2014 SURVEY REPORTfiles.ctctcdn.com/c96a03f7001/9d148c39-2a9c-4d60-9905-ef... · 2015-08-06 ·...

LOCAL WALKING ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS

IN THE UNITED STATES

2014 SURVEY REPORT

Photo Courtesy :Rewa Marathe

WALKING ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS

SURVEY REPORT

2014

Funding for this report was provided by Every Body Walk Collaborative

America Walks(503)757-8342

PO Box 10581, Portland, Oregon 97296http://americawalks.org/

Acknowledgements 4

America Walks and EveryBody Walk Collaborative 5

1: INTRODUCTION 6

2: METHODS 7

3: RESULTS 8

Who we Are? 8

What we Do? 10

What we Need? 10

4: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 11

Appendix -1 Tables 12

Appendix -2 Participating Organizations 20

Appendix -3 Webinar Presentation 26

CONTENTS

Walking Advocacy Survey Report 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


AMERICA WALKS AND EBWC

AMERICA WALKS

America Walks is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that leads a national coalition of local advocacy groups dedicated to promoting walkable communities. Our members are autonomous grassroots organizations from across the country, each working to improve conditions for walking in their area.The mission of America Walks is to make America a great place for walking by working collaboratively to share knowledge, advance policies and implement effective campaigns to promote safe, conve-nient and accessible walking conditions for all.To carry out our mission, we provide a web-based, online support network for local pedestrian advo-cacy groups. We offer advice about how to get started and how to be effective with public officials and engineering and design professionals.For decades, walking has been the forgotten mode of transportation. Yet walking is a critical compo-nent of our urban transportation system and a practical transportation choice with powerful benefits for both individuals and their communities. And the potential for increased walking is enormous: one quarter of all trips in the United States are less than one mile in length, but only a quarter of these are made by walking.America Walks was founded in 1996 by four local groups who believed that local grassroots advocacy is necessary to help transform our country’s transportation system, and that a national coalition could help local groups grow and be more effective.At the national level, America Walks works to increase funding for pedestrian transportation and pro-moting public policies that support walking.

EVERY BODY WALK! COLLABORATIVE MISSION

The Every Body Walk! Collaborative is a partnership of national, state and local organizations, federal agencies, businesses, and professional associations that are committed to developing and implement-ing collective approaches that can return walking to a valued, cultural norm for all Americans. To accomplish this, EBW! Collaborative partners are working to make walking and walkable places more visible and more desirable to all Americans. Collectively, they are promoting local walking pro-grams, showcasing successful walking champions and pushing for actions that will result in increasing the number of safe, walking environments.Our 2020 vision is:All Americans will walk enough to get a health benefit.All Americans citizens demand walkable environments.All 50 States have effective and visible champions and organizations that promote walking and advo-cate for walkable environments, comprising a powerful national network.Every town, city and community type in the nation offers environments where walking is safe, easy and routine.


INTRODUCTION

LOCAL WALKING ADVOCACY: A GOOD NEWS BAD NEWS STORY

INTRODUCTION

Walking is so common, we often take for granted the conditions needed to make it safe, convenient and pleasant. Meanwhile, across the country, organizations are working every day to make sure that communities are designed and connected so that walking can be routine, safe and a valued activity for all.To better understand these organizations and to know how to best support them, the Every-Body Walk! Collaborative (EBWC) conducted an internet survey in February, 2014. The sur-vey focused on identifying the organizational capacities, including the staff, volunteers and financial resources, available to work on walking and the types of activities related to walk-ing and walkability most frequently implemented. Specific study questions included:• What are the characteristics of organizations that focus on walking advocacy?• What type of resources –staff, time, funding – do walking advocacy organizations have?• What type of activities –walking and walkability – do walking advocacy organizations

focus on?• What type of accomplishments do they identify?• How can a national collaborative best support local walking advocacy efforts?

INTRODUCTION


SURVEY METHODS

A 17 question survey was developed and administered online. Survey questions included checklists, rating scales and open-ended questions. Participants were asked to report on activities for calendar year 2013. A link to an online survey was emailed to the mailing list of several EBWC local action part-ners for biking adn walking. These included America Walks, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, The Alliance, Rails to Trails Conservancy, WALC, Easter Seals and WalkBoston. While we are sure others forwarded the link, we do not have documentation. Most partners sent the survey announcement once. America Walks sent out three announcements and featured the survey on their website for 4 months.

SURVEY TIMELINE

A total of 532 respondents completed the survey. Four hundred and eighty (480) completed it during the initial month of release, the remaining responses were gathered during the fol-low on months.

METHODS

January 2014 Draft Survey Prepared

February 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

Survey Published

Responses Collected

Results Analysis

Survey Report Prepared


RESULTS: WHO WE ARE?

Walking advocacy organizations can be found in all 50 States, plus Guam and the District of Columbia. California reports the highest number with 63 unique organizations or 12% of all reporting walking advocacy organizations. This is followed by Kentucky with 23 organizations , New York and Oregon with 22 organizations and Washington with 21 organizations.The states with the fewest walking advocacy organizations were Alabama, Arkansas, Dela-ware, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota and Utah with only two organiza-tions each reporting from these states. From Guam and Rhode Island only one organization each took the survey.

Over 2/3rd (64%) of the reporting organizations focus their work in a single location or county, while 26% work within regions or States. Confirming that working on walking is a place-based enterprise. When asked to identify the top reason the organization was interested in promoting walking and walkability, 65% said it was to improve physical health, followed by 20% interested in the safety of the community. Economics, environment and access were important to less than 10% of the responding organizations (7%,4% and 3%, respectively). The secondary reason for focusing on walking, identified by 47% of organizations, is improving access and mobility for all residents.

RESULTS

RESULTS


RESULTS

While walking advocacy is wide spread, the resources available are limited. Thirty-six per-cent of the organizations have no paid staff. Almost 60% of the organizations have fewer than 1.5 FTEs (21% report between .5 and 1.5 FTEs). Financial resources are even more lim-ited with the median annual budget reported at $7000. Over 70% of the organizations report volunteers working with them during 2013, with an average of 15 volunteers per organization. Conversely, 73% of the organizations report no dues paying or individual financial contribu-tions for 2013.Despite the number of organizations engaged in walking advocacy, the actual time de-voted is very limited. Only 12% (N=58) of the organizations indicate that they spend 90% to 100% of their time on walking. Seventy-six percent of the organizations (n=357) spend less than 50% of their time on walking advocacy, with almost a third of those (21%) spending 10% or less of their time working on walking. These percentages are likely related to the fact that much of walking advocacy work is embedded within organization with complimentary mis-

sions.

LOCATION OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS

RESULTS


RESULTS : WHAT WE DO?

Safe Routes Projects are the most popular and frequently identified walking activity for the local advocacy organizations. Forty-two percent are frequently engaged in safe routes, meaning they implement walk to school days, walking school buses and other events. Other community education activities (37%) and walking groups or clubs (25%) are reported as frequent activities by a third to a quarter of walking advocacy organizations. Walking meet-ings, incentive programs and walking prescriptions are not widely practiced. It could be argued that these are activities that are more effective at creating long-term cultural shifts, and could provide an opportunity for improving walking advocacy effectiveness. When asked about activities related to walkability, 70% of organization report frequently pro-moting pedestrian infrastructure, including building sidewalks, trails and improving crosswalks. Fifty-six percent report frequently working on funding for active transportation. Complete Streets policies and connectivity projects were reported by over 50% of the organizations (58%, 55% respectively) as a frequent activity, followed closely by zoning reforms activities in 48% of the organizations. These activities were also identified in the open-ended questions concerning advocacy ac-complishments. Complete streets policies and advisory groups, Safe Routes programming, sidewalk inventories and regulations and crosswalk improvements were the most frequently mentioned organizational accomplishments of the walking advocacy organizations.

RESULTS: WHAT WE NEED?

When asks how these national organizations could assist with their local work, respondents top two activities focused on funding (62%) and information about funding opportuni-ties (59%). Assistance with proposal development, and other fund raising activity, was not viewed as necessary while finding ways to expand the local walking advocacy funding pool was identified as essential. Communications and public awareness assistance was identified as the next category for local assistance, with over 50% wanting tools for increasing public awareness and almost 40% wanting examples of successful community campaigns. Over a quarter of the respondents wanted connections to other successful community proj-ects or assistance in organizing community supports. This was further supported in the open-ended responses where assistance with networking, partnering and development of State and regional coalitions were frequently mentioned. Roughly 20% wanted advocacy training or assistance setting policy priorities. Other open-ended responses requested assistance with specific technical information in areas such as

RESULTS


way finding, sidewalk installation, try it you’ll like it campaigns, and law enforcement en-gagement.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The good news, these data indicate a wide-spread, grassroots volunteer effort is advocating for walking and walkability. They engage in a diverse set of activities and are primarily fo-cused on specific places. The efforts are guided by a desire to improve health and are often embedded within other organizations with complimentary missions. The bad new, staffing, funding and time limitations present a significant constraint to ongoing advocacy work, and must be factored into national efforts to assist.The good news, walking advocacy organizations report engaging in a range of activities to promote walking and push for policy changes,, with over 50% report working on Safe Routes projects and complete streets. Responses further confirmed by qualitative data. This is per-haps not surprising given the federal efforts in these areas. It might be a lesson in how fed-eral attention and funding can shape local responses. The bad news, potentially high impact activities, such as walking prescriptions, are not widely practiced or promoted by local walking advocacy organizations. This presents an opportu-nity for improving effectiveness.The good news, local walking advocacy organizations are clear about what they need from national partners. Funding, public awareness messages and platforms for sharing ideas and experiences are all priorities and good direction for how EveryBody Walk Collaborative and America Walks can best serve the walking advocacy field.The bad news, like all surveys, this one has limitations. It was a convenience sample con-ducted at a particular point in time. Participants had to be motivated enough to complete the survey suggesting possible selection bias. The questionnaire was not standardized and some of the checklist responses may not have been complete and mutually exclusive. That said, the good news is that we feel confident we are beginning to understand how to best support and promote walking advocacy.

CONCLUSIONS


APPENDIX-1

Table 1.1: Survey Respondents from Different States A

Table 1.2: Survey Respondents from Different States B

State RespondentsCalifornia 63Kentucky 23New York 22Oregon 22Washington 21Virginia 19Massachusetts 18North Carolina 17Michigan 16Texas 16Montana 15New Jersey 15Ohio 15Pennsylvania 15Minnesota 14Colorado 13Florida 13Illinois 12Missouri 12South Carolina 11Arizona 9Connecticut 9Georgia 9Idaho 9Wisconsin 9District of Columbia 8

State RespondentsIndiana 8Maryland 8Maine 8Tennessee 8Iowa 6Vermont 6West Virginia 6New Mexico 5Oklahoma 5New Hampshire 4Nevada 4Wyoming 4Alaska 3Hawaii 3Kansas 3Nebraska 3Alabama 2Arkansas 2Delaware 2Louisiana 2Mississippi 2North Dakota 2South Dakota 2Utah 2Guam 1Rhode Island 1


Table 2 : Survey Respondents Role in the Organization

Table 3 : Dues Paying Members of the Orga-nizationsThese organizations have very small or no bud-gets and in order to function they rely on dues paying and contributing members. The respond-ing organizations had dues paying members ranging from 0 to more than 10000.

Table 4: Number of Volunteers in the Organi-zations in 2013

Table 5 : number of Full Time Employees in the Organizations

Role Respon-dents

Percentage

Paid Staff 279 52.7%Executive Director or President

84 15.9%

Board Member 42 7.9%Volunteer 61 11.5%Other 63 11.9%TOTAL 529 100.0%

Range Respon-dents

Percentage

0-50 383 73.4%50-100 47 9.0%100-500 18 3.4%500-1,000 39 7.5%1,000-1,500 8 1.5%1,500-2,000 4 0.8%2,000-3,000 2 0.4%3,000-5,000 5 1.0%5,000-10,000 5 1.0%10,000 3 0.6%10,000 or more 8 1.5%TOTAL 522 100.0%

Range Respon-dents

Percentage

0-10 143 28.4%10-50 87 17.3%50-100 167 33.1%100-500 36 7.1%500-1,000 48 9.5%1,000-1,500 12 2.4%1,500-2,000 0 0.0%2,000-3,000 1 0.2%3,000-5,000 2 0.4%5,000-10,000 2 0.4%10,000 1 0.2%10,000 or more 5 1.0%TOTAL 504 100.0%

Paid Staff Respon-dents

Percentage

0 174 33.9%2 185 36.1%4 69 13.5%6 34 6.6%8 8 1.6%10 13 2.5%12 6 1.2%16 5 1.0%20 3 0.6%40 5 1.0%60 4 0.8%100 1 0.2%140 1 0.2%200 1 0.2%200 or more 4 0.8%TOTAL 513 100.0%


Table 6 : Budget of Organizations 512 survey respondents indicated their budget. The median budget of these organizations is $7000 and mode being $0.41% of the local advocacy organizations did not have any budget allocated .

Table 7: Geographic Focus of Organizations

Category Respon-dents

Percent-age

Single Neighborhood 38 7.3%City-wide or Munici-pality

200 38.2%

Country-wide 99 18.9%Regional 79 15.1%State-wide 54 10.3%National 20 3.8%Other 34 6.5%TOTAL 524 100.0%

Table 8 : Time Spent on Walking and Walk-ability

Category Frequency Percent-age

0% 28 5.5%10% 105 20.5%20% 84 16.4%30% 60 11.7%40% 32 6.3%50% 76 14.9%60% 21 4.1%70% 23 4.5%80% 16 3.1%90% 25 4.9%100% 41 8.0%TOTAL 511 100.0%

Table 9: Time Spent on Biking and Bike Friendly Infrastructure

Category Frequency Percent-age

0% 90 17.9%10% 118 23.5%20% 58 11.5%30% 54 10.7%40% 28 5.6%50% 77 15.3%60% 25 5.0%70% 24 4.8%80% 15 3.0%90% 11 2.2%100% 3 0.6%TOTAL 503 100.0%

Budget($) Respon-dents

Percentage

0 210 41.0%5,000 43 8.4%15,000 18 3.5%30,000 19 3.7%50,000 16 3.1%100,000 22 4.3%1,000,000 84 16.4%10,000,000 66 12.9%100,000,000 21 4.1%1,000,000,000 8 1.6%2,000,000,000 1 0.2%More 4 0.8%TOTAL 512 100.0%


Table 10: Reason 1 for Promoting Walking and Walkability


Percent-age

Improve the physical health of the popula-tion, including emo-tional health

320 65.3%

Improve the environ-mental health of the planet

23 4.7%

Improve the econom-ics of the community

34 6.9%

Improve the safety of the community

95 19.4%

Improve access and mobility for our resi-dents

15 3.1%

Improve the social capital/civic engage-ment of the commu-nity

1 0.2%

Improve the academ-ics or learning capac-ity of the community

2 0.4%

Other 0 0.0%More than two selec-tions

0 0.0%

TOTAL 490 100.0%

Table 11: Reason 2 for Promoting Walking and Walkability


Percent-age

Improve the physical health of the popula-tion, including emo-tional health

0 0.0%

Improve the environ-mental health of the planet

36 7.5%

Improve the econom-ics of the community

34 7.1%

Improve the safety of the community

75 15.6%

Improve access and mobility for our resi-dents

230 47.7%

Improve the social capital/civic engage-ment of the commu-nity

60 12.4%

Improve the academ-ics or learning capac-ity of the community

8 1.7%

Other 15 3.1%More than two selec-tions

24 5.0%

TOTAL 482 100.0%


Table 12: Activities for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Walking Groups or Clubs

Table 13: Activities for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Incentives and rewards, such as walker discounts, walking challeng-es and special recognition

Category Respondents PercentageNever 198 40.0%Rarely 92 18.6%Sometimes 116 23.4%Fairly Often 33 6.7%Very Often 20 4.0%Always 21 4.2%Don’t Know 15 3.0%TOTAL 495 100.0%

Table 14: Activities for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Events and Promotions, such as open streets, play streets, ciclovias, walkathonsCategory Respondents PercentageNever 150 29.7%Rarely 80 15.8%Sometimes 158 31.3%Fairly Often 53 10.5%Very Often 29 5.7%Always 20 4.0%Don’t Know 15 3.0%TOTAL 505 100.0%

Table 15: Activities for Promoting Walk-ing and Walkability -Events and Promotions, such as open streets, play streets, ciclovias, walkathons


Table 16: Activities for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Walking Prescriptions

Table 17: Activities for Promoting Walk-ing and Walkability -Merchandise(Support materials, such as pedometers, apps, t-shirts and water bottles)





Table 18: Activities for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Organizing and implement-ing Safe Routes projects

Table 19: Activities for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Promote organizational practices, such as walking meetings


Table 20: Reasons and Policies for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Infrastructure such as sidewalks,trails,pathways,safe crosswalks etc.

Table 21: Reasons and Policies for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Non Motorized Ac-tive Transportation Funding

Table 22: Reasons and Policies for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Aesthetic Projects

Table 23: Reasons and Policies for Promot-ing Walking and Walkability -Safety Projects Through CPTED ,Environmental Planning , Traffic Calming etc.







Table 24: Reasons and Policies for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Implement Walking Connectivity

Table 25: Reasons and Policies for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Complete Streets Policies

Table 26: Assistance Required From America Walks Reason 1



Reason 1 Respondents PercentageAssistance with Organizing Com-munity Support

147 29.5%

Advocacy Train-ing

56 11.2%

Tools to increase public awareness

145 29.1%

Information about funding opportunities

108 21.7%

Assistance with proposal devel-opment

5 1.0%

Grants or fund-ing for small local projects

13 2.6%

Examples of successful cam-paigns in other communities

16 3.2%

Connections to communities with successful proj-ects to share

4 0.8%

Assistance in prioritizing policy targets

2 0.4%

Individual consul-tation on devel-oping walking campaigns

2 0.4%

TOTAL 498 100.0%





0 0.0%

Advocacy Train-ing

49 10.5%


81 17.4%


117 25.2%


41 8.8%


116 24.9%


40 8.6%


13 2.8%


6 1.3%


2 0.4%

TOTAL 498 100.0%


1 0.2%

Advocacy Train-ing

0 0.0%


37 9.1%


48 11.9%


16 4.0%


130 32.1%


64 15.8%


42 10.4%


35 8.6%


32 7.9%

TOTAL 498 100.0%


PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONSBike Walk RoseburgBike & Walk MontclairBike/Walk Alliance Of Missoula (BWAM)Bike/Walk MidlandBikehoustonBikenetBikepghBike-Walk Alliance Of New HampshireBikewalk NCBikewalkKCBoulder Valley School DistrictBuilding Active GlendiveBurt Lake TrailCA SRTS Technical Assistance Resource Cen-terCalifornia WALKSCaltransCampbellsville FRYSCCarrboro Bicycle CoalitionCarson City Parks And Recreation Muscle PoweredCarson City Parks And Recreation, Open Space DivisCatawba Service Unit-Indian Health ServiceCCAYMCA Of VinelandCCMPOCDCChampaign County BikesChampaign County Regional Planning Com-missionChampaign-Urbana Mass Transit DistrictCharity MilesChattanooga Regional Planning Agency/TPOChattanooga-Hamilton County/North Geor-gia TPOChautauqua County Health NetworkChelsea-Area Wellness FoundationCheyenne Metropolitan Planning Organiza-tionChicago County Public HealthCINCH-Casper’s Initiative To Nurture Commu-nity HeaCincinnati Public School Safe Routes To SchoolCirculate San Diego Aka WalksandiegoCity Heights Community Development Corp

Abilene Metropolitan Planning OrganizationAbilities In MotionAccessible Design For The BlindActive Living By DesignActive Living Ramsey CommunitiesActive Transportation AllianceAdair County W.A.T.C.H. CoalitionAdvanced WellnessAirport Corridor Transportation AssociationAlabama Trails CommissionAlamogordo Safe Routes To SchoolAllen County Bike And Pedestrian Task ForceAlliance For AgingAmerican Heart AssociationAmerican Volkssport AssociationAnderson County Planning & Community DevelopmentAppalachian Mountain ClubCity of Bellingham, Washington State Trans-portation CommissionArizona Department of TransportationArlington County Department Of Environ-mental ServicesArlington Pedestrian Advisory CommitteeAshton Heights Civic Association, Arlington VAAustin+SocialgoodAVA - Clay-Platte Trackers Of Kansas CityBarnes ON THE MOVE PartnershipBarren River District Health DepartmentBatavia Business Improvement District (BID)Bedford Youth & Family ServicesBerkeley Path Wanderers AssociationBicycle & Pedestrian Advisory CommissionBicycle Coalition Of MaineBicycle Transportation AllianceBike And Pedestrian Alliance Of ClintonBike DelawareBike EasyBike The Bend, Inc.Bike VirginiaBike Walk Alliance For MissoulaBike Walk Knoxville / TennesseeBike Walk Lincoln ParkBike Walk MontanaBike Walk Nampa


City Of Alexandria Virginia Commission On AgingCity Of AnkenyCity Of Austin Planning And Development Review DepCity Of Bartlesville, OKCity Of Blue Springs Community Develop-ment Dept.City Of BoiseCity Of CasperCity Of Charlottesville, VACity Of Colorado Springs ColoradoCity Of Eugene, OR, Public Works Depart-mentCity Of Fayetteville Planning Dept.City Of Fitchburg Police Traffic BureauCity Of FountainCity Of Fresno PARCSCity Of Graham, NCCity Of GulfportCity Of Holtville, CaliforniaCity Of IrvineCity Of Key WestCity Of KissimmeeCity Of LovelandCity Of Moss Point Parks And Recreation De-partmentCity Of Myrtle BeachCity Of Norfolk Parks And Recreation DeptCity Of Norwalk Department Of HealthCity Of Oak HarborCity Of PiquaCity Of PittsburghCity Of RoyaltonCity Of Saco, MaineCity Of San Jose, Active Transportation Pro-gramCity Of Tulsa Engineering ServicesCity Of WarsawClark County Health DepartmentClay County Public Health CenterClub Kokomo Roadrunners & WalkersCoalition For Sustainable TransportationCoastal Healthy Communities CoalitionColumbia/Boone Co. Public Health & Human ServicesColumbus Public HealthCommunity Action Partnership OCCommunity Health Improvement Partners

Commute OptionsCongress For The New UrbanismConnecticut State Department Of LaborCounty Of Sussex NJCT Forest And Park Association Walkct Pro-gramC-U SRTS ProjectCycle Chatham-KentDC Govt Deputy Mayor For Health And Hu-man ServicesDelaware Department Of TransportationDelaware Valley Regional Planning Commis-sionDetroit Greenways CoalitionDobbs Ferry Energy Task ForceCNU New YorkDOHMHDoor County YMCADouglas County Public HealthEAGLE College Prep ElementaryEaster Seals Project ACTIONEastern Shore Healthy CommunitiesEat Smart Move More Colleton CountyEat Smart, Move More SCEatontown RecreationEl Cajon Resident Leaders In Action (ECRLA)El Paso Metropolitan Planning OrganizationElizabeth City State UniversityElk Grove Unified School DistrictElkhart Environmental Center, Elkhart, INElkin Valley Trails AssociationFairhaven Bikeway CommitteeFayette County Healthy Lifestyles Task ForceFederal Highway AdministrationFeet FirstFeet First PhillyFinger Lakes Health Systems Agency (FLHSA)First StepsFitness For Life Around Grant County (FFLAG)Florida Department Of Health In Collier CountyFlorida Department Of TransportationForevergreen TrailsFreshwater Land TrustFriends Of Green River Lake, KentuckyFriends Of El Dorado TrailsFriends Of Northampton Trails And Green-ways


Indee-Go HealthyIndian Nations Council Of Governments (IN-COG)Indiana Dept Of Health, Nutrition And PAInland Northwest Trails CoalitionIowa Department Of Public HealthITRE - NC State UniversityJOAG Walking Initiative Workgroup (USPHS)Kentucky Cancer ConsortiumKentucky Transportation CabinetKnoxville Reg. Transportation Planning Orga-nizationK-State Extension - Sedgwick Co.KTRSKY Department For Public HealthLa Familia Medical CenterLa Plata MD, Dept Of Planning & Community DevelopmentLake Cumberland District Health DepartmentLake Pend Oreille School DistrictLand Of Sky Regional CouncilLane Coalition For Healthy Active YouthLawrence-Douglas County Health Depart-mentLewis & Clark Health Dept/Bikewalk Helena/SRTS/CTGLexington Hamline Community CouncilLive Well Sioux FallsLive54218Livewell Colorado SpringsLiving Streets AllianceLombard Park District, Lombard, ILLompoc Valley Community Healthcare Or-ganizationLos Altos Bicycle & Ped CommissionLos Angeles Stair-Street AdvocatesLos Angeles WalksLouisville Metro Public Health And WellnessLoveland Safe Routes To SchoolMadison Area Bus AdvocatesMaine School Administrative District #37Mansfield Ontario Richland County Health Dept.Maricopa County Department Of Public HealthMartin County CRAMartin County Wellness Project TeamMass In Motion New Bedford

Friends Of The Bruce Freeman Rail TrailFriends Of The Northern Rail Trail-Merrimack CountFriends Of The Weiser River TrailFun Zone Walking ClubGarrett Park Sidewalk Advisory CommitteeGateway District Health DepartmentGenesee Transportation CouncilGermanna Volkssport AssociationGet Fit Gloucester!Get Fit ItascaGet Fit KauaiGirdwood Trails CommitteeGlendive Recreation DepartmentGo Bike BuffaloGrand Valley Trails AllianceGrants ManagementGreat Parks Of Hamilton CountyGreat Streets Mountain ViewGreen Committee, City Of Hazelwood, MOGreen UmbrellaGreenbrae Boardwalk CommunityGreenfield Community AssociationGreenwood City/County Planning DeptGuam Office Of Highway SafetyHarahan Bridge ProjectHarford County Department Of Planning And ZoningHART TMAHawaii Department Of HealthHazelwood Green TeamHealth Style ServicesHealthy Central FloridaHealthy ClayHealthy Monadnock 2020Healthy Roads For Community HealthHealthy SavannahHealthy ShastaHeights Bicycle CoalitionHendricks County Health Dept IndianaHillsborough School DistrictHOCTS MPOHolyoke Food And Fitness Policy CouncilHomeword, Inc.Humboldt County Association Of Govern-mentsIdaho Falls Community PathwaysIdaho Pedestrian & Bicycle AllianceImagine Grinnell


Metcalfe County KY Cooperative Extension ServiceMetropolitan Planning OrganizationMichigan Fitness FoundationMichigan Horse CouncilMidlothian Park DistrictMinneapolis Pedestrian Advisory CommitteeMinnesota Department Of HealthMinnesota Department Of TransportationMississippi Department Of TransportationMissoula In MotionMode Shift OmahaMonmouth County Health DepartmentMontana Nutrition & Physical Activity Pro-gramMorgan Co. Diabetes CoalitionMorgantown Pedestrian Safety BoardMorristown Elementary SchoolMoses Lake Parks And RecreationMOTU, City Of PhiladelphiaMoving Matters Project, Sawtooth Mountain ClinicMunicipality Of AnchorageMywalkingcoach.ComNapa County Office Of EducationNaples Pathways CoalitionNational Association Of Chronic Disease Di-rectorsNational Kidney Foundation Of Michigan-FlintNC Active Routes To School Project - Region 4New Jersey Bike & Walk CoalitionNewport Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Com-missionNewton Safe Routes To SchoolNewton Transportation Advisory GroupNiles Charter Township Park CommissionNILHAC At The American Heart Association ILNinjas For HealthNMDOTNorth Carolina Rail-TrailsNorth Country Healthy Heart NetworkNorth Reading Pedestrian GroupNortheast Iowa Area Agency On AgingNorthern Berkshire Community Coalitionmass-inmotionNorthern Kentucky Health DepartmentNorthern Shenandoah Valley Regional Com-mission

Novi Trail NetworkOhio DOTOld Glebe Civic AssociationOntario California WalksOrangeburg-Calhoun Ways 2 Wellness Comm. AdvocacyOregon DOTOregon WalksPA Dept. Of HealthPace Setters Volkssport Club Local Club Of AVAPacoima BeautifulParks & Trails New YorkPartners For Active LivingPartnership 4 HealthPatch Of Taylor County, WVPEACPedestrians Educating Drivers On Safety (PEDS)PEDSPennington Biomedical Research CenterPeoria City County Health DepartmentPima County Natural Resources Parks And RecreationPioneer Valley Planning CommissionPoint2point At Lane Transit DistrictPoughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transporta-tion CouncilProactive Transportation And PlanningProquestPublic Health And WellnessPueblo Active Community Environments (P.A.C.E.)Putnam County Department Of HealthQueen Anne GreenwaysRacewalkers NorthwestRaise Driving Age In OregonRaleigh WalkersRecovery Center Of Hamilton CountyRecreation Authority Of Roseville & East-pointeRegion XII Council Of GovernmentsRestoration Exchange OmahaRice & Steele 911 CenterRichland Moves!Richland Parks And RecreationRide America For Safe RoutesRiley Hospital For Children At IU HealthRiver Coalition PHNP


Skagit Healthy Communities/Bikewalk Mount VernonSmart Growth AmericaSmithville Safe Routes To SchoolSnohomish Health DistrictSouth Jersey Transportation Planning Organi-zationSouth Orange / Maplewood Bike WalkSouth Windsor Walk And Wheel Ways (CT)Southern Georgia Regional CommissionSpencer Park & RecreationSpringfield Safe Routes To SchoolSRF ConsultingSt Lukes ClinicSt. Louis County Health Dept MinnesotaSt. Mary’S HospitalSt. Paul WalksStroger Cook County HospitalStroll & Roll Advisory Committee/FREED Advo-cacySurfside Beach Business AllianceSustain CharlotteTahoe Metropolitan Planning OrganizationTampa Downtown PartnershipTART TrailsTaylor County Collaborative FRNTBD (New Walk/Bike Group In Ithaca, NY)Texas Tech Hsc El PasoThe Gateway Family YMCAThe Green Hills Action PartnersThe Maine Safe Routes To School ProgramThe Villages Recreation DepartmentThomas County CoalitionThoreau FoodsThree Rivers Health DistrictThurston Regional Planning CouncilToiyabe Indian Health Project, Inc.TORCH Of Hartwell -- Railroad Street Park ProjectTown Of Coventry Parks & RecreationTown Of DavidsonTown Of GreenburghTown Of New Canaan Department Of Public WorksTown Of Plattsburgh Parks & Recreation De-partmentTown Of SpartaTransportation Advisory Group, Newton, MATransportation Alternatives

River COGRiverstone HealthRoad Runners Club Of AmericaRobert C. MchughRockaway Beach Police DeptRogers County Health DepartmentRutland Area Physical Activity CoalitionRye Shared RoadwaysSacramento Regional Transit DistrictSafe Kids Thurston CountySafe Kids Toombs & Surrounding CountiesSafe Routes To SchoolSafe Routes To School National Partnership - OhioSafe Routes To Schools Alameda CountySafe Transportation Research And Education CenterSalem Neighborhood Pedestrian CommitteeSalt Lake County Health Dept.Injury Preven-tionSan Angelo Metropolitan Planning Organiza-tionSan Carlos Baelmont Group Of The Sierra ClubSan Diego Air Pollution Control DistrictSan Diego Co. HHSA Public Health NursingSan Francisco Department Of Public HealthSan Mateo County Office Of EducationSan Rafael California BPACSanta Clara County Public Health Depart-mentSarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning OrgSDSU/UCSDSeattle Neighborhood GreenwaysSee Your Place By WalkingSemcogSentara RMH Medical Center, Community Health DeptShasta County Public HealthShasta Living StreetsShenandoah Valley Bicycle CoalitionSierra And LWVSimsbury Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Com-mitteeSioux Falls Health DepartmentSkagit Council Of Gov/ Active Community Taskforce


Transylvania UniversityTri-County Regional Planning Commission-Lansing MITrimetTroop 1450 Boy Scouts Of America, Rockville MDTruckee Meadows TomorrowTualatin Hills Park & Rec.- Elsie Stuhr CenterUniversity City, MO Bike Walk Task ForceUniversity Of Idaho MV SC 486 Student GroupUniversity Of MarylandUniversity Of Tennessee ChattanoogaUpstate ForeverUrban Health PartnershipsUrban Land InstituteUS Fish And Wildlife ServiceUS Forest ServiceUSPHS JOAG/COA Saguaro BranchUtah Transit AuthorityValley Transportation ServicesVermont Department Of Health Barre VTWaimanalo Ahupuaa CoalitionWalk And Bike MedocinoWalk And Roll ButteWalk Oakland Bike OaklandWalk San FranciscoWalk Sitka (Http://Walksitka.Wordpress.Com/)Walk With A Doc Hosted By Sky Lakes Medi-cal CenterWalk/Bike Burien (WABI Burien)Walk2ConnectWalkabout InternationalWalkarlingtonWalkaustinWalkbike WorcesterWalkbostonWalkdenverWalking As Transportation For Daily ErrandsWalking Conway, Bike And Ped. Advisory BoardWalksacramentoWalkways In Lower Macungie TownshipWallace Consulting & Training, Inc.Washingtion University In St. LouisWashington Bikes (Bicycle Alliance Of Wash-ington)Washington County Health DepartmentWashington County Wellness Initiative-PHP Sub-Comm

Waterford Parks & RecreationWaterville Main StreetWellness Institute Of Greater Buffalo (NY)Wesley Community Center/Amigos CenterWest Allis Health DepartmentWest Central InitiativeWest Virginia On The MoveWest Virginia University Extension ServiceWest Windsor Pedestrian And Bicycle Alli-anceWestern Washington UniversityWichita Falls-Wichita County Public Health DistrictWindsor PartnershipWisconsin Bike FedWisconsin Rapids Safe Routes To SchoolWomenheart: The National Coalition For Women WithWood City Health Dept: Healthy People Wood CountyWorcester County Health DepartmentWSHS Steps At StevensYantacaw WalksYavapai County Community Health ServicesYavapai Trails AssociationYolo County Health DepartmentYork Road Initiative - Loyola U. Maryland


WEBINAR PRESENTATION SLIDES

PRESENTED BY :Dr. Katherine Kraft & Ruchi Shrivastava

LOCAL WALKING ADVOCACY

SURVEY

2014A Good News Bad News

Story

AMERICA WALKS & EveryBody Walk!

Collaborative

Photo Courtesy : Rewa Marathe

2

Outline

3

• What We did

• What We Learned

• What Does It Mean for our

Future Work

Study Questions

4

• What are the characteristics of organizations that focus on walking

advocacy?

• What type of resources –staff, time, funding – do walking advocacy

organizations have?

• What type of activities –walking and walkability – do walking

advocacy organizations focus on?

• What type of accomplishments do they identify?

• How can a national collaborative best support local walking

advocacy efforts?

Study Methods• Internet Survey

• Survey instrument developed by EBWC Local Action

Workgroup

• Included checklist, rating scales and open-ended questions

• Convenience Sample

5

Survey Methods Online survey link emailed to :

EBWC local action partners including :

America Walks (sent out 3 times)

Safe Routes to School National Partnership

The Alliance

Rails to Trails Conservancy

Walkable and Livable Communities Institute(WALC)

Easter Seals

WalkBoston

Survey on America Walks Website for 4 months

6

7

Data Collection and Responses 17 questions in the survey

Questionnaire divided into :

Organizational Variables

Activities Variables

Needs Variables

Open ended questions on Accomplishments

532 Survey Respondents

8

DEMOGRAPHICSLOCATION

Demographics :Who we are?

Participants from 50 states plus Guam and DC

California - 63 unique organizations or 12% of all

walking organizations

63

2322 22

2119

1817

16 1615 15 15 15

1413 13

12 1211

9 9 9 9 98 8 8 8 8

6 6 65 5

4 4 43 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 21 1

Ca

lifo

rnia

Ke

ntu

cky

Ne

w Y

ork

Ore

go

n

Wa

shin

gto

n

Vir

gin

ia

Ma

ssa

ch

use

tts

No

rth

Ca

roli

na

Mic

hig

an

Te

xa

s

Mo

nta

na

Ne

w J

ers

ey

Oh

io

Pe

nn

sylv

an

ia

Min

ne

sota

Co

lora

do

Flo

rid

a

Illin

ois

Mis

sou

ri

So

uth

Ca

rolin

a

Ari

zon

a

Co

nn

ect

icu

t

Ge

org

ia

Ida

ho

Wis

co

nsi

n

Dis

tric

t o

f C

olu

mb

ia

Ind

ian

a

Ma

ryla

nd

Ma

ine

Te

nn

ess

ee

Iow

a

Ve

rmo

nt

We

st V

irg

inia

Ne

w M

exic

o

Ok

lah

om

a

Ne

w H

am

psh

ire

Ne

va

da

Wyo

min

g

Ala

ska

Ha

wa

ii

Ka

nsa

s

Ne

bra

ska

Ala

ba

ma

Ark

an

sas

De

law

are

Lou

isia

na

Mis

siss

ipp

i

No

rth

Da

ko

ta

So

uth

Da

ko

ta

Uta

h

Gu

am

Rh

od

e I

sla

nd

Organizations by StatesCalifornia – 63 organizations reporting

Kentucky, New York, Oregon and Washington State report 20+ walking advocacy organizations

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Rhode Island and Guam – 2 or fewer walking advocacy organizations

10

11

BASED ON ZIP CODES LOCATION OF SURVEY PARTICPANTS

State Boundaries

County Boundaries

!( Survey Participants =529

12


The 64.4% (N=337) focus their work in a single location or county

7.3%

38.2%

18.9%

15.1%

10.3%

3.8%

6.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Single

Neighborhood

City-wide or

Municipality

wide

County-wide Regional State-wide National Other

13


Over one-third (36%=188)) of the local

organizations working on walking report

zero paid staff.

21% (N=107)report between .5 to 1.5

paid staff.

14

Budget

Median Annual Budget of Organizations is ~$7000

41% of the organizations had zero budget for 2013

Organizations with large budgets like DOTs and MPO’s

also participated in the survey.

41.34

11

4.753.15 4.33 3.35 3.15 2.56

7

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Budget

%

15

Time Spent on Walking

% Time Spent N %

0% 28 5.5%

10% 105 20.5%

20% 84 16.4%

30% 60 11.7%

40% 32 6.3%

50% 76 14.9%

60% 21 4.1%

70% 23 4.5%

80% 16 3.1%

90% 25 4.9%

100% 41 8.0%

Total 511 100.00%

13% (N=66) organizations spend 90% -100% of their time on walking.

75% (385) spend less than 50% of time on Walking

16

73% of organization report no dues

or individual financial contributions

Volunteers and Members

72% of organizations report

volunteers on average 15 per

organization

17

Reason 1

65% said it was to improve physical

health

20% interested in the safety of the

community

Physical

Health

65%

Reasons for Promoting

Walking

Physical

HealthEnvironment

Economics Safety

Access &

Mobility

Civic

Engagement

18

Reasons for Promoting Walking

Reason 2

47% of respondents, is improving access and mobility for all residents.

Access &

Mobility

47.7%

19

Walking Programming Activities reported as often or always

engaged in

Safe Routes Projects are the most popular with 42% organizations frequently

engaged in themWalking Programming

Activities N=509 %

Safe Routes 214 42.0%

Educational Events 193 37.9%

Walking Groups or Clubs 122 24.0%

Events and Promotions 102 20.0%

Merchandise and support materials 94 18.5%Organizational Practices 92 18.1%

Incentives and rewards 74 14.5%

Walking prescriptions 33 6.5%

20

Walking Programming Activities reported as often or always

engaged in

70.2% organizations engaged in improving pedestrian infrastructure.

Walking Programming

Activities N=520 %

Promoting pedestrian infrastructure 365 70.2%

Complete Streets policies 296 56.9%

Active transportation funding 292 56.2%

Walking connectivity 280 53.8%

Zoning and ordinances 244 46.9%

Aesthetics projects 167 32.1%

Safetyprojects, such as CPTED 159 30.6%

Organizational Accomplishments (N=409) Complete Streets policies and advisory groups

SRTS, walk to school day, walking school buses

Sideway inventories, plans, regulations, repairs, construction

Crosswalks and signals

Trail and greenway plans and completed sections

Connectivity – completion of pathways and trails to destinations

Pedestrian Plans and Advisory Councils

Accomplishments (con’t)Livability and walkability language in plans

Slower speeds and vision zero goals

Active Transportation planning and multi-modal plans

Pedestrian Strategy Plans

Walking Groups

Mapping walking routes and signage

Public awareness activities

Stopped Freeway Expansion

23

National Assistance EBWC and America Walks can Provide

Support Needed N %Funding Information

273 51.3%Public awareness and communication support 263 49.4%Grants for small projects

259 48.7%Platform for peer to peer sharing

179 33.6%Training & technical assistance

210 39.5%Specific assistance with organizing

184 34.6%

24

Limitations

Convenience Sample – not sure how representative it is

Selection bias – only the most interested would fill out survey

Providing a snap shot in time as this is a rapidly growing area of

advocacy

Checklist options might need to be expanded

25

Key observations

It is a good news bad news story

Wide-spread, grassroots volunteer efforts

Organizations have limited staff, funding and time to devote to

walking advocacy

Activities include Safe Routes to School, educational session,

pedestrian infrastructure, Complete Streets Policies and funding for

active transportation

Diverse accomplishments include complete streets policies and

advisory groups, sidewalk regulations and funding and improved

crosswalks

Need funding and communication’s assistance

26

Questions??

1

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

California

63 organizations participated

in the survey from California

State Boundaries

County Boundaries


2

Kentucky

23 Organizations participated

from Kentucky

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

State Boundaries

County Boundaries


3

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

New York

22 organizations took the

survey from NY

State Boundaries

County Boundaries


4

Oregon

22 Organizations took the survey from Oregon

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

State Boundaries

County Boundaries


!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

5

Washington

21organizations took the survey from Washington

State Boundaries

County Boundaries


Date post:	29-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

2014 SURVEY REPORTfiles.ctctcdn.com/c96a03f7001/9d148c39-2a9c-4d60-9905-ef... · 2015-08-06 ·...

Documents