reported in other states7(p5-6)12(p13) and is of relevance because several national organizations advocate for written, formal agreements of both indoor and outdoor facilities to ensure that the shared-use process works smoothly.8(p6),9(p14-17) In addition, respondents noted several benefits of sharing school facilities; the most commonly recognized benefits are improved relationships with community/taxpayers and community organizations. The importance of this benefit cannot be overestimated, as local tax revenues make up just over half of education funding in Ohio. Generally only between 60 to 62% of levies pass each year in Ohio,21 and many school administrators are forced to spend a significant amount of time supporting levies. SUA have enormous potential for increasing long term, positive relationships with the community. Another note of interest regarding perceived benefits is that the school administrators viewed increased PA as a major benefit, but did not relate increased academic performance to PA. Administrators in this sample did indicate a strong interest in learning about successful SUA, so communications directed toward this population should include an update on the benefits of PA for learning, cognition and academic achievement. The Institute of Medicine’s “Educating the Student Body: Taking Physical Activity and Physical
Figure 1 — School administrator perceptions of shared use agreements benefits, challenges and needs, in regards to implementation in percentage of total responses. * Other category includes lack of community interest (2.5%), lack of community partners (2.5%), lack of political support (2.5%), and other (2.5%). JPAH Vol. 12, No. 7, 2015
Downloaded by Western University on 09/23/16, Volume 12, Article Number 7
Opening the Doors for Health 1021
Education to School” report provides several well-developed tools (action guide, videos, infographics) toward this end.22 Lastly, liability concerns are a commonly perceived obstacle, which aligns with several other studies and strongly supports the passage of Ohio House Bill 290 currently in process,16 which will clarify liability coverage for Ohio schools that wish to open their facilities to the community. From a public health perspective, there is a clear need to directly acknowledge, address and provide solutions for liability concerns in light of the looming obesity, diabetes, and sedentary lifestyle epidemics in the United States. Successful SUA use existing infrastructure that is safe and maintained; usually financed by public tax dollars. After reviewing 50 states’ SUA legal rules, Baker and Masud conclude that, “although there are real liability risks . . . these risks are unlikely to be substantial enough to justify denying recreational access to children who are at risk of obesity.”23 (p513) Several limitations of this study warrant discussion. Although our sample was representative of school districts around the state in terms of the range of counties represented and ODE district typology (Table 1), it was a small sample and we had a low response rate, possibly because of competing time demands on school administrators. In addition, given the limitations of relying on recall, some school administrators simply didn’t complete the questions regarding specific facilities (Table 3). In a large district, the superintendent may not know the answers to these questions. On the surface, it appears that we are exceeding the Healthy People 2020 Objective PA-10 goal of over 31.7%1 of public and private schools that provide access to their physical activity space by reporting 38.5% of school administrators report formal SUA. However, we cannot be sure if their answers were regarding 1 facility or multiple, and validation of shared use agreements would include obtaining copies and analyzing the actual agreements. Another limitation of this data are that although the survey was pilot-tested with 10 Ohio school administrators, the questions were not tested for validity or reliability. The advantage of using these questions from a similar study in Kentucky principals7 was the opportunity to compare our data to this adjoining state. Similar findings between principals in Kentucky and Ohio school administrators include 1) sharing school facilities without a formal agreement in place with another agency is common, 2) liability is one of the top two obstacles or barriers, 3) the most commonly recognized benefit of SUA in both samples was improved relationships with community/taxpayers and community organizations, and 4) funding opportunities and learning about other schools’ SUA would be helpful to both survey samples. Future research should delve into whether there are differences in the nature of SUA between districts that are high poverty versus low poverty, or in terms of their location (urban, small town and rural school districts). In the current study, there was a slight difference with regard to informal SUA between school district typology. When we partitioned our sample, we discovered that suburban districts appeared to have significantly fewer formal SUA when compared with urban, small town and rural school districts. Further research is needed to confirm this finding and suggest plausible explanations to help practitioners tailor their educational strategies and communications. Future research should also describe what parameters are necessary in formal, written shared use policies. For instance Burbage el al., recently reviewed 18 SUA from a total of 7 school districts in Los Angeles County and concluded that “SUA that include legal clauses to address school concerns about factors such as vandalism, staffing and funding represent a promising strategy for increasing physical activity opportunities in under-resourced neighborhoods where the prevalence of obesity is high.”24 (p1)
In conclusion, in our sample we discovered that school facility doors are open to some extent, although the majority were through informal agreements. Secondly, policy change at the state level is warranted to clarify liability coverage and provide immunity at the state level for schools who wish to open their facilities for community use. Practitioners who are currently working toward Healthy People 2020 sustainable, community-level PA initiatives, messaging should include a review of the connection of PA to academic performance, examples of how schools with successful SUA are working through the financing, and examples of actual written, formal SUA. Acknowledgments The author would like to express gratitude to the Kentucky Cancer Consortium and Kentucky Youth Advocates for sharing their survey instrument, and to DeAnne French, Ph.D., statistical consultant at Wright State University. A negligible amount of funding was necessary for this study, which was provided by the Kinesiology and Health Department at Wright State University. Electronic resources (Qualtrix, SAS software) were provided by Dr. Chace’s academic institution and the project was completed without outside funding.
References 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy People 2020. Washington, DC. Available at http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx?topicId=33. Accessed April 28, 2014. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Summary of task force recommendations and findings, environmental and policy approaches to increase physical activity: Creation of enhanced access to places for physical activity combined with informational outreach activities, 2001. http://www.thecommunityguide.org/pa/environmental-policy/ improvingaccess.html, Accessed Feb 12, 2014. 3. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health. The built environment: designing communities to promote physical activity in children. Pediatrics. 2009;123(6):1591–1598. PubMed doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0750 4. American Heart Association. FACTS: Joint Use Agreements: Sharing School Recreational Facilities with the Community; 2011. http:// www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@adv/documents/ downloadable/ucm_428445.pdf. Accessed Feb 12, 2014. 5. The Prevention Institute. Joint Use website; Oakland, CA http://www. jointuse.org/about/about-joint-use/. Accessed Jan 10, 2014. 6. Lafleur M, Gonzalez E, Schwarte L, et al. Increasing physical activity in under-resourced communities through school-based, shared-use joint-use agreements, Los Angeles county, 2010–2012. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:120270 http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2013/12_0270. htm Accessed Feb 22, 2014. PubMed doi:10.5888/pcd10.120270 7. Kentucky Cancer Consortium and Kentucky Youth Advocates. Sharing school facilities: How collaboration can increase physical activities in communities; May 2012. http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/ sites/default/files/pdf/Lib_of_Res/JU_ST_KY_shared_use_survey. pdf. Accessed Feb 22, 2014. 8. Spengler JO. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Active Living Research Brief: Building Evidence to Prevent Childhood Obesity and Support Active Communities. http://activelivingresearch.org/ shareduse. Accessed Feb 22, 2014. 9. Kappagoda M, Ogilvie RS, editors. Playing smart: maximizing the potential of school and community property through joint use agreements. ChangeLab Solutions. http://changelabsolutions.org/publications/playing-smart. Accessed Feb 10, 2014. 10. Howard K, Bocarro J, Kanters M. Strategies for creating successful joint use agreements: a case study. J Park & Rec Admin. 2013;31(1):98–107.
JPAH Vol. 12, No. 7, 2015
Downloaded by Western University on 09/23/16, Volume 12, Article Number 7
1022 Chace and Vilvens
11. Spengler JO, Connaughton DP, Carroll MS. Addressing challenges to the shared use of school recreational facilities. JOPERD: J Phys Ed Rec Dance. 2011;82(9):28–33. 12. Ogilvie RS, Zimmerman J. Opening School Grounds to the Community After Hours: A Toolkit for Increasing Physical Activity Through Joint Use Agreements. http://changelabsolutions.org/sites/phlpnet.org/ files/Joint_Use_Toolkit_FINAL_web_2010.01.28.pdf. Accessed Feb 12, 2014. 13. Evenson K, Wen F, Lee S, Heinrich K, Eyler A. National study of changes in community access to school physical activity facilities: the school health policies and programs study. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7(Suppl 1):S20–S30. PubMed 14. Milane, E, Cummins, P, Phillips, J. Tobacco securitization: FY 20082009 final fiscal analyses Ohio legislative service commission, 912-15. http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/fiscal/fiscalanalysis/127ga/tobacco.pdf. Accessed 1/7/14. 15. State of Ohio Governor’s Office of 21st Century Education and the Office of Budget and Management. Beyond boundaries, a shared services action plan for Ohio schools and governments, June 2012. http:// www.beyondboundaries.ohio.gov/documents/BeyondBoundaries6.14.12released.pdf. Accessed Feb 20, 2014. 16. State of Ohio House Bill 290, 130th General Assembly, Regular Session, 2013-2014. http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills. cfm?ID=130_HB_290. Accessed Jan 7, 2014. 17. American Heart Association. Web blog. http://openthedoorsforhealth. wordpress.com. Accessed May 4, 2014.
18. Spengler JO, Connaughton DP, Maddock JE. Liability concerns and shared use of school recreational facilities in underserved communities. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(4):415–420. PubMed doi:10.1016/j. amepre.2011.06.031 19. Eyler A, Swaller E. An analysis of community use policies in Missouri school districts. J Sch Health. 2012;82(4):175–179. PubMed doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00683.x 20. Ohio Department of Education. http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/ Data/Frequently-Requested-Data/Typology-of-Ohio-School-Districts, Accessed Feb 2014. 21. Ohio School Boards Association. Levy results database [database online]. Columbus, OH. http://www.ohioschoolboards.org/schoolfinance. Accessed Jan 10, 2014. 22. Institute of Medicine. Educating the student body: taking physical activity and physical education to school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013, http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/ Educating-the-Student-Body-Taking-Physical-Activity-and-PhysicalEducation-to-School.aspx. Accessed April 28, 2014. 23. Baker T, Masud H. Liability risks for after-hours use of public school property to reduce obesity: a 50-state survey. J Sch Health. 2010;80(10):508–513. PubMed doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00535.x 24. Burbage L, Gonzalez E, Dunning L, Simon P, Kuo T. Building mutually beneficial partnerships to improve physical activity opportunities through shared-use efforts in under-resourced communities in Los Angeles County. Prev Med. 2014. PubMed doi:10.1016/j. ypmed.2014.01.001
JPAH Vol. 12, No. 7, 2015
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Opening the Doors for Health: School Administrators’ Perceived Benefits, Barriers, and Needs Related to Shared Use of School Recreational Facilities for Physical Activity Mary Chace and Heather Vilvens Background: Shared use agreements (SUA) that allow the use of public school facilities by the community are recommended as a key public health strategy for increasing physical activity (PA). The purpose of this study was to examine the current nature and extent of SUA in Ohio, as well as school administrators’ perceived benefits, barriers and needs. Methods: School administrators were recruited to respond to an e-mail survey through the predominant state-level professional membership organization’s listserv in September 2013. Results: Respondents (n = 96) were mostly superintendents who reported a lower prevalence of formal SUA (38.5%) than informal (65.6%), with a total of 9.3% reporting neither formal nor informal SUA. The most commonly perceived benefits included improved relationships with taxpayers and community organizations and increased PA options. Top barriers were costs and liability concerns. Conclusions: According to this sample of school administrators, their doors are open to some extent, but the majority SUA were informal agreements. Advocacy efforts for SUA should include the passage of a state-level law that provides reasonable immunity from liability. Outreach to the school community should include examples of written formal agreements, innovative cost management examples, and updated research on the connection of PA to learning and academic performance. Keywords: exercise, public health, public health practice, obesity, sedentary behavior
Healthy People 2020, which is a set of 10-year national objectives designed to attain high-quality, longer lives free of preventable morbidity and mortality and to eliminate health disparities, provides 15 objectives toward increasing physical activity in our country. Objective PA-10 calls on us to increase the proportion of public and private schools that provide access to their physical activity spaces and facilities for all persons outside of normal school hours from a baseline measure of 28.8% in 2006 to a target of 31.7% in 2020.1 Shared use agreements (SUA) that allow use of public school facilities have been recommended for years as a key public health strategy for increasing PA by several prominent organizations,2–5 and most recently show promise for increasing PA in under-resourced communities.6 Model SUA, successful case studies and toolkits are available,7–12 but for public health practitioners working at a grassroots level, the translation of national recommendations13 to a local level remains a challenge. Shared use in Ohio is a home-rule based system; while liability issues are addressed at the legislative level; there is no state repository or legislation addressing documentation, data or the implementation of SUA in Ohio. Now is an opportune time to gather data on the nature and extent of SUA in Ohio for 4 main reasons: 1) Many new school facilities were recently constructed due to a $4.2 billion Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement reappropriation;14 2) In 2012, the Governor’s office released a directive for Ohio schools and governments agencies to share facilities and services for improved efficiency and costs;15 3) Ohio Senate Bill 290, passed through the senate education committee in April of 2014 to clarify liability coverage and provide immunity for schools entering into SUA;16
and 4) a multidisciplinary coalition with funding from a well-known national foundation has been formed to further advance advocacy and education about SUA.17 To address potential barriers to SUA, we reviewed both national and state-level data from a neighboring state with economic and social similarities. Kentucky school administrators acknowledge several benefits of SUA: improved partnerships, PA opportunities for the community, and utilization of existing resources.7(p9) Liability concerns are the predominant barrier not only in Kentucky, but nationwide.18 Other obstacles reported by school administrators include security, cost, and lack of trust in community partners.7(p11),19 The purpose of this study is to gain insight into school SUA relative to physical activity parameters in Ohio. Specifically, this is a strategically vital time to answer 2 exploratory questions: What is the nature and extent of SUA addressing PA in Ohio? What are school administrators’ perceived benefits, barriers and needs surrounding SUA?
Methods Process This cross-sectional survey is part of a larger data collection plan facilitated by a statewide nonprofit agency, the Buckeye Healthy Schools Alliance (BHSA), to gain information from school administrators regarding selected health-related school policies. This present study will report only issues surrounding SUA.
Questionnaire Chace ([email protected]) is with the Dept of Kinesiology and Health, Wright State University, Dayton, OH. Vilvens is with Buckeye Health Schools Alliance, Ohio.
The web-based survey was developed from a previously used instrument, 7(p4-13) taking into account relevant literature regarding barriers and challenges reported in similar studies.10(p101),11(p30-33),13(pS22-S24),18(p416-420),19(p175-179) 1017
1018 Chace and Vilvens
Downloaded by Western University on 09/23/16, Volume 12, Article Number 7
Input for survey modification was received from 3 state-level colleagues representing: the Safe Routes to School National Partnership-Ohio, BHSA, and the Health Policy Institute of Ohio, who are all funded by various initiatives to focus on SUA. The instrument was pilot-tested in late July 2013 by 10 school administrators and minor edits were completed. The final survey tool (see Online Appendix) contained 13 items consisting of closed-option questions and was organized into 3 categories: 1) Respondent school district demographics for classification purposes; 2) Current state of shared services in your district or school; 3) Perceptions of advantages, challenges and needs regarding SUA. Respondents indicated the presence of 2 different types of SUA: 1. Formal: “. . . formal partnership between 2 or more entities, often schools and local government agencies (eg, parks and recreation or nonprofit organizations) to open up spaces such as playgrounds, athletic fields, pools, and gymnasiums to the community for recreational purposes during non-school hours. Formal shared-use agreements are based on a legal document such as a written contract that both parties sign.” 2. Informal: “. . . use of their school facilities during non-school hours without a formal, written shared-use agreement. This means that schools allow the community to use school facilities informally, as a “good faith effort” to the community.”7(p6-7)
Participants The e-survey was distributed through a listserv maintained by a state-level professional membership organization of school administrators, of which approximately 80% of all Ohio superintendents are members, on behalf of the Buckeye Healthy Schools Alliance and the researcher. An introductory e-mail with a request to complete the survey, and a survey link were emailed to all members (n = 527) through their listserv on 9/11/13, and reminders with the survey link were sent on 9/18/13 and 9/25/13. The introductory e-mail offered the optional incentive of a raffle drawing for 1 gift card for those completing the survey. A total of 6 emails bounced back as undeliverable. Out of a total of 521 possible responses, a total of
96 were received, for a response rate of 18%. The study plan was submitted to the researcher’s university IRB, and was found to be exempt from approval because it was e-mail survey-based only and therefore did not meet the definitions for human subjects research.
Statistical Methods The software package Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, Utah 2013) was used to administer and collect responses. Descriptive frequencies and chi-square tests to detect differences in the presence of SUA between school district typologies were performed using SPSS (SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp). A significance level of α < .05 was used for all statistical analyses.
Results The majority of survey participants (80%) were superintendents, followed by other district-level administrators (11%), assistant superintendents (5%), principals (3%), or treasurer, finance or facilities manager (1%). Of the 88 Ohio counties, responses were received from at least 1 administrator in 53 counties (60%). The standard school district typology classification scheme devised by the Ohio Department of Education20 (ODE) was used for comparison purposes. This sample of school administrators was generally representative of overall Ohio school districts in terms of location, poverty level and student population size (Table 1). Overall, respondents indicated a lower prevalence of formal SUA (38.5%) than informal SUA (65.6%), with a total of 9.3% reporting neither formal nor informal SUA (Table 2). The top 2 types of facility usage with both formal and informal agreements were “organized programs/activities” and “general community use.” According to respondents, most frequently addressed issues in formal SUA were “liability issues” (86.5%) and “responsibilities of school and organization” (86.5%), followed by “insurance issues” (73.0%), “payment process” (67.6%), and “other” (8.1%). Other issues addressed were donations to school and parameters regarding the use of facilities.
Table 1 Comparison of Respondent School District Type to Established Ohio Department of Education Categories
Frequency
Percent of respondents
Actual percent of total districts within typology classificationa
Rural, high poverty, small student population
19
19.8
20.3
Rural, average poverty, small student population
20
20.8
17.6
Small town, low poverty, small student population
10
10.4
18.2
Small town, high poverty, average student population
19
19.8
14.6
Suburban, low poverty, large student population
9
9.4
12.6
Suburban, very low poverty, large student population
4
4.2
7.6
Urban, high poverty, average student population
10
10.4
8.0
Urban, very high poverty, very large student population
1
1.0
1.0
Type of district
Missing/no answer
4
4.2
Total
96
100
a Source: b Does
99.9b
Ohio Department of Education (http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Data/Frequently-Requested-Data/Typology-of-Ohio-School-Districts). not total 100% due to rounding error. JPAH Vol. 12, No. 7, 2015
Opening the Doors for Health 1019
Downloaded by Western University on 09/23/16, Volume 12, Article Number 7
Responses to whether specific facilities are open and available for community use during nonschool hours, either formally or informally, are shown in Table 3. Formal SUA are more predominant with indoor gym/basketball courts, weight rooms, and football fields, whereas informal SUA are found with playgrounds, outdoor basketball courts, etc. The top 5 types of facilities open through either formal or informal SUA were playgrounds (73%), baseball fields, (63%), outdoor tracks (60%), indoor gym/basketball (59%), and outdoor basketball courts (50%). Some facilities were reported not open to the public (weight rooms, football fields) or not available within the school district (swimming pools, tennis courts, soccer fields), so efforts to promote SUA should keep these availability restrictions in mind. Six respondents reported no playground at all. To determine whether any of the types of school districts were more or less likely to have a formal shared-use agreement, the
standardized Ohio Department of Education20 district typology was reclassified into 4 geographical location types (urban, suburban, small town, or rural school districts) and a chi-squared test was performed. Suburban school districts were more likely to have no formal (χ2 = 15.243, df = 6, P = .018) or informal (χ2 = 13.715, df = 6, P = .033) agreements or to be unsure about whether such an agreement exists than the other 3 geographical types of districts. There was no significant difference in responses between urban, small town and rural school districts. When asked to choose the top 2 or 3 benefits of sharing school facilities during nonschool hours (Figure 1), a majority of school administrators chose “improved relationship with taxpayers” (97.5%), “improved relations with community organizations” (72.5%), and “increased physical activity opportunities” (67.5%). Just under half (48.8%) of respondents indicated that benefits of
Table 2 Characteristics of Shared Use Agreements (SUA) and Comparisons of Activities Allowed in Both Formal and Informal SUA Response
SUA type Formal SUA: written document and signed contract
Response
Frequency (%) n = 37 (38.5)
Types of activities permitted (can choose more than 1 type)
Frequency (%)
Response
Included in SUA
Organized programs/ activities
31 (83.8)
Liability issues
32 (86.5)
General community use
28 (75.7)
Payment process
25 (67.6)
Summer camp
18 (48.6)
Responsibilities of school and organization
32 (86.5)
Other
5 (15.5)
Insurance issues
27 (73.0)
Organized programs/ activities
44 (69.8)
General community use
52 (82.5)
Summer camp
27 (42.9)
Other Informal SUA: “handshake” agreement
n = 63 (65.6)
Other No SUA
Frequency (%)
3 (8.1)
6 (9.5)
n = 9 (9.3)
Table 3 Comparison of Specific Facilities That are Open, Available, and Nonexistent for Community Use During Nonschool Hours, in Reference to Type of SUA (Shared Use Agreement) Yes, formal agreement
Yes, informal agreement
Facilities not open
Don’t have this facility
I’m unsure
Missing/ no answer
Playground
2
68
4
6
1
15
Indoor gym/basketball court
41
16
12
9
Soccer field
14
22
9
30
2
19
Outdoor basketball court
2
46
2
26
2
18
Weight room
17
13
35
10
2
19
Football field
23
18
21
13
Baseball field
22
38
6
10
1
19
Tennis court
5
28
3
38
3
19
Swimming pool
3
1
3
65
2
22
Outdoor track
1
57
5
15
0
18
Facility
JPAH Vol. 12, No. 7, 2015
18
21
Downloaded by Western University on 09/23/16, Volume 12, Article Number 7
1020 Chace and Vilvens
SUA include “increased opportunities for family activities.” Benefits rated the lowest were shared costs (11.3%), improved academic performance (6.3%), improved safety (6.3%), and reduction of juvenile delinquency (6.3%). The top 4 barriers to opening school facility doors to the community were “costs related to maintenance, cleaning or supervision” (68.8%), “liability concerns” (60.0%), “security” (56.3%), and “fear that facilities will not be left in the same shape as found” (53.8%). Finally, school administrators were asked what would help their district either continue allowing or begin allowing school facilities for community use during nonschool school hours (Figure 1). For this question, respondents were encouraged to check all options that apply. Over half indicated that “clearer shared-use liability laws in Ohio” (56.3%) and “funding” (53.8”) would be helpful, followed by “learning about other shared-use agreements” (36.3%), “shared-use agreement samples” (32.5%), and “communication tools” (27.5%). Respondents were less interested in receiving a “list of potential partners” (13.8%) and “technical assistance for effective shared-use agreements” (10%).
Discussion Overall, this study contributes to the growing literature on the nature and extent of SUA, and provides state-level data relative to school administrators’ perceived benefits, barriers and needs. Our sample of school administrators reported some community use of their facilities, albeit in a limited capacity. Informal SUA (65.6%) appear
to be more common than formal written agreements (38.5%) in all districts, with some exceptions when considering type of facility. Some facilities may be more difficult to share, as supervision is required for safety, and our data did indicate that they are open to the public at a lesser frequency (ie, weight rooms, football fields). The higher prevalence of informal versus formal agreements has been previously reported in other states7(p5-6)12(p13) and is of relevance because several national organizations advocate for written, formal agreements of both indoor and outdoor facilities to ensure that the shared-use process works smoothly.8(p6),9(p14-17) In addition, respondents noted several benefits of sharing school facilities; the most commonly recognized benefits are improved relationships with community/taxpayers and community organizations. The importance of this benefit cannot be overestimated, as local tax revenues make up just over half of education funding in Ohio. Generally only between 60 to 62% of levies pass each year in Ohio,21 and many school administrators are forced to spend a significant amount of time supporting levies. SUA have enormous potential for increasing long term, positive relationships with the community. Another note of interest regarding perceived benefits is that the school administrators viewed increased PA as a major benefit, but did not relate increased academic performance to PA. Administrators in this sample did indicate a strong interest in learning about successful SUA, so communications directed toward this population should include an update on the benefits of PA for learning, cognition and academic achievement. The Institute of Medicine’s “Educating the Student Body: Taking Physical Activity and Physical
Figure 1 — School administrator perceptions of shared use agreements benefits, challenges and needs, in regards to implementation in percentage of total responses. * Other category includes lack of community interest (2.5%), lack of community partners (2.5%), lack of political support (2.5%), and other (2.5%). JPAH Vol. 12, No. 7, 2015
Downloaded by Western University on 09/23/16, Volume 12, Article Number 7
Opening the Doors for Health 1021
Education to School” report provides several well-developed tools (action guide, videos, infographics) toward this end.22 Lastly, liability concerns are a commonly perceived obstacle, which aligns with several other studies and strongly supports the passage of Ohio House Bill 290 currently in process,16 which will clarify liability coverage for Ohio schools that wish to open their facilities to the community. From a public health perspective, there is a clear need to directly acknowledge, address and provide solutions for liability concerns in light of the looming obesity, diabetes, and sedentary lifestyle epidemics in the United States. Successful SUA use existing infrastructure that is safe and maintained; usually financed by public tax dollars. After reviewing 50 states’ SUA legal rules, Baker and Masud conclude that, “although there are real liability risks . . . these risks are unlikely to be substantial enough to justify denying recreational access to children who are at risk of obesity.”23 (p513) Several limitations of this study warrant discussion. Although our sample was representative of school districts around the state in terms of the range of counties represented and ODE district typology (Table 1), it was a small sample and we had a low response rate, possibly because of competing time demands on school administrators. In addition, given the limitations of relying on recall, some school administrators simply didn’t complete the questions regarding specific facilities (Table 3). In a large district, the superintendent may not know the answers to these questions. On the surface, it appears that we are exceeding the Healthy People 2020 Objective PA-10 goal of over 31.7%1 of public and private schools that provide access to their physical activity space by reporting 38.5% of school administrators report formal SUA. However, we cannot be sure if their answers were regarding 1 facility or multiple, and validation of shared use agreements would include obtaining copies and analyzing the actual agreements. Another limitation of this data are that although the survey was pilot-tested with 10 Ohio school administrators, the questions were not tested for validity or reliability. The advantage of using these questions from a similar study in Kentucky principals7 was the opportunity to compare our data to this adjoining state. Similar findings between principals in Kentucky and Ohio school administrators include 1) sharing school facilities without a formal agreement in place with another agency is common, 2) liability is one of the top two obstacles or barriers, 3) the most commonly recognized benefit of SUA in both samples was improved relationships with community/taxpayers and community organizations, and 4) funding opportunities and learning about other schools’ SUA would be helpful to both survey samples. Future research should delve into whether there are differences in the nature of SUA between districts that are high poverty versus low poverty, or in terms of their location (urban, small town and rural school districts). In the current study, there was a slight difference with regard to informal SUA between school district typology. When we partitioned our sample, we discovered that suburban districts appeared to have significantly fewer formal SUA when compared with urban, small town and rural school districts. Further research is needed to confirm this finding and suggest plausible explanations to help practitioners tailor their educational strategies and communications. Future research should also describe what parameters are necessary in formal, written shared use policies. For instance Burbage el al., recently reviewed 18 SUA from a total of 7 school districts in Los Angeles County and concluded that “SUA that include legal clauses to address school concerns about factors such as vandalism, staffing and funding represent a promising strategy for increasing physical activity opportunities in under-resourced neighborhoods where the prevalence of obesity is high.”24 (p1)
In conclusion, in our sample we discovered that school facility doors are open to some extent, although the majority were through informal agreements. Secondly, policy change at the state level is warranted to clarify liability coverage and provide immunity at the state level for schools who wish to open their facilities for community use. Practitioners who are currently working toward Healthy People 2020 sustainable, community-level PA initiatives, messaging should include a review of the connection of PA to academic performance, examples of how schools with successful SUA are working through the financing, and examples of actual written, formal SUA. Acknowledgments The author would like to express gratitude to the Kentucky Cancer Consortium and Kentucky Youth Advocates for sharing their survey instrument, and to DeAnne French, Ph.D., statistical consultant at Wright State University. A negligible amount of funding was necessary for this study, which was provided by the Kinesiology and Health Department at Wright State University. Electronic resources (Qualtrix, SAS software) were provided by Dr. Chace’s academic institution and the project was completed without outside funding.
References 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy People 2020. Washington, DC. Available at http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx?topicId=33. Accessed April 28, 2014. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Summary of task force recommendations and findings, environmental and policy approaches to increase physical activity: Creation of enhanced access to places for physical activity combined with informational outreach activities, 2001. http://www.thecommunityguide.org/pa/environmental-policy/ improvingaccess.html, Accessed Feb 12, 2014. 3. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health. The built environment: designing communities to promote physical activity in children. Pediatrics. 2009;123(6):1591–1598. PubMed doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0750 4. American Heart Association. FACTS: Joint Use Agreements: Sharing School Recreational Facilities with the Community; 2011. http:// www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@adv/documents/ downloadable/ucm_428445.pdf. Accessed Feb 12, 2014. 5. The Prevention Institute. Joint Use website; Oakland, CA http://www. jointuse.org/about/about-joint-use/. Accessed Jan 10, 2014. 6. Lafleur M, Gonzalez E, Schwarte L, et al. Increasing physical activity in under-resourced communities through school-based, shared-use joint-use agreements, Los Angeles county, 2010–2012. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:120270 http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2013/12_0270. htm Accessed Feb 22, 2014. PubMed doi:10.5888/pcd10.120270 7. Kentucky Cancer Consortium and Kentucky Youth Advocates. Sharing school facilities: How collaboration can increase physical activities in communities; May 2012. http://www.saferoutespartnership.org/ sites/default/files/pdf/Lib_of_Res/JU_ST_KY_shared_use_survey. pdf. Accessed Feb 22, 2014. 8. Spengler JO. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Active Living Research Brief: Building Evidence to Prevent Childhood Obesity and Support Active Communities. http://activelivingresearch.org/ shareduse. Accessed Feb 22, 2014. 9. Kappagoda M, Ogilvie RS, editors. Playing smart: maximizing the potential of school and community property through joint use agreements. ChangeLab Solutions. http://changelabsolutions.org/publications/playing-smart. Accessed Feb 10, 2014. 10. Howard K, Bocarro J, Kanters M. Strategies for creating successful joint use agreements: a case study. J Park & Rec Admin. 2013;31(1):98–107.
JPAH Vol. 12, No. 7, 2015
Downloaded by Western University on 09/23/16, Volume 12, Article Number 7
1022 Chace and Vilvens
11. Spengler JO, Connaughton DP, Carroll MS. Addressing challenges to the shared use of school recreational facilities. JOPERD: J Phys Ed Rec Dance. 2011;82(9):28–33. 12. Ogilvie RS, Zimmerman J. Opening School Grounds to the Community After Hours: A Toolkit for Increasing Physical Activity Through Joint Use Agreements. http://changelabsolutions.org/sites/phlpnet.org/ files/Joint_Use_Toolkit_FINAL_web_2010.01.28.pdf. Accessed Feb 12, 2014. 13. Evenson K, Wen F, Lee S, Heinrich K, Eyler A. National study of changes in community access to school physical activity facilities: the school health policies and programs study. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7(Suppl 1):S20–S30. PubMed 14. Milane, E, Cummins, P, Phillips, J. Tobacco securitization: FY 20082009 final fiscal analyses Ohio legislative service commission, 912-15. http://www.lsc.state.oh.us/fiscal/fiscalanalysis/127ga/tobacco.pdf. Accessed 1/7/14. 15. State of Ohio Governor’s Office of 21st Century Education and the Office of Budget and Management. Beyond boundaries, a shared services action plan for Ohio schools and governments, June 2012. http:// www.beyondboundaries.ohio.gov/documents/BeyondBoundaries6.14.12released.pdf. Accessed Feb 20, 2014. 16. State of Ohio House Bill 290, 130th General Assembly, Regular Session, 2013-2014. http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills. cfm?ID=130_HB_290. Accessed Jan 7, 2014. 17. American Heart Association. Web blog. http://openthedoorsforhealth. wordpress.com. Accessed May 4, 2014.
18. Spengler JO, Connaughton DP, Maddock JE. Liability concerns and shared use of school recreational facilities in underserved communities. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(4):415–420. PubMed doi:10.1016/j. amepre.2011.06.031 19. Eyler A, Swaller E. An analysis of community use policies in Missouri school districts. J Sch Health. 2012;82(4):175–179. PubMed doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00683.x 20. Ohio Department of Education. http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/ Data/Frequently-Requested-Data/Typology-of-Ohio-School-Districts, Accessed Feb 2014. 21. Ohio School Boards Association. Levy results database [database online]. Columbus, OH. http://www.ohioschoolboards.org/schoolfinance. Accessed Jan 10, 2014. 22. Institute of Medicine. Educating the student body: taking physical activity and physical education to school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013, http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/ Educating-the-Student-Body-Taking-Physical-Activity-and-PhysicalEducation-to-School.aspx. Accessed April 28, 2014. 23. Baker T, Masud H. Liability risks for after-hours use of public school property to reduce obesity: a 50-state survey. J Sch Health. 2010;80(10):508–513. PubMed doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00535.x 24. Burbage L, Gonzalez E, Dunning L, Simon P, Kuo T. Building mutually beneficial partnerships to improve physical activity opportunities through shared-use efforts in under-resourced communities in Los Angeles County. Prev Med. 2014. PubMed doi:10.1016/j. ypmed.2014.01.001
JPAH Vol. 12, No. 7, 2015
