Citation
Perceptions of risk in Denver public elementary school playgrounds

Material Information

Title:
Perceptions of risk in Denver public elementary school playgrounds a multimethods research strategy and design
Creator:
Yost, Bambi
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xi, 271 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Playgrounds -- Safety measures -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Risk assessment -- Colorado -- Denver ( lcsh )
Playgrounds -- Safety measures ( fast )
Risk assessment ( fast )
Colorado -- Denver ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 252-271).
Thesis:
Landscape architecture and urban and regional planning
General Note:
Department of Urban and Regional Planning
Statement of Responsibility:
by Bambi Yost.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
64445552 ( OCLC )
ocm64445552
Classification:
LD1193.A77 2005m Y67 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
PERCEPTIONS OF RISK IN DENVER PUBLIC
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PLAYGROUNDS: A MULTI-
METHODS RESEARCH STRATEGY AND DESIGN
by
Bambi Yost


A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of
Masters of Landscape Architecture & Masters of Urban and Regional
Planning
University of Colorado at Denver
2005
This thesis for the Master of Landscape Architecture &
Master of Urban and Regional Planning degree by
Bambi Yost
Has been approved by
Professor Ray Studer


The design of the environment reflects the ideas, attitudes, and
ethics of the time.
(Stine, 1997, p.93)
Probability is a net that supports us and a cage that confines us.
(Davis, 1998, p.31)
Childhood placed at a tangent to adulthood, perceived as special
and magical, precious and dangerous at once, has turned into
some volatile stuff hydrogen, or mercury, which has to be
contained. The separate condition of the child has never been so
bounded by thinking, so established in law as it is today.How we
treat children really tests who we are, fundamentally conveys who
we hope to be.
(Marina Warner, 1994, 'Managing Monsters' The Reith Lectures)
It is tempting to impose our goals on other people, particularly on
children or our subordinates. It is tempting for society to try to impose
its priorities on everybody. The strategy will however be self-
defeating if our goals, or society's goals, do not fit the goals of the
others. We may get our way but we don't get their learning. They
may have to comply but they will not change. We have pushed out
their goals with ours and stolen their purposes. It is a pernicious form
of theft which kills the will to learn."
(Charles Handy, 1990)


TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT III
LIST OF FIGURES Vin
LIST OF TABLES X
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XI
PROLOGUE 12
1.1 ISSUES RELATED TO RISK AND SAFETY 15
1.2 INTRODUCTION 19
1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 22
1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 23
1.4.1 Childrens Perceptions 24
1.4.2 School Personnel's Perceptions 25
1.4.3 Policy Related 26
1.5 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 28
1.5.1 Underlying Theories 28
1.5.2 Social Ecological or Socioecological Model 32
1.5.3 Defining Risk 36
1.5.4 Risk as a Social Construct 40
1.5.5 The Nature of Play 47
1.5.6 Health and Behavioral Risks of Limited Play Opportunities 50
1.5.7 Playground Design and Physical Activity 55
1.5.8 Childrens Participation and Access to their Local Environment 60
1.5.9 School Policies and Educational Programs 64
1.5.10 Supportive En vironments 66
1.6 RATIONALE FOR THE INVESTIGATION 67
2 PROCEDURES 68
2.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIXED METHODS RESEARCH 69
2.2 MULTI-METHODS DESIGN 71
2.3 VISUAL MODEL AND PROCEDURES OF THE DESIGN 72
2.3.1 Steps to be Taken Idea to Conclusion 72
2.3.2 Concurrent Transformative Mixed Methods Strategy 74
V


2.3.3 Balancing the Costs, Benefits, and Risks 76
2.3.4 Proposed Playground Quality Index Assessment 79
2.3.5 Proposed Cost Effectiveness Analysis 82
2.4 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES 83
2.4.1 Types of Data 83
2.4.1.1 Risk Management Policy & Injury Reports 83
2.4.1.2 Physical Site Design & Specifications 83
2.4.1.3 User Perceptions of Risks & Benefits 83
2.4.2 Sampling Strategy 83
2.5 DATA ANALYSIS 85
2.5.1 Cost Benefit and/or Cost Effectiveness Analysis 85
2.6 SUBJECTS 92
2.6.1 Eagleton, Munroe, and Remington Denver Public Schools 92
2.6.2 Socio-Economic and Cultural Influences 97
2.7 PROCEDURE 102
2.8 PRECEDENT 103
3 ETHICAL ISSUES 107
3.1 BASIC ETHICAL PRINCIPLES 108
3.2 HUMAN SUBJECTS 110
4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 111
5 HYPOTHESIS 113
6 CONCLUSION 114
7 APPENDIXES: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION, POTENTIAL FOCUS
GROUP QUESTIONS, AND PROPOSED TIMELINE 115
7.1 APPENDIX A NATIONAL PLAYGROUND STANDARDS 116
7.2 APPENDIX B U.S. CENSUS STATISTICS 117
7.3 APPENDIX C U.S. PLAYGROUND STATISTICS 119
7.4 APPENDIX D DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS (DPS) DATA 126
7.4.1 DPS Playground Standards 127
7.4.2 DPS 2004 Design Guidelines for PE Areas 165
7.4.3 DPS Play Equipment Inventory Forms 171
7.4.4 DPS Safety Assessment Forms 192
7.4.5 DPS Risk Management National Award Winning Program 195
7.4.6 DPS Risk Management Recognitions 198
VI


7.4.7 DPS Playground Safety Handbook 200
7.5 APPENDIX E LEARNING LANDSCAPE INITIATIVE DATA 223
7.5.1 History of Learning Landscape Playgrounds 223
7.5.2 UCD-DPS Master Plans 226
7.5.3 UCD-DPS Design Documents 226
7.5.4 UCD-DPS Construction Documents 226
7.5.5 UCD-DPS As-Built Documents 22 7
7.5.6 UCD-DPS Maintenance Documents 227
7.5.7 UCD-DPS Baseline Data 227
7.5.8 UCD-DPS 2005 District-Wide Playground Survey 229
7.5.9 UCD-DPS Baseline Incident Log Data 233
7.5.10 UCD-DPS Before and After Photographs of Playgrounds 234
7.5.11 UCD-DPS Schoolyard Consortium Educational Programs 235
7.6 APPENDIX F POTENTIAL SURVEY TOOLS 237
7.6.1 Potential Survey Questions for Focus Groups 23 7
7.6.2 Potential Domain-specific Risk-attitude Scale 238
7.6.3 Potential Photo Sun/ey Images 246
7.7 APPENDIX G PROPOSED TIMELINE 251
8 REFERENCES 252
9 AUTHORS BRIEF BIOGRAPHY 270
ENDNOTES 271
vii


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Platform shoes similar to the ones described on the
KINDERGARTENERS FEET AND CONSIDERED INAPPROPRIATE PLAYGROUND ATTIRE BY
PE TEACHER. 12
Figure 2 Girls hanging upside down on play equipment. 13
Figure 3 Bromwell Elementary School's learning landscape features a
Colorado native planting area created specifically for Denver's urban
STUDENTS TO LEARN ABOUT THE PRAIRIE. WOULD YOU BE WORRIED ABOUT YOUR
CHILD PLAYING IN THIS ENVIRONMENT? (PHOTO TAKEN BY BAMBI YOST AUGUST,
2003) 15
Figure 4 A young girl plays on top of a sculpture at Greenlee elementary
SCHOOL. Is SHE AT RISK? SHOULD THE SCULPTURES BE REMOVED? ARE THEY
APPROVED PIECES OF PLAY EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR SUCH USE? HOW DO YOU
DETERMINE RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC ART? (PHOTO TAKEN BY BAMBI
Yost, October 2001) 18
Figure 6 A Young Girl Waters Trees on Smith Elementary Schools
Learning Landscape Playground Does this look risky to you? 27
Figure 7 Book marks created with student input are part of the DPS school
SAFETY CURRICULUM. 30
Figure 8 2004-2005 DPS school Saftey 31
Figure 9 Socioecological Model 32
Figure 10 Sociological Framework for determinants of Accidents, Risk-
Taking Benefits, Perceptions of Risk, and Costs 33
Figure 11 Boys at Remington Elementary skidding out of puddle on bikes.
(Photo taken by Bambi Yost, 2003) 46
Figure 13 Image compliments of Green & Hart, 1998. 52
Figure 14 Susan Bardwell with Grounds for Learning teaches students
HOW TO PLANT AND MAINTAIN PLANTINGS AT MUNROE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
(Photo taken by Bambi Yost, 2005) 65
Figure 15 Diagram of steps involved in a research study 73
Figure 18 All 3rd-5th grade Eagleton, Munroe, and Remington Elementary
School Students 92
Figure 19 Eagleton, Munroe, and Remington Denver Public Elementary
Schools located within former Mayor Wellington Webb's Focus
Neighborhoods (Graphic created by Bambi Yost, 2005)
VUl
94


Figure 20 Latino Populations within the City and County of Denver.
(Source: U.S. Decennial Census 2000) 95
Figure 21 Poor and At-Risk Children in Neighborhoods within the City and
County of Denver. 97
Figure 22 A girl testing her limits. Risky or not? 246
Figure 23 Hanging upside down. Risky or safe behavior? 246
Figure 24 Clearly pushing the limits of safety. But you cant help
WONDERING WHAT HAPPENED. 247
Figure 25 Inappropriate use of equipment leading to potential injury or
GIRLS JUST WANTING TO HAVE FUN? 247
Figure 26 Boy playing in a puddle. Risk of drowning or harmless play? 248
Figure 27 Little boys playing on rocks. Dangerous or challenging or both?
248
Figure 28 Boys on top of large boulder with at least a ten foot fall. Risky
or not? What if they were girls? 249
Figure 29 Once a common piece of play equipment, now a liability and safety
concern. Where have all the geodesic domes gone and why? 249
Figure 30 Manmade climbing boulder to accomodate different skill levels.
This is a DPS approved piece of play equipment as of 2005. 250
lx


LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Matrix to Determine Pros and Cons of Challenging Play
Environments 78
Table 2 Proposed Playground Quality Index Assessment Matrix 79
Table 3 Proposed Cost Effectiveness Analysis Model 82
Table 4 Estimated number of deaths occurring on playgrounds 119
Table 5 Estimated number of injuries occurring on playgrounds 120
Table 6 Estimated number of injuries that may occur on Denver Public
Elementary School Playgrounds 120
X


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to my advisory board members,
CU Denver Professors Ann Komara, Joe Juhasz, Ray Studer, Lois Brink, and
Dwayne Nuzum, for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. In
addition, special thanks to Tom Kaesemeyer with Gates Foundation and Allen
Balczarek, Don Moon, and Stephen Finley with Denver Public Schools, for
providing information and insight. Thanks also to the faculty, staff, and children of
Denver Public Schools and the Learning Landscape Initiative for their valuable
input and boundless dedication. Thanks also to my family, friends, and boyfriend
who have offered so much support, coffee, mental breaks, playful moments, and
continued faith in me throughout this entire process.
XI


PROLOGUE
The school day has ended. I am on a Northwest Denver Elementary
School playground to discuss play equipment, playground design, outdoor
education, and physical activity with the schools physical education
teacher.
I ask, Are the children less active now than when you first started teaching
seventeen years ago?" She answers, Yes, Kids weigh more now and that
makes it more difficult for them. Also, so many of them come unprepared
for gym class. See that little girl over there climbing up the ladder? She is
in kindergarten. Look at her shoes. They are those stupid platform shoes
that all the girls want. They wear them to class. I cant let them run in
those.
Figure 1 Platform shoes similar to the ones
described on the kindergarteners feet and
considered inappropriate playground attire by PE
teacher/
She turns from me and yells to the girl, You know you are not allowed to
climb on that equipment in those shoes. Get off before I have to ask you to
leave the playground. Not more than two seconds later she spots another
little girl disregarding playground rules.
-12-


This time her shoes are fine. Instead, it is her position on the overhead
bars that is in question. She is hanging upside down, about 6 feet off the
ground, with her legs securely wrapped in place, feet locked under the bars,
swinging back and forth and laughing.
Figure 2 Girls hanging upside down on play
equipment.2
The off-duty teacher yells, You know you are not allowed to hang upside
down like that! Get down from there right now before I have to ask you to
leave the playground. From the teachers perspective, potential injuries
and litigation are everywhere. Policies, rules, and regulations require
enforcement if they are to be effective. Consistency is key. By following
district playground safety mandates, injuries are less likely to occur, at least
this is what teachers are told. Unfortunately they are also told that lawsuits
are no longer restricted to institutions. Personal liability is an added factor.
Although Denver Public Schools has only lost one lawsuit in the last ten
years due to negligence on a playground, the fear of litigation is great.3
- 13-


While the physical education teacher sees potential harm and inherent
danger in behavior, I see children having fun playing and using their bodies
to explore their environments and to test their limits. One little girl is
developing an amazing ability to balance and perform in adverse conditions
and another little girl is exhibiting sophisticated motor control, strength, and
coordination.
Because I am not liable for any injury these children might incur, I am far
more at ease. But I believe it is more than just liability that limits what we
allow children to do on playgrounds and what we perceive to be risky
behavior. Clearly a physical education teacher with seventeen years of
experience is more aware of the inherent dangers on playgrounds than I
am. Moreover, her genuine and compassionate concern about the safety of
the children precludes any thoughts of lawsuit.
How much do perceptions of risk influence childrens abilities to be
physically active experiential learners on playgrounds? Are safety, fun, and
learning possible? Or do the risks associated with playgrounds and
childrens play truly outweigh the benefits?
-14-


Figure 3 Bromwell Elementary School's learning landscape
features a Colorado native planting area created specifically for
Denver's urban students to leam about the prairie. Would you be
worried about your child playing in this environment? (Photo taken
by Bambi Yost August, 2003)
1.1 ISSUES RELATED TO RISK AND SAFETY
As a Landscape Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning student
who plans, designs, and builds community-based learning landscape
playgrounds, I find myself asking the questions, How are our perceptions
and attitudes of risk and safety influencing the way we modify environments
and the behaviors of children and is this to their benefit in the long run or
have we gone too far?
Much like playground expert Dr. Robin Moore, I too grew up as a free-
range kid (Moore, 2003). Robin Moores freedom to explore the
countryside of England has influenced his design beliefs and practices, just
-15-


as my freedom to explore the forests and hills of rural Pennsylvania have
influenced my own.
In 1994 I began teaching environmental education all over the Chesapeake
Bay watershed. I would take 4tt1-12th grade students and teachers out in
canoes to explore rivers, lakes, marshes, and the Bay. It was at this time
that I first noticed a difference in the way that children and adults from
suburban and urban places interacted with unfamiliar natural settings.
Unfamiliar environments feel dangerous and threatening. Much of my time
teaching was spent reassuring participants that there was nothing to fear.
Similarly, as a ski instructor of seven years, a large portion of my lesson
was dedicated to convincing students that fear was their biggest enemy.
How did I become such an assured and competent individual in such
adventurous occupations? I attribute much of it to my parents who always
encouraged me to try new things and to explore new places. Because I
had their support, I was much more willing and able to accomplish things
that others would have never dreamt of pursuing. In addition, my exposure
to the outdoor environment from birth through adulthood was extensive.
Research supports my intuitive understanding of my development showing
that individuals who are encouraged to take risks and are supported when
they succeed or fail gain confidence and security in their abilities (Williams,
1986; Benard, 2004; Jensen, 2005; Jambor, 1990 & 1996; Stine, 1987;
Moore, 2003; and others).
-16-


Many adults are restricting childrens activities and physical design
opportunities out of fear. How do we promote risk-taking and challenging
educational opportunities like physical activity, outdoor learning, and
creative play for youth? Why are we so focused on controlling childrens
behavior and limiting our physical environments? Where is the balance?
And how might we achieve it?
While much has been written about injuries, safety, and risk management
from legal and medical prevention perspectives, very little has been written
about the influence of perceptions of risk in relation to the built environment.
How much of what we design, or dont design, is influenced by our
perceptions of risk? And specifically how has this influence impacted the
Learning Landscape playgrounds and the people who use them?
-17-


Figure 4 A young girl plays on top of a sculpture at Greenlee
elementary school. Is she at risk? Should the sculptures be
removed? Are they approved pieces of play equipment intended
for such use? How do you determine risk factors associated with
public art? (Photo taken by Bambi Yost, October 2001)
-18-


1.2 INTRODUCTION
Denver Public Schools (DPS) is prone to experiment. For the last seven
years, DPS has been building 'Learning Landscapes in an effort to improve
elementary school playgrounds. Learning Landscapes are intended to be
fun, participatory play areas that encourage outdoor play and learning,
improve opportunities for physical activity for children of all ages, green
the grounds, and facilitate community ownership and use of the
playgrounds (Brink and Yost, 2004). To date, thirty-six new playgrounds
have been built or are under construction with an average cost of $450,000
each. DPS knows that the physical environment is important for their
students health and well-being (Moore, 1990), physical activity (Sallis &
Owen, 1999), and educational opportunities (Malone & Tranter, 2003).
Despite this investment, children are limited by what they can and can not
do in these exploratory environments. No one would argue that safety is
important, but with increasingly regulated play comes limited opportunities
for personal growth and development.
Researcher Tom Jambor states,
Those who design and develop playgrounds are caught between
the desire to provide developmental^ appropriate, challenging
opportunities for play and the desire to restrict play challenges in
order to reduce danger to children or the likelihood of being held
liable for injuries. While there can be no argument against accident
and injury prevention, an argument can be made about the extent to
which recommended playground standards should be allowed to
-19-


restrict children's developmental play. Safety standards are
producing playgrounds that are colorful and cute rather than
challenging and complementary to children's development.
Construction of safe playgrounds involves consideration of a few
important developmental facts. First, children are natural explorers of
their limitations, seeking higher levels of challenge that will enhance
their repertoire of skills and competencies. Second, what is safe and
unsafe to an adult is often a matter of personal perception, judgment,
and past experience. Third, children with high and low self-efficacy
differ in their perception of what they can do with the skills they
possess. A challenge and a hazard differ in that a hazard is
something that is hidden, or at least not perceived by the child, while
a challenge is something the child may see as dangerous.
Playgrounds must provide numerous entry levels with ascending
increments of challenge. (Jambor, 1990)
Having recently witnessed a concerned teacher at a learning landscape
reprimand students for unsafe play, I find myself asking, Are these new
playgrounds designed to improve opportunities for safety, fun, and learning
so limited by perceptions of risk that they fail to meet the needs of the
children who use them? What do the children and school personnel who
use these places think about the risks and benefits of fun, challenging play
environments?"
-20-


Figure 5 Munroe Elementary School's Learning Landscape
(Photo taken by Bambi Yost, April 8, 2005)
-21-


1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This purpose of this paper is to create a research strategy and design that
may be used to evaluate how perceptions of risk influence Denver Public
Schools Learning Landscape playgrounds and the children who play on
them. This proposal offers one of many ways to study such a complex
topic.
Both qualitative and quantitative methods are proposed in order to describe
and evaluate findings. Analysis of data in terms of financial costs and
benefits is explored. In addition, a cost effectiveness analysis emphasizing
the qualitative findings is proposed. Because policies are not driven by
financial outcomes alone, it is important to evaluate them from multiple
perspectives. Risk management policies are typically focused on
minimizing insurance claims and lawsuits. At DPS, the Department of Risk
Management clearly wishes to address fun and learning in addition to
safety (see Appendix D) but how policies are carried out by individuals
interpreting them is not clear. The research strategy and design described
attempts to unveil some of the many ways that perceptions of risk directly
influence policy, behavior, and environments.
-22-


1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following lists of questions has been derived from multiple disciplines
and sources in an effort to address gaps in literature regarding perceptions
of risk and its influence on playground design and the children who play
there. While not exhaustive, the breadth of the questions clearly frames the
scope and relevance for this investigation.
-23-


1.4.1 Childrens Perceptions
What do children think about the safety limits placed on them?
Do children perceive risks differently than adults?
What are childrens perceptions of risk on playgrounds?
Do children take responsibility for their own actions when injuries
occur?
Are children aware of the risks of injury?
Do they do things knowing they could get hurt and if so, why, and
how does it benefit them?
Do children behave differently when unsupervised?
How much peer pressure do children experience to do or not to do
risky things?
Are children less likely to play in places where they are restricted?
With what rules do children agree or disagree?
Do children help establish and regulate rules?
Do students consider the playground challenging and fun?
What challenges students the most?
What challenges students the least?
What is boring or unappealing about the playground?
Are children's preferences being heard?
How might we better engage them in the process of establishing not
only safety protocols but also measures of quality play
environments?
-24-


1.4.2 School Personnels Perceptions
What do school personnel responsible for childrens safety think of
policies and rules for playground activity and behaviors?
Are they too strict, not strict enough, or just right?
How do they feel about lawsuits and the possibility of litigation
revolving around playground injuries and accidents?
What is an accident?
Do school personnel think that policies and equipment for school
playgrounds are overly protective?
What do they consider to be the best things on the playground for
childrens development?
What aspects of the playground are most appropriate for teaching?
How many and what kinds of injuries do they see on a regular basis?
How many of these could have been avoided with increases in
safety guidelines?
How many and what kinds of injuries could not have been avoided?
How likely is it that a child could die on the playground during
supervised play or unsupervised play?
What are the odds of someone dying on the playground as a result
of negligence?
How willing are the teachers to take responsibility for students
injuries or risky behaviors?
What type of environment best promotes exploratory and challenging
play while minimizing injuries and accidents?
-25-


1.4.3 Policy Related
How much do perceptions of risk influence playground design,
policy, and behavior?
How do the designs, policies, and behavior management techniques
used to minimize risk of injury influence children?
Is it possible to achieve a healthy balance that promotes safety while
providing challenging, fun, healthy, physical, and experiential
educational opportunities for students?
What are the costs of meeting risk management requirements in
terms of direct costs and forgone opportunities?
Who pays the financial costs, and what are the sources of funds?
Who supports and opposes risk management policies and on what
grounds?
What strategies have been effective in increasing support for risk
management policies?
What strategies have been ineffective?
What strategies have been employed to oppose or dilute
implementation of the policies?
What strategies have been employed to overcome opposition to the
policies?
How much do insurance companies dictate risk management policy?
How important are actual numbers of injuries or fatalities on DPS
sites in determining policy guidelines?
What are the actual numbers of injury and death?
-26-


Figure 6 A Young Girl Waters Trees on Smith
Elementary School's 'Learning Landscape
Playground Does this look risky to you?
-27-


1.5 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1.5.1 Underlying Theories
Environment-Behavior Theory
Several behavior health models have been applied to physical activity
program design and outdoor education. Of these, the most applicable to
this particular research design are Social Cognitive Theory, Ecological or
Social Ecological Models, and Hungerford and Volks Environmental
Education Model.
Social Cognitive Theory, commonly used in nutrition education interventions
(Contento, Batch, & Bronner, 1995), developed from social learning theory.
It offers a comprehensive framework for understanding health related
behaviors and changing them (Baronowski & Baronowski, 1998). The
Social Cognitive Theory concept of reciprocal determinism proposes that
behavior is a function of aspects of the environment and of the person, all of
which are in constant reciprocal interaction (Baronowski et al, 2003). Self-
efficacy, goal setting, self-monitoring, expected outcomes, individual skills,
influence of positive role models, and availability of physical activity
opportunities are all important variables to consider when applying this
model. It has been proposed that environmental variables (adult support,
parenting, availability of physical activity opportunities) may be the most
influential for younger children (Baronowski et al, 2003).
-28-


need to change or sensitized to a problem that requires behavioral change.
The second thing people need is a level of knowledge that supports this
awareness. The third thing is a level of ownership of the problem, which is
often obtained by directly relating actions to outcomes. And finally by acting
on the problem, using newly acquired knowledge and motivation,
individuals gain empowerment over the problem by modifying their own
behavior (Hungerford and Volk, 1990). This model has been used as the
basis for a substantial amount of research and program development in
outdoor educational fields. This model is at the core of the DPS school
safety curriculum program which raises awareness in users, provides
knowledge, asks for user input in the form of competitions, and empowers
users through the production of physical products like calendars, book
marks, and posters. Students gain a voice in risk management policy and
are more likely to modify their own behavior as a result of this program.

ysr
Figure 7 Book marks created with student input are part of the DPS school safety curriculum.4
-30-


Ecological and Social Ecological Theories have been used extensively in
environment-behavior and physical activity research. These models and
theories explain human activity as a function of interactions between people
and their environments (Stokols, 1992). The Ecological and Social
Ecological models have much to offer obesity prevention (French et al,
2001; Booth et al, 2001). Within this framework, human development is
conceptualized as taking place within a set of embedded contexts that
include both micro- and macro-level systems and their interaction
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Behavior settings (e.g., playgrounds) refer to the
intertwining of these dimensions with human activities (Georgiou et al,
1996; Barker, 1968; Clitheroe, 1998). Environments contain a range of
behavior settings that are seen to provide, in different degrees,
opportunities or affordances for desired behaviors; the extent and the
ways that those behaviors occur are further dependent on factors that are
conceptualized as filters (e.g., perception, cognition, motivation) and
antecedent conditions (e.g., access to play equipment, peer support,
physical ability) (Wicker, 1972; Gibson, 1977,1979; Michelson, 1977).
Environments exert, therefore, probabilistic influences, making certain
behaviors more or less likely. Thus, environments vary in the support they
provide for activities, enabling or promoting some, while preventing or
discouraging others (Sallis et al, 1998).
Hungerford and Volks Changing Learner Behavior Theory is based in
environmental education and explains how learners make behavioral
changes based on a four step process. The authors argue that in order for
individuals to make a behavior change they must first be made aware of a
-29-


Figure 8 2004-2005 DPS school Saftey
Calendar highlighting student's drawings.
Unfortunately DPS does not solicit student participation when determining
what is a risky opportunity or behavior, or when determining what is
considered challenging by children in outdoor play environments. Instead,
the emphasis is on known hazards like safe techniques for pedestrian
crossings in traffic, preventive strategies like wearing a helmet when biking,
and general guidance to hold tight when using play equipment to reduce
the chance of falling. Although these are all good and sound pieces of
advice, they come more from a perspective of adults looking out for the
welfare of the child and are not necessarily beneficial for children who need
to determine their own boundaries and limits concerning risky behavior and
positive risk-taking opportunities. When risk is continually presented as a
negative factor with respect to play, the benefits associated with positive
risk-taking challenges are negated and devalued. As a result, students are
denied on valuable learning experiences that enhance social, cognitive,
physical, and developmental needs.
-31 -


1.5.2 Social Ecological or Socioecological Model
According to the Socioecological Model, individual behavior can be
influenced at multiple levels: individual, interpersonal, organizational,
community, and public policy. The model combines individual behavior
with social and physical environments. The strategies in this proposal to
determine user perceptions of risk and benefits of risk-taking recognize
the level of self-responsibility that individuals need to have when
identifying safe positive risk-taking opportunities. This level of personal
responsibility is influenced by outside forces from policies, physical
designs, specific site details, fear of litigation, perceptions of risk, actual
number of injuries and/or personal experience with injuries, and
community values.
Figure 9 Socioecological Model
(Graphic provided by CDPHE's COPAN 2010 State Plan)
-32-


Socioecological Framework for Determinants of Accidents,
Risk-Taking Benefits, Perceptions of Risk, and Costs
Psychological Core:
genetics, self-identity
Cultural:
personal life experiences
Enablers of Choice:
factors that affect choices
Lifestyle:
visible choices
Behavior Setting:
DPS Learning Landscape Playgrounds
Proximal Leverage Points:
PUBLIC POLICY
Secondary Leverage
Points
controllers of the structure that affects choices
Distal Leverage Points:
additional factors that influence choices
COMMUNITY
Primary Leverage
Points
INDIVIDUAL
Psychological Core
Cultural
Social
Enablers of Choice
Created by Bambi Yost
May 13.2005
Figure 10
Sociologi
cal
Framewo
rk for
determina
nts of
Accidents
, Risk-
Taking
Benefits,
Perceptio
ns of
Risk, and
Costs


The figure on the preceeding page titled 'Socioecological Framework for
Determinants of Accidents, Risk-Taking Benefits, Perceptions of Risk, and
Costs, illustrates different factors that influence an individuals choices or
levels of risk taking. The diagram demonstrates the importance of the
environment in shaping individual behavior and how different factors affect
behavior changes. Multiple factors affect individual choices and
perceptions of risk. Currently insurance companies, policies, and other
distal factors have a much larger societal impact than individual and
interpersonal factors.
When looking at the many factors that contribute to why people are not
taking advantage of physically challenging and educational exploratory
activitiesthreat of lawsuits and litigation, potential injury, and risk
management policiesit is important to look at how the individual is
affected by societal and environmental influences. When individuals feel
that the actions they might take or that they might approve of others taking
may result in harm, fear is at play. Whether this fear is justified is not
important. What is important is understanding how the beliefs and values,
and perceptions surrounding a variety of positive risk-taking opportunities
- like racing, exploring gardens and edible plants, jumping off of things
perceived to be high, spinning in circles, and more
Using the perspective of the Socioecological Model, an individuals action
toward healthy risk-taking behavior may be supported by organizational
and policy change. At the core of every policy is a societal perspective
and statistical analysis. Sometimes the statistical data dominates
-34-


decision-making. At other times social constructs dominate. Given that
the odds of a child getting seriously injured on public playgrounds is
relatively low (1 child for every 410 children may be injured and require
medical treatment in a year6), how has the decision to limit the behavior of
all children been established? Typically costs associated with these
injuries are not substantial for the school district. In the last ten years only
one lawsuit has resulted as a result of negligence from DPS (DPS,
Stephen Finley, Risk Management, 2004). In spite of these low actual
costs and occurrences, playgrounds continue to be designed and
managed with more and more restrictive guidelines. How can balance be
achieved? What are the limits of diminishing returns with respect to users
perceived quality of playgrounds? Might a cost benefits or cost
effectiveness model help answer these questions?
-35-


1.5.3 Defining Risk
What is risk? There are differences between perceived and actual risk. J.
K. Sanchez (2005, p.15) defines actual risk as exposure to the chance of
injury or loss...a dangerous chance...the degree of probability of such
loss. In order to determine risk, we must calculate and compare
probabilities. One way of doing this is to divide the number of unfavorable
occurrences by the number of possible unfavorable occurrences. For
example, if 10 out of 50 cats have fleas, then we say 50 /10 = 5 or 1 out
of 5 cats is flea ridden. Or, if 56,000 auto fatalities occur each year out of
224,000,000 Americans, we can calculate 56,000/224,000,000 = 0.00025
or 1 out of 4,000 (Sanchez, 2005). Perceived risk
Probability, the calculation of the likelihood of an event, was developed
roughly 350 years ago. A French nobleman, the Chevalier de Mere, was a
gambler who asked his friend, the mathematician Pascal, to explain why
some gambling bets made money over time but others consistently lost
over time. Pascal wrote to his colleague Fermet and the ensuing
correspondence became the foundation of probability. Probability initially
wasn't considered a serious branch of mathematics because of its
involvement in gambling.
In 1662, John Graunt first used probability for a purpose other than
gambling. He analyzed death records to assess mortality risk and set
-36-


appropriate fees for the first English life insurance policies. Today,
probability is widely used to assess risk and aid decision making in many
fields. In medicine, the risk of different treatments is compared; car
insurance rates are based on the chance of a claim and product quality is
assessed based on the probable defects of components. All assessments
of risk are based on historical statistical data. As a result they are not
prescriptive but are instead descriptive, meaning they tend to assume that
things will continue to happen in the same manner over time. Problems
with this type of analysis result when statistical changes are not projected
adequately. This type of model assumes that historical odds will continue to
be the norm and disregards any social or environmental changes that may
result over time. An example of how actual numbers of probability and risk
follow to help explain the significance of this problem.
-37-


The following figures show actual numbers of occurrences
(Slovic, 1980,181-216 & CPSC, 2001):
Source of Risk Annual Actual Deaths
Smoking 150,000
Alcohol 100,000
Motor Vehicles 50,000
Handguns 17,000
Electric Power 14,000
Motorcycles 3,000
Swimming 3,000
Railroads 1,950
Bicycles 1,000
Nuclear Power 100
Home playgrounds 10
Public Playgrounds 4
Of the previous items listed, which appear to pose great threat or risk?
Assuming a population of 224,000,000 Americans, what are the actual
odds? For example the risk of dying from the effects of nuclear power
would be 100/224,000,000 = 0.0000004 a very small risk. The current
population of children in the United States is estimated to be 71,618,000.
This means that the odds of death occurring on a home playground are
actually 10/71,618,000 = 0.0000001396297020, an extremely small risk
with less than 1% likelihood of occurrence. And odds on a public
playground are even smaller. It has been estimated 173,800 injuries
requiring medical attention occur on public playgrounds each year. Given a
-38-


population of 76,618,000, the odds of an accident happening are
173,800/76,618,000 = 0.002426764 a relatively small risk, still less than 1%
likelihood of occurrence. But when translated, these numbers can be
interpreted as 1 child out of 412 is likely to be injured on a public
playground. This interpretation creates a heightened level of awareness of
risk. See Appendix C for a complete listing of actual odds of injury and risk.
The way that probabilities and risks are communicated influences the way
that we perceive risks and how we behave in an effort to counter those
perceived risks.
-39-


1.5.4 Risk as a Social Construct
Risk has been described as a social construct by Ulrich Beck in his book,
Risk Society (1992). Beck argues that the concept of risk has changed
and evolved into a pervasive aspect of our modern world because of
societal influences. Beck states that increasing advancements of
statistical analysis, technology, and mass communication have enhanced
societys level of risk awareness. How has the perception of risk on
playgrounds been socially constructed by insurance agencies, lawyers,
media, and risk management experts? How much of what we perceive to
be a risk is actually influenced by fact? And how do perceptions of risk
hamper the quality of play environments created for children?
In a study conducted in northwest England, researchers found that
children enjoy playing in commercial playgrounds (although they argued
that they would enjoy themselves more if the play equipment was more
challenging) and that adults are more concerned with making playgrounds
safer (McKendrick, 2000). Policy, landscape architecture, and litigation
esearchers are starting to question the influence of insurance, litigation,
and perceptions of risk on playgrounds. Are playgrounds being dummied
up as a result of adult fears of lawsuits and litigations?
Philip Howard, author of the bestselling novel The Death of Common
Sense: How Law is Suffocating America (1995) writes,
-40-


In 1924 Will Rogers said Americans thought they were getting
smarter because they're letting lawyers instead of their conscience
be their guide. Rogers was from Oologah, Oklahoma, where in
1995 a child suffered minor injuries when playing unattended on the
slide in the town park. The parents sued the town, which
subsequently dismantled the slide. I knew it was going then, said
Judy Ashwood, fifty-three, who herself had played on the slide as a
child. Its hard for me to think that people who live here would
actually sue the city if their child fell off the slide. But the town board
decided it had no choice, notwithstanding a citizen petition asking
that the slide remain in the park. It auctioned off the slide to a
resident of a nearby town, getting $326.50, and the Oologah park
slide was carted away. (Howard, 1995, p.3)
All across America, playgrounds are being closed or stripped of
standard equipment. In 1997, Bristol, Connecticut, removed all of the
seesaws and merry-go-rounds from its playgrounds. When told of
the decision, the face of thirteen-year-old Jennifer Bartucca fell with
disappointment. Every time I come here, I ask a friend to go on the
seesaws. It is one of my favorite things to do at the park, said
Jennifer: I love merry-go-rounds. My father would push me on them
when I was a little kid. Nicole LaPierre, sixteen, was equally
disappointed. If you play right, youre not going to get hurt.
(Howard, 1995, p.5)
Being safe has come a long way since Ralph Nader pointed out the
-41 -


absence of safety guidelines for cars and other consumer products.
Avoiding risk is now practically a religion. But its not clear that the results
are necessarily what most people want. Some towns have the resources to
replace the playground equipment with new, safer alternatives, but some
experts and kids say new equipment is too boring. According to Lauri
Macmillan Johnson, a professor of landscape architecture at the University
of Arizona, children make up dangerous games, like crashing into the
equipment with their bicycles in order to make safer, newer playgrounds
more exciting.
Products come plastered with imbecilic warnings (on a baby stroller:
"Remove child before folding.") for the same reason seesaws and merry-
go-rounds are endangered species of playground equipment: fear of
liability. The federal playground safety handbook morosely warns: "Seesaw
use is quite complex." So seesaws are being replaced with spring-driven
devices used by only one child at a time. This hardly seems as
economically advantageous or as socially and experientially rewarding as
an old school seesaw that also provided valuable lessons of applied
physics. Unless we do away with gravity, children are bound to fall down.
The federal handbook states: "Earth surfaces such as soils and hard-
packed dirt are not recommended because they have poor shock-absorbing
properties." At a local school in northwest Denver children are not allowed
to run on the grass because it provides an uneven surface with potential to
sprain ankles and does not provide enough cushioning when children fall.
These same children are not allowed to run on the blacktop because it is a
hard surface that might result in injuries from falling. In short, there is no
-42-


place on this playground that children are allowed to run. Why? Because
of fear of injury.
In contrast, the early twentieth century playground movement aimed to
acquaint children with mild risks. In 1917, a movement leader said: "It is
reasonably evident that if a boy climbs on a swing frame and falls off, the
school board is no more responsible for his action than if he climbed into a
tree or upon the school building and falls. There can be no more reason for
taking out play equipment on account of such an accident than there would
be for the removal of the trees or the school building (Howard, 1995, P.5)."
Today Denver Public Schools cuts branches off trees so children will not be
tempted to climb.
The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control states,
Few data exist about injury incidence and prevalence, costs, relative
risks of injury from different activities, risk and protective factors, and
effective programs to prevent sports, recreation, and exercise
injuries. While some emergency departments surveillance data are
available, they lack exposure information and exclude the large
proportion of sports, recreation, and exercise injuries that are treated
in primary care settings, sports medicine clinics, orthopedic clinics,
and chiropractic clinics. (National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, 2002, p.1)
Stephen Kline, North Vancouver Media Risk Reduction Intervention
specialist, states, It seems paradoxical that the modern risk sciences that
-43-


enable us to predict and control threats to our well being also produce an
immobilizing sense of anxiety that surrounds those threats (Furedi, 1997,
p.1). In our risk society, consumers are both more aware of the health and
environmental risks they face and more uncertain about what they can do to
avoid them. This seems particularly true of the myriad daily lifestyle choices
related to their children's health that Canadians make in a growing
atmosphere of fear, anxiety and confusion. Of these lifestyle risks, some of
the most difficult to manage and control are those associated with children's
increasingly sedentary lifestyles (Kline, 2003).
We need to separate the probability that an event may occur in our country
and the probability that it will occur to us as individuals. In making an
informed decision about my own behavior, I need to know the probability
that I will be personally affected by a death or injury on a playground, not
what the probability is that such an act may occur at some place and some
time.
The odds of dying in an automobile accident each year are about one in
7,000, yet we continue to drive. The odds of dying from heart disease in
any given year are one in 400 and of dying from cancer one in 600, yet
many of us fail to exercise or maintain a healthy diet. As adults, we have
learned to live with these common threats to our health yet we have not
had a government policy established to ensure that we are not harmed by
our own actions. Children do not have the luxury of choice in this regard.
In our litigious society, we do not empower children to take personal
responsibility and encourage them to identify positive risk-taking
-44-


opportunities. Instead, we attempt to control their risks of injury through
restrictive practices and policies.
A former national racing champion and one of Canada's most respected
advocates of improving the driving environment Gary Magwood argues in
his article Safe is as Safe Does (2000),
We humans are by nature a risk-taking species. In ancient times we
took risks just to eat. Later we took huge risks by setting out in little
wooden ships to explore the earth's surface. We continued as we
sought to fly, travel faster than the speed of sound and to head off
into space. We rely on increasingly more complex equipment and
constantly strive to design and manufacture faster and even more
elaborate devices. It goes without saying that every effort is made to
ensure our "safety"; to keep us from harm or danger. (Magwood,
2000, p.1)
The only way to play safely is to be aware of potential harm and to learn to
spot problems before they happen. If we never allow children the
opportunity to do this on their own, how will they develop these valuable life
skills?
Risk management research typically assumes that risk is an objective term,
but is it really? Although the statistical data available for playground risks is
admittedly weak and incomplete, policies and practices are determined
based on these available measures. Understanding how perceptions of risk
influence playground policy, management, use, and design is not only
-45-


important for users but also for risk management and other decision-
makers. In Denver the need to meet safety regulations has offered the
Learning Landscape Initiative the opportunity to create more creative and
desirable playgrounds. But are the new Learning Landscape play areas
offering exciting, appealing, safe, challenging, and enriching environments
or are we actually limiting the potential of these outdoor learning
environments out of fear of litigation? What do children think about the
places in which they play and how might we better create safe and
rewarding opportunities for the users?
Figure 11 Boys at Remington Elementary skidding out of puddle
on bikes. (Photo taken by Bambi Yost, 2003)
Children get bored easily, and once a child has a piece of equipment
mastered they will "create" other uses. Not all of these uses are safe or
desirable.
(Washington State Dept of Health, 1998, p.51)
-46-


Play is childrens work.
(Ray Studer, 2005, Personal Interview)
1.5.5 The Nature of Play
What motivates children to be physically active and to play? Most children
love to play and most of their play enhances perceptual-motor development
(Macintyre, 2001). Children engage in complex movements which are
typically categorized as gross movements, fine movements, and
manipulative skills. Gross movements use the large muscle groups and are
the ones most often recognized as beneficial for aerobic exercise like
running and swinging. Gross movements which involve balance and
coordination are developed first. Fine movements, like dancing to a beat or
rhythm, and manipulative movements like those required to hit a ball with a
bat, take more time to develop. In addition, body awareness, spatial
awareness, and coordination are required for children to engage in any kind
of strenuous physical activity.
What intervention may best enhance physical activity while addressing
childrens different developmental needs? How might the intervention
reinforce existing behavior rather than trying to reinvent the wheel?
Programs that do not address the existing behaviors of the participants are
less likely to succeed (Hill, 2005). Physical activity can best be promoted
by taking advantage of childrens inherent desire to play.
-47-


Exploratory/Functional play occurs when children actively explore materials
and environments over and over again. As children run their hands through
sand and water, they make neural connections that cannot be made in any
other way. As they climb up stairs and slide to the ground, they strengthen
even more neural connections. As they challenge themselves on climbers
and overhead ladders, cross clatter bridges and slide down fire poles, they
insure that the neural connections that are forming become permanent
parts of their brains. In addition to these benefits, climbers and upper body
equipment also provide children with opportunities to develop emotionally.
These components are highly difficult to master and they physically
challenge children. Thus, as children increase their skills on overhead
ladders and climbers, they develop a sense of accomplishment and
independence. Moreover, exploratory play can be enjoyed in groups,
offering social development opportunities. Children often enjoy swinging
alongside one another as they test themselves and others. Playgrounds
that are full of natural elements, in addition to fixed playground structures,
promote exploratory play and physical activity (Brown et al, 2005).
Researchers have found that elementary school children are most likely to
enjoy:
1. Activities that focus on having fun and developing motor skills rather
than on competition;
2. Activities with flexible rules;
3. Activities that require little instruction;
4. Activities that do not require complex motor and cognitive skills (e.g.,
entry-level baseball, soccer);
-48-


5. Activities that require entry-level complex motor and cognitive skills;
and
6. Activities that continue to emphasize motor skill development but that
begin to incorporate instruction on strategy and teamwork (Patrick et
al, 2001).
Playgrounds that address this set of activity are most likely to provide
optimal experiential learning conditions to students.
Figure 12 Students at Munroe Elementary School testing outdoor playground warm up circuit from
boulders to swings to intermediate play equipment (Photos taken by Bambi Yost Apr. 21, 2005)
-49-


1.5.6 Health and Behavioral Risks of Limited Play Opportunities
Sedentary lifestyles can lead to poor health later in life (Sallis & Owen,
1999). Some of the common health problems associated with inactivity
include obesity, heart disease, type II diabetes, decreased self-esteem and
confidence, increased likelihood of depression, decreased lifespan,
increased levels of stress, decrease of good HDL cholesterol, loss of bone
density and increased risk of osteoporosis, decreased cognitive abilities,
decreased motor skills, decreased physical skills, lifelong drug dependency,
decreased student participation in sports, decreased attention span,
increased risk of cancer, decreased value of physical education, and
increased health care costs (Sallis & Owen, 1999; Welk, 2002).
Some factors and behaviors contributing to childrens increasingly
sedentary lifestyles as they relate locally to Denver Public Schools include
student socio-economic status, parental attitudes and behaviors, increased
opportunities for sedentary recreation, increased adult perceptions of risk
regarding outdoor play and exploration, student fashion preferences, lack of
physical education requirements, decreased opportunities for free play,
limited time for recess, decreased value of play and physical activity,
increased curriculum requirements, decreased quality of childrens physical
environments, and limited perspectives on what constitutes physical activity.
All of these are factors or behaviors that can be modified to a degree.
Of these, socio-economic status is the least likely to be readily changed.
The easiest thing to do is to raise awareness about what physical activity
-50-


actually is and how you can increase daily levels by simply doing a little
more of what you already do on a day to day basis. This includes raising
awareness about walking and climbing stairs as physical activities, as well
as awareness about physical activity levels required for playing on
playgrounds, an overlooked activity. Another relatively easy thing to do is
to raise awareness about the risks and benefits of safe, fun, and
challenging playgrounds. Risk communications regarding playground
injuries and fatalities frequently use scare tactics to promote safety.
Statistics in these promotional pieces tend to be misleading and poorly
explained.
Even with current research declaring alarming national increases in obesity
and reductions in physical activity, the value of school ground settings has
not improved (Frank, 2002). In a recent study conducted to identify
opportunities for increasing childrens physical activity the playground
setting was not addressed at all. The recommendations focused on new
PE programs, increasing the duration and testing of physical education, but
never mentioned the quality of the outdoor physical environment and its
ability to strengthen physical activity (Pyramid Communications, 2003).
Unfortunately, the social and built environment of many minority children
living in impoverished urban neighborhoods frequently fails to support their
healthy development. They are often exposed to life- and health-
threatening environmental stressors such as street violence, homelessness,
illegal drugs, and negative role models (McLoyd, 1998). They also have
limited access to safe outdoor play spaces and to structured opportunities
-51 -


for involvement in organized sports and activity lessons (Sallis et al, 1996).
Research shows that low socioeconomic status (SES) minority children are
more likely than non-minority children with high SES to have negative
health related outcomes, including low levels of physical activity (Nader et
al, 1995; US Department of Health and Human Services, Sallis et al, 1996;
Nader et al, 1995; McLoyd, 1998) and high rates of obesity (Ogden et al,
2002).
PLAYING mill KNIVES,
Nothin* is so fiHtti-ih ami dangerous as
ptij: with Ltiaca, and frit*- IlnJ
VuUful* are often the c liatv thus Uni tlwie I Ur*- licit is a
little buy who lifts hail hinliimri half cut ofl'bj
|Im <>iclinc nf his lillh* tiitcr. nitji
went forth iitin ike firliU with icit sharp
time*. to gnlher flowers ami to cut btnijj^s tor
Hip ]iiai]:nsii uf lU-rnidting their looms. A*
they wi le cutting ilown it very Inrge one, 1h*
little girl's huifo slipped, tliuik bet brother*
hull. and made on inciMun tn I Ik hone; tho
tilts id (owed enpiond r, III* tnV ClicA heartily,
anal all this hnprarned foe want of proper taro
It the part of ill* little: girl. Children some-
time* procure very sharp kni'cs, which they
carry atrnwl with them in their pocket*, amt 1
lent the (harpmeat wf them, they ate ofleti cut*
ting (hair*, desk*, and tables, ami whittling
heal die Iwuec, much agn'iMl their parent'*
wi*hc*. to their own tinnier, anil to lire *h*ny-
ano* uf the hutue-moMl.
From The Book of Accidents; Designed for Young
Children, New Haven, 1830.
Figure 13 Image compliments of Green & Hart, 1998.
-52-


Finally, in terms of promoting the mental health of children and young
people, research by the Mental Health Foundation (1999a) highlights the
importance of children being able to play and take risks and to use their
own initiative. It is also essential for them to have opportunities to practice
making and maintaining friendships and to deal with conflict the basic
skills needed in order to become emotionally literate, which increases
their resilience to mental health problems (Mental Health Foundation,
1999b).
In the mental health field, the importance of unsupervised play enabling
children to take risks, to think through decisions and to gain in self-
confidence, has been emphasized (Mental Health Foundation, 1999). The
increasing restrictions on childrens free time and opportunities to explore
play environments without close adult supervision and structured activities
are thus a cause for concern and require further research in terms of their
effects on childrens mental health. Overall research focused on the role
of play in promoting mental health among school-age children is lacking,
with much of the existing data focused on the use of play therapy with
children already experiencing mental health difficulties.
Health and behavioral benefits associated with stimulating, unstructured
play environments have been documented but have not been researched
enough. Financial savings that express healthy development as part of a
preventive measure is needed. To date, most research has been focused
on problems and has not addressed preventive strategies that enhance
-53-


childrens development. So far, only physical inactivity has had a dollar
amount determined in an effort to argue for increased opportunities for
play for children. Estimated savings are described in detail in the cost
effectiveness analysis section of this proposal.
-54-


1.5.7 Playground Design and Physical Activity
The available quantitative and qualitative research, though sparse, supports
the hypothesis that differences in playground design are accompanied by
differences in physical activity (Moore and Wang, 1997; Weinstein and
Pinciotti, 1988) and outdoor education levels (Moore, 2003; Hungerford and
Volk, 1990). For example, the transformation of an empty fenced-in
blacktop schoolyard to a tire playground led to significant increases in active
play. Childrens engagement in organized games also increased, while
uninvolved behavior decreased substantially, and active play rose from
16% to almost 40% of all observed behavior. While limitations in the
research design make it impossible to draw definite conclusions from this
research, the results of this and other research indicate that it is possible to
design playgrounds that facilitate physical activity by providing stimulating
environments that increase opportunities for active play (Malone and
Tranter, 2003; Weinstein and Pinciotti, 1988). Children will often make do
with whatever resources are available to them (Moore, 1974), but it is likely
that a high quality outdoor environment will attract children outdoors and
provide a broader range of opportunities for physical activity and other
educational pursuits.
Comments from an initial evaluation conducted by the Center for Research
Strategies in 2003 for the Learning Landscape Initiative found that students
were less likely to be injured and were more likely to engage in positive
physical and exploratory activities on the rebuilt playgrounds.
-55-


Bloody knees, elbows and injuries were a daily event on the old
playground not any-more.
Principal Comment (CRS, 2003)
Increased physical activity is an immediate outcome of the Learning
Landscapes. Eighty percent of the teachers surveyed agree that children
are more physically active during recess. Fifth graders stated that the girls
are more active using the new play equipment and boys are playing more
football and they described the new playgrounds as more challenging and
more organized. Students also recognized the benefits of improved fall
zone attenuation with the engineered wood fiber used in all play
equipment areas reducing cuts. They were also aware of the safety
issues with the older equipment. Although students exhibit increased
physical activity, the PE program has not incorporated new components of
the playground into the physical education curriculum and data is lacking
that substantiates improved hand-eye co-ordination and physical/motor
skills.
The playground gives the students a sense of responsibility and
pride.
Teacher Comment (CRS, 2003)
Overall, changes in the behavioral patterns of children were immediate.
Principals at the seven schools researched observed that the design and
organization of the different play zones work well to disperse children and
to give everyone a place to play with fewer conflicts. Principals also
-56-


observed that the new playgrounds are easier to supervise because of the
way they are organized. Social gathering places are an integral part of the
playground experience. It is argued that effectively designed playgrounds
impact social skills by decreasing uninvolved behavior and reducing
levels of bullying (Weinstein and Pinciotti, 1998). Of the teachers
surveyed, seventy-five percent agreed that students interact more with
their peers during recess.
In addition, principals reported that children were more ready to learn as a
result of increased opportunities for challenging and creative play on the
Learning Landscape playgrounds.
Once the playground was open, there was a sense of calmness in
the children when they entered the building that didnt exist before.
Principal Comment (CRS, 2003)
The recognition that students are more attentive after school has been
documented (Jarrett et al, 1998) and can be related to similar studies
that relate workers productivity to physical activity breaks. Most
recently, new work on the effects of physical activity is also indicating
that more sedentary lifestyles among children may be adversely
affecting their academic performance and that by increasing levels of
physical activity, academic performance can be stimulated (Berliner,
2001). This research, which is still in its infancy, is based on the
premise that increased physical activity increases blood flow to the
-57-


brain, which when coupled with learning tasks, causes the formation of
dendrites and thus increases the neural pathways within the brain.
A variety of school-based projects which have introduced more physical
activity into the school day have reported positively on the effects of these
changes in terms of children being more alert, gaining better scores in
government standardized tests and in some schools, less truancy and bad
behavior (Berliner, 2001) results which are likely to attract more detailed
research attention in the future.
This idea that children need physical activity and healthy challenging play
environments to stimulate thought is crucial and directly related to the
notion that positive risk-taking can enhance beneficial cognitive
processes. In Macintyres recent work Enhancing Learning through Play
(2001), she notes that the current pressure for children to achieve a range
of key competences means that,
There is likely to be less time for either free or structured play,
fewer opportunities for children to decide what they would like to do
and to determine their own pace of learning. To achieve the targets
the children must conform to an outside notion of what education
in school is for, and to someone elses idea of what they should
leam. They must, in following that agenda, confront someone
elses problems rather than setting and solving their own.
(Macintyre, 2001, p.45)
-58-


To a large extent, Macintyre suggests that the value of play in education is
in question because of differing views as to what exactly education in
school is for to pass exams (which suggests the need for direct
instruction) or a more enabling, exploratory form of learning (where play
may have a greater role in helping children to explore and to learn from
their activities). Having suggested that there are significant questions
about the impact of play on formal learning, within the school setting, two
specific areas of research interest have focused on the positive outcomes
of school playtimes: firstly, the impact of play periods on social learning
and the formation of friendships and peer networks; secondly, the effects
on childrens attention span in ensuing lessons (Cole-Hamilton et al,
2001).
-59-


1.5.8 Childrens Participation and Access to their Local Environment
A range of literature with the fields of environmental psychology,
geography, and urban studies, has highlighted that children have been
marginalized in the decision making processes and that as a
consequence, feel that urban areas have no spaces for them (Davis &
Jones, 1997; Woolley et al, 1999). This in turn can have adverse
consequences for their use of public spaces with some research based
on an extensive survey of over 1,300 children in six neighborhood
clusters, suggesting that there has been a decrease in the independent
use of public space by children in England since the 1970s (OBrien et al,
2000).
According to the New Policy Institute, such research findings have
implications for public play provision and are also of relevance in terms of
progress to date in meeting the requirements set out by the UN
Convention to take account of childrens views and to promote their
participation (Cole-Hamilton et al, 2001, p.33). They also raise
fundamental public health issues.
The research study by Davis and Jones, which involved semi-structured
questionnaires with a sample of over four-hundred 9-11 year olds and 13-
14 year olds in four state schools in a major United Kingdom city, is an
example of one of these studies which examines the problems arising
from the failure to consult with and involve children and young people in
the planning of their environment, to take account of childrens needs and
-60-


aspirations. This argues that the conceptualization of children in transport
and environmental planning as a problem has resulted in an urban
environment which is extremely hostile to their needs and aspirations. As
problems, children are tidied away behind railings, in parks, in gardens
and -best of all indoors (Cole-Hamilton et al, 2001, p.33).
The researchers argue that it is as a result of the urban environment
becoming more dangerous that children find themselves increasingly
constrained and that in particular, opportunities for independent mobility
and access, associated with the development of important life skills, have
declined as traffic levels have increased. This, they suggest, should be a
major agenda for public health and for environmental modification so that
children can begin to travel, play and participate in urban life without
fear.
Without action, the alternative is a more physically inactive, less
independent and less healthy young population, also that by allowing
such marginalization, young people are in danger of social exclusion.
Davis and Jones note that the findings of their study support the findings
of Wheway and Millward that the majority of primary school childrens
outdoor play was active and that hanging out was a valued activity.
However for many, dirt, lack of safety and traffic noise were perceived to
be major problems.
-61-


The New Policy Institute authors conclude that,
The views of children and young people are worth listening to, if
urban planners are to create environments in which young citizens
can participate. If they continue to be, as at present, marginalized in
planning and policy making then the high (to some worryingly high)
numbers who spend most of their out of school time watching
television and playing computer games, and being driven to leisure
activities in parents cars, will continue to increase. (Cole-Hamilton
etal, 2001, p.33)
Although these studies were conducted in the United Kingdom, similar
research is underway in the United States. As part of the Robert Woods
Johnson Foundations Active Living research agenda, multiple studies
investigating childrens environments and needs are being addressed. In
particular, a study to be conducted on Denver Public School playgrounds
will assess the way that children use playgrounds and their activity levels
on traditional playgrounds verses enhanced Learning Landscape
playgrounds. This study will begin in the summer of 2005 and will utilize
objective observatory measures from James Sallis SOPLAY and SOFIT
studies.
The need to include children in discussions concerning safety and risks on
playgrounds is extremely important if we are to help children take a more
active role in improving their environments. When children are included in
decision-making they gain a sense of ownership and empowerment
(Hungerford and Volk, 1998) and are more likely to claim personal
-62-


responsibility for their actions as a result. This is particularly important
when considering risk management practices and policies on playgrounds.
If we wish to minimize injuries, we need to ask the users what they
recommend. DPS has already recognized the value in this approach from
a safety awareness perspective (see Appendix D) but they have not
included students in the decision-making process regarding play
challenging play opportunities.
-63-


1.5.9 School Policies and Educational Programs
Although ensuring access to high quality school playgrounds is expected to
increase levels of physical activity and educational opportunities in children,
the impact of this environmental enhancement is likely to be strengthened
through directed educational and behavioral programs that encourage
children to take advantage of such supportive, built environments.
Research suggests that environmental modifications will have greater
effects when combined with strategies that target individual and social
factors to foster participation in physical activity (CDC, 2003; Giles-Corti and
Donvan, 2002). For example, one study found that only a small percentage
of middle school students (2% of girls and 6% of boys) were physically
active during unstructured time without environmental support. In contrast,
children had the highest levels of physical activity when the school had
supportive environmental opportunities and adult supervision. Outdoor
education research reveals similar results. According to environmental
education researchers Hungerford and Volk, people are more likely to take
advantage of outdoor teaching opportunities if they have been empowered
to do so through social and environmental supports (Hungerford and Volk,
1990).
These findings imply that school policies and programs, such as allowing
sufficient time for outdoor recess, permitting children to get dirty while
playing during recess, and even incorporating children in the work required
to maintain the upkeep of quality play areas, may be important in increasing
-64-


physical experiential learning opportunities. Addressing multiple levels of
influence on behavior, through environmental interventions as well as
educational and behavioral programs, is likely to result in the creation of
social and built environments that enable and encourage healthy levels of
safe and challenging physical activity and educational exploration.
Figure 14 Susan Bardwell with Grounds for Learning teaches students how to plant and
maintain plantings at Munroe Elementary school. (Photo taken by Bambi Yost, 2005)
-65-


1.5.10 Supportive Environments
A recent study published in the Pediatrics Journal suggests a direct link
between physical activity and the environment to which children are
exposed (Brown et al, 2001). With the average child spending 1300 hours
at school each year, schools are important environments for children (Day,
1995). Schools have the potential to provide numerous opportunities for the
promotion of physical activity (CDC, 1997) and creative free play (Jambor,
1990; Macintyre, 2001; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). The opportunities to
promote physical activity may include physical education, recess, intramural
programs, interschoiastic sports, and access to schooi physical activity
facilities during and outside of school hours (Wechsler et al, 2000). The
opportunities to promote outdoor education may include recess, after-
school programs, outdoor class sessions, science fairs, and gardens. A
promising way to increase physical activity and outdoor education is by
improving childrens access to areas where they can have high rates of
challenging and exciting physical activity and exploration while providing
supportive roie modeling and encouragement to succeed.
-66-


1.6 RATIONALE FOR THE INVESTIGATION
Risk management and safety on playgrounds has been stressed repeatedly
in literature. Costs associated with insurance, litigations, injuries, and
prevention programs are well documented and established. Statistical
analysis of injuries occurring on playgrounds is weak and largely
unquestioned. Yet administrators, designers, users, and policy makers
continue to follow recommendations based more on fear of litigation and
raising insurance rates than on accurate statistical analysis. As a counter to
these accepted norms, this research strategy and design contends that
there are benefits of challenging play environments that can be
economically and statistically determined. Because current risk
management policy is driven by costs and probable risk, an investigation
that assesses the benefits from this same perspective is more likely to be
well received and understood by risk assessment professionals. This
research strategy and design aims to put the benefits of risk-taking and
challenging play environments into terms that risk management, insurance,
and policy makers can utilize.
-67-


2 PROCEDURES
A linear approach to problem solving works for limited, focused problems
with right and wrong answers, but in complex situations like the study at
hand, this is not the case. Instead, a nondeterministic approach is
necessary to evaluate the complexities of risk and playgrounds. This
research strategy and design aims to explore perceptions of risk, policies,
designs, and overall quality of playgrounds using multi-methods to gather
data and a cost effectiveness analysis model. See visual models section
for complete details.
We need to encourage students to try a patterned approach,
where they explore a problem. Move forward and backward or up
and down between levels of the problem/solution spaces and
struggle with different definitions and solutions.
(Bardwell and Tudor, 1994)
-68-


2.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIXED METHODS RESEARCH
Research design models provide framework or structure for inquiry. There
are a variety of ways to approach research. John Creswell author of
Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach
(2003), argues that good research design models consider three framework
elements.
These elements are:
1) philosophical assumptions about what constitutes knowledge claims
2) general procedures of research called strategies of inquiry
3) and detailed procedures of data collection, analysis, and writing,
called methods.
In addition, M. Crotty states in his book, The foundations of social research:
meaning and perspective in the research process (1998) that in designing a
research proposal four questions should be considered:
1) What epistemology theory of knowledge imbedded in the
theoretical perspective informs the research (objectivism,
subjectivism, etc)?
2) What theoretical perspective philosophical stance lies behind the
methodology in questions (e.g. positivism and post-positivism,
interpretivism, critical theory, etc.)?
3) What methodology strategy or plan of action that links methods to
outcomes governs our choice and use of methods (e g.
experimental research, survey research, ethnography, etc.)?
-69-


4) What methods techniques and procedures do we propose to use
(e g., questionnaire, interview, focus group, etc.)?
These questions address interrelated levels of decisions that go into the
process of developing a research strategy and design for a particular
inquiry. Traditionally, social researchers have followed the scientific
method or positivist or post-positivist approach; there are, however, a
number of other available approaches.
This investigation takes a pragmatic approach, utilizing multiple methods to
gather data from a variety of sources, in the hopes that a more child-
focused planning process will result with regards to playground design.
Currently, risk management decisions are all based on statistical analysis
and insurance related costs. The decision-makers are not the users but are
instead adults charged with protecting children from harm and injury. The
argument that safety is an important factor when designing playgrounds is
not in question. What is in question are the properties of a safe
playground by todays standards with respect to user perceptions and
actual likelihood of injury. What are the odds of injury? What are the
benefits of challenging play environments? Have we created places where
children no longer wish to go?
-70-


2.2 MULTI-METHODS DESIGN
This multi-methods research strategy and design investigates Denver
Public Schools risk management policies and practices and user
perceptions of risk. How do perceptions influence policies, practices, and
safety, fun, and learning on playgrounds?
Creswells (2003) Concurrent Transformative Mixed Methods Strategy
Model will be implemented in this study so that quantitative and qualitative
data can be gathered and analyzed concurrently in an effort to best
converge information to provide evidence for inequalities (Creswell, 2003).
Inequalities are expected to be proven between user perceptions of risks
and benefits of risk-taking and safety policies and actual injuries. This
method allows for multiple methods, varying types of data, and extensive
interpretations. Mixed methods offer a variety of strengths to a research
design. It allows the researcher to collect different forms of data
concurrently during a single data collection phase which can further inform
the next phase of data gathering. It also enables multiple perspectives to
emerge at different times of the study. Because quantitative and qualitative
data are not easily transformed into readily paired variables and
parameters, some difficulties may arise with analysis. One way to resolve
this issue for this particular study is to use focus groups in conjunction with
a survey asking participants to determine their own weighted value system
for risks and benefits. An example of how this has been done in prior
studies can be found in Webers 2002 Domain-Specific Risk-Attitude Scale
Study. Details of this study are located in Appendix F.
-71 -


2.3 VISUAL MODEL AND PROCEDURES OF THE DESIGN
2.3.1 Steps to be Taken Idea to Conclusion
The diagram on the following page illustrates the steps required for
research. Certainly some of these steps may occur out of sequence. In
fact, often the funding source is identified prior to the research proposal. It
simply depends upon the project and available resources.
-72-


Steps involved in a research study
from initial idea to conclusion
Created by Bambi Yost
Figure 15 Diagram of steps involved in a research study
-73-


2.3.2 Concurrent Transformative Mixed Methods Strategy
QUANTITATIVE + QUALITATIVE
Vision, Advocacy, Ideology, Framework
Figure 16 Adapted from Creswell, 2003, p.214
The Concurrent Transformative Mixed Methods Strategy will be
implemented in this study so that quantitative and qualitative data can be
gathered and analyzed concurrently in an effort to best converge
information to provide evidence for inequalities (Creswell, 2003).
Qualitative case-study methodology will be used to determine user
perceptions of risk at three Denver Public elementary school playgrounds.
This research will utilize focus groups, cognitive mappings, and photo
surveys to gather data, establish variables and constraints, and user
perceptions associated with risks and benefits on each sites playgrounds.
Both students and adult supervisors will be asked to participate but the
focus group meetings will be held separately. Cognitive mappings of the
playgrounds highlighting perceived playground risks and benefits will be
created by participants. These data will be analyzed for general themes
and will be integrated into part two of the study. As part of this research,
participants will be asked to rank risks and benefits. These weighted values
will be applied to identified playground elements or spaces.
-74-


Concurrently, a more quantitative method that utilizes Geographic
Information System (GIS) technology and as-built maps and playground
data for each site will be created. Data gathered from part one will be
added to the GIS database showing layers of perceived risk and benefits
relative to users perceptions in an attempt to further identify patterns.
Individual meetings with participants will be held so that students and adults
may clarify their cognitive mappings in relation to the site-based technical
GIS maps created. They will be asked to add any additional opinions or
insight at this time as well.
In addition, participants will be asked to rate risks and benefits for cost
effectiveness and/or cost benefit analysis of findings. It is hoped that by
comparing user values of benefits to costs incurred with risks, a new policy
directive may emerge. This type of approach empowers children and
creates a participatory process where individual voices have equal weight.
-75-


2.3.3 Balancing the Costs, Benefits, and Risks
Injury-Related Costs Psychological &
Developmental Health
Benefits *-------------------------------------------------------
Challenging Risk-Taking
Insurance, Litigation, &
Risk Management Policy
Mediators
Perceptions of Risk,
Value of Challenging Play Opportunities,
& Probability of Risk
Figure 17 Diagram of Costs, Benefits, and Mediators. Created by Bambi Yost, May 13,2005.
Currently insurance, litigation, and risk management policies determine the
design, management, and behavior on playgrounds. There is a definite
imbalance. This is mostly because it is difficult to place a dollar value on
psychological and developmental health benefits associated with fun,
challenging playgrounds (Clark, 2003). How might these variables be
-76-


better balanced and determined? How do you establish economic values of
intrinsic psychological and developmental health benefits? By establishing
various influences of the perceptions of risk, user values of risk-taking
opportunities, and the actual probability of risk for Denver Public Elementary
School Learning Landscape Playgrounds, I hope to provide a method for
balancing the costs and benefits.
-77-


Table 1 Matrix to Determine Pros and Cons of Challenging Play Environments
Pros Cons
Savings Associated with Preventive Care and Optimal Conditions for Childrens Healthy Development Costs Associated with Lawsuits, Insurance, & Injuries
Perceptions of Childrens Developmental Benefits Associated with Fun, Challenging, and Exploratory Play Environments Perceptions of Risks Associated with Fun, Challenging, and Exploratory Play Environments
Quantitative
Financially &
Statistically
Determined
(POLICY)
Qualitative
Value-Based
& Personally
Determined
(INDIVIDUAL)
-78-


2.3.4 Proposed Playground Quality Index Assessment
Focus Groups and surveys will determine the values and any additional
indicators for the proposed playground quality index assessment matrix below.
Table 2 Proposed Playground Quality Index Assessment Matrix
Proposed Playground Quality Index Assessment Matrix
Importance Weii ghts Given
Scale 1 to 100 DECISION-MAKERS USERS
Playground Quality Indicators DPS Risk Management Experts Children's Development Experts DPS Personnel DPS Students
1 Fun
2 Challenging / Promoting Positive Risk-Taking
3 Capacity
4 # of Students Using Playground (during school hours)
5 # of Students Using Playground (outside school hours
6 Age Appropriate
7 Supervision
8 Accessability (ADA and hours of operation)
9 Cost of Playground
10 Durability & Maintenance
11 Appearance
12 Upper Body Opportunities
13 Lower Body Opportunities
-79-


Scale 1 to 100 DECISION-
MAKERS USERS
Playground Quality Indicators DPS Risk Management Experts Children's Development Experts DPS Personnel DPS Students
15 Balance Opportunities
16 Imagination & Creative Opportunities
17 Academic Education Opportunities
18 Physical Education Opportunities
19 Art Education Opportunities
20 After School Program Opportunities
21 Community Focused / Gathering Opportunities
22 Multi-Generational Opportunities
23 Social Opportunities
24 Autonomous & Self- Directed Opportunities
25 Perceptions of Risk
26 # of Injuries Requiring Advanced Medical Care
27 # of Deaths
28 # of Lawsuits
Additional variables to be determined based on focus group meetings and existing risk management policies.
Initial assessment of possible variables based on literature and findings to date.
Using a modified version of Professor Thomas Clarks cost effectiveness
model7 allows for qualitative input in the planning process. Both experts
and users are able to have equal input with this model. Once values have
been determined by users, different indices will be created to represent
each groups preferences. This allows for a weighted evaluation that is not
-80-


simply based on cost alone. A risk management quality index, a
playground quality index, and a health and developmental quality index will
be created and then standardized and applied to the cost effectiveness
model.
-81 -


2.3.5 Proposed Cost Effectiveness Analysis
Using the proposed cost effectiveness model illustrated on the following page, existing playground planning procedures can
be compared to proposed playground planning procedures to identify inequalities and influences of risk perceptions on
existing policies and user behaviors. The proposed cost effectiveness model enables weighted qualitative assessments of
risk management, playground quality, and health & developmental quality based on the proposed playground quality index
assessment matrix explained in the previous section.
Table 3 Proposed Cost Effectiveness Analysis Model
Cost Effectiveness Analysis
Program Average Cool of Playground Average Cost of insurance, Litigation, and ln)vriee per Playground Average Savings of Health and Developmental Coot* per Playground Total Coal of Playground Average of "Active" Users Total e of Sludeua "Activated" Externalities per UnH (These are indices. The higher the index, the more net nerve the impact)
cos!/playground ns* costs t playground health savings/ playground Avgcoslof Playground Avg Cost of Risk Avg Health A Developmental Savings Active* users /playground Total Cost of Playground /(AvgCostof Playground Avg Savings of Health & Developmental Costs) Average f of Active Users Standardized "AcSvated" Students Total generalized risk management quality ndex standardized risk management quality index generalized playground quality index standardized playground quality index generalized health 6 developmental quality index standardized health 6 developmental quality index
playground planning 460.000
2 playground planning 460.000
Note Acta* Users arm defined as thm number or students who benefit from developmentoBy beneficial opportunities on Ihm playgrounds.
Abe AxtAWimMJf fix# fi&wm a
- 82 -


2.4 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
2.4.1 Types of Data
2.4.1.1 Risk Management Policy & Injury Reports
Data will be gathered from the DPS Risk Management, Grounds, and Facilities
Departments, as well as at the three selected elementary school sites to
determine current safety practices and policies. Some of this information has
already been collected and can be viewed in Appendix D.
2.4.1.2 Physical Site Design & Specifications
Data regarding specific play equipment and playground elements and designs
will be obtained through the DPS facility management and grounds
departments and the Learning Landscape Initiative. Some of this data is
available in Appendix D.
2.4.1.3 User Perceptions of Risks & Benefits
Childrens perceptions and school personnel perceptions of risks and benefits
in relation to the playgrounds will be gathered in separate focus group
meetings. In addition, informational interviews to establish present influences
of litigation upon risk management strategies will be conducted with risk
management and safety personnel, thus yielding valuable quantitative and
qualitative data.
2.4.2 Sampling Strategy
Three schools have been selected based on similar student socioeconomic
demographics. These schools will be used as individual case studies. Further
cross-sectional evaluation is possible because of the fairly homogenous nature
-83-


of the populations, management, and designs at these schools. In addition,
longitudinal studies may be carried out to examine what changes if any occur in
social constructs of risk perceptions over time.
-84-


2.5 DATA ANALYSIS
Balancing the associated risks with the benefits is a difficult task but one worth
undertaking. This is especially true because so little quantitative research has
been conducted on the benefits of risk-taking and the perceptions of risk.
However, in order to counter the existing risk management costs predicated on
lawsuits and insurance that drive current policy development, a balancing of
costs need to be established for limits placed on risk-taking and challenging
opportunities in playgrounds.
2.5.1 Cost Benefit and/or Cost Effectiveness Analysis
What are the benefits of providing challenging play environments that enable a
safe level of risk-taking? How might these benefits be calculated in financial
terms? Do the benefits of challenging outdoor play environments outweigh the
costs? One way to determine potential costs is to calculate the savings
associated with challenging environments is to measure the associated
benefits of providing challenging and rewarding play environments.
According to the Center for Disease Control, Inactivity, with its associated
health problems, has a tremendous impact on the U.S. health care system.
Inactivity increases morbidity and mortality associated with many chronic
diseases and the costs of caring for persons with those diseases (CDC, 2003).
From direct and indirect health care costs, the nationwide expenses attributable
to obesity totaled $117 billion in 2000 (CDPHE, 2005). Direct medical costs
-85-


associated with physical inactivity were $29 billion in 1987 and nearly $76
billion in 2000 (NCOA, 2004).
At a state level, the Colorado Department of Public Healths Physical and
Nutrition State Plan 2010 estimated the costs from overweight and obesity
prevalence in Colorado to be $657 million in direct costs and $607 million in
indirect costs. Direct health care costs refer to preventative, diagnostic, and
treatment services. Indirect costs are the value of wages lost by people unable
to work because of illness or disability, and the value of future earnings lost by
premature death. Excess body weight increases loses in productivity from
health complications, as well as decreases years of earned wages due to
premature death (CDPHE, 2005).
The benefits of physical activity in reducing morbidity and mortality are well-
established, but the effect of physical inactivity on direct medical costs is less
clear (Pratt et al, 2000). In a study conducted for the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention in 1987 to describe the direct medical expenditures
associated with physical inactivity, the mean net annual benefit of physical
activity was $331.82 per person. When converting 1987 dollars to todays
2005 value using the online program called The Inflation Calculator, that net
benefit is actually $557.81 (Friedman, 2005). The research design consisted of
a cross-sectional stratified analysis of the 1987 National Medical Expenditures
Survey that included US civilian men and nonpregnant women aged 15 and
older who were not in institutions in 1987. The main outcome measure was
direct medical costs.
-86-


Findings revealed that for those 15 and older without physical limitations, the
average annual direct medical costs were $1,019 (or $1712.99 in 2005) for
those who were regularly physically active and $1,349 (or $2267.44 in 2005)
for those who reported being inactive. Medical care use (hospitalizations,
physician visits, and medications) was also lower for physically active people
than for inactive people.
These results suggest that increasing participation in regular moderate physical
activity among the more than 88 million inactive Americans over the age of 15
might reduce annual national medical costs by as much as $29.2 billion in 1987
dollars- $ 49.1 billion in 2005 dollars (Pratt et al, 2000). This means that for
every individual, an annual reduction of $331.82 in 1987 (or $557.81 in 2005) in
direct medical expenses could be expected simply by increasing regular
moderate physical activity. Due to the nature of extrapolations, this data
should only be used for estimates.
These extrapolated direct medical cost benefits numbers will be applied to
Eagleton, Munroe, and Remingtons student populations. Workers salaries
and loss of income will be exchanged for student academic hours spent in
school and associated performance levels needed for scholastic success. This
argument is based on findings showing student academic performance and
classroom attentiveness are increased when physical activity is provided
(Taylor, 1993; Moore, 1974; CRS, 2003).
-87-


Estimating the Cost of Injuries to Children at School:
According to Childrens Safety Network (CSN) Economics and Insurance
Resource Center (EIRC),
Cost analysis is an important research tool that is increasingly a focal
point for debate and decision-making. In injury prevention research, cost
analyses provide data that help formulate health policy and improve
delivery systems. These analyses provide a way to reduce disparate
outcomestraumatic deaths, fractured wrists, head injuriesto a
common metric. That makes cost data invaluable for problem size and
risk assessment, broad priority setting, resource allocation modeling,
health and safety advocacy, regulatory analysis, and program
evaluation. (CSNEDC, 1997)
The CSN-EIRC has undertaken two projects that estimate the cost of injuries to
children at school. First, EIRC is collaborating with the Utah Department of
Healths Child Injury Prevention Program (CIPP) to analyze the cost of injuries
in Utah schools. The Utah Student Injury Reporting System collects data on
date, time, activity, location, victim demographics, body region injured, type of
injury, and level of treatment of the injury. Costs are estimated based on the
body region and type of injury, as well as treatment received. CIPP will share
the results with state legislators, school administrators, the Utah Offices of Risk
Management and Education, and parent-teacher organizations to promote
school safety programs.
Recently, EIRC estimated the national incidence and cost of injuries to children
at school using 1987-1992 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data. The
-88-


NHIS annually collects information from 45,000 nationally representative
households regarding demographic characteristics, health care use, and acute
and chronic conditions, including episodes of persons injured and place the
injury occurred. Costs were estimated based on the injury diagnosis. Results
show that each year, an estimated 1 in 14 children suffers a medically treated
injury at school. These injuries annually result in $3.2 billion in medical
spending and nearly $89 billion in good health lost (CSN-EIRC, 1997).
Scope of the Analysis:
Costs and consequences will be measured for the students and school
personnel who directly use the playgrounds.
Estimated Value of Outcomes:
Benefits of enhanced physical activity levels in students can not be measured
as immediate outcomes but rather need to be assessed based on expected
lifelong behavior change and expected patterns of health awareness and
physical activity engagement. Even small changes in daily activities can
enhance physical health and well-being (Welk, 2002). According to a study
conducted by Dr. Chenoweth in 2003, Preventive action even action that
convinces only a small percentage of residents to incorporate physical activity
into their lifestyle has the potential to deliver an enormous return on
investment. Expected direct medical cost benefits associated with a learning
landscape program are extremely high in comparison to actual costs to run the
program.
-89-


In addition, there are a number of cognitive developmental benefits associated
with physical activity (Williams, 1986; Cohen & Trostle, 1990; Moore, 1990;
Jensen, 1998 & 2000; CRS, 2003). Also, several findings have shown student
academic performance and classroom attentiveness are increased when
physical activity is provided (Taylor, 1993; Moore, 1974; CRS, 2003) potentially
increasing Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) numbers over time.
Another associated benefit of this program is a reduction of playground injuries
in relation to play equipment as students participating in the program will have
training on proper use of equipment. The numbers associated with a decrease
in injuries has not been included explicitly however it is expected to be
substantial.
Conclusions
With ever increasing costs of health care, prescriptive planning programs like
the one proposed make sense. It is estimated that every dollar spent on the
Learning Landscape Program will yield approximately three times that amount
in direct medical cost benefits. A small number of individuals making long-term
heath changes now will make a huge financial difference saving tax payers
money far into the future. Studies show that beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and
lifestyle choices are established during childhood (Hungerford & Volk, 1990;
Benard, 2004; Bronfenbrenner, 1979, and others). In addition, programs linked
to Physical Education classes offer additional daily support and have been
shown to produce higher than expected healthy benefit outcomes as a result
(Task Force on Community Preventive Services, 2000). Also, cognitive and
developmental benefits associated with physical activity will be greatly
-90-


enhanced potentially improving academic performance in students who have
traditional received low or unsatisfactory scores.
-91 -


2.6 SUBJECTS
2.6.1 Eagleton, Munroe, and Remington Denver Public Schools
Eagleton, Munroe, and Remington Denver Public Elementary Schools, have
been selected for pilot risk perception studies focused on graders, their
parents, and faculty members at the schools using nontraditional strategies in
outdoor play environments. These schools were chosen because of their
specific socioeconomic and ethnic demographics (DPS, 2005), observed
increases in sedentary behavior during recess and in physical education
classes (Principals and PE teachers, informal interviews, 2004), and personal
observations of limited creative free play.
Figure 18 All 3nd-5th grade Eagleton, Munroe, and Remington Elementary School Students
The three selected DPS Learning Landscape playgrounds, built by school
students, parents, staff, faculty, and invested community members, are located
within three of Mayor Wellington Webbs sixteen Focus Neighborhoods.
Denver's Focus Neighborhood Initiative (FNI), originated by Mayor Wellington
Webb and managed by the Housing and Neighborhood Development Services
(H&NDS) of the Community Planning and Development Agency (CDA) of the
City and County of Denver, Colorado contracted a research/survey
Neighborhood Needs Assessment of sixteen different neighborhoods that
-92-


demonstrate economic distress (Baker, Clayton, Cole, Elyria/Swansea, Five
Points, Globeville, Jefferson Park, La Alma/Lincoln Park, Northeast Park Hill,
Skyland, Five Points, Sunnyside, Sun Valley, Valverde, Villa Park, Westwood,
and Whittier).
More than half of Denvers neighborhoods experienced an increase of 50% in
their Latino population over the last decade. And by 2000, twenty-one of the
seventy-six neighborhoods had populations greater than 50% Latino.
Immigrants concentrated in neighborhoods in west and northeast Denver,
including West Colfax, Villa Park, Barnum, Westwood, Valverde, Baker,
Highland, Globeville, Clayton and Elyria Swansea. In Jefferson Park, about
50% of residents were foreign born; about 41% in Cole. Since 2000, Latino
populations have grown in the Southwest and Northeast sections of the city.
Between 1990 and 2000, the city experienced an increase of almost 200% in
its foreign-born population, from 35,000 to 97,000. Mexicans are Denvers
largest immigrant group, making up two-thirds of the immigrant population.
According to the 2000 Census, almost 40,000 Denver residents eighteen years
of age and older (9%) did not speak English well or at all. Of those, 87% spoke
Spanish.
Within Denver Public Schools, 32.1% of the children do not speak English as
their first language. Spanish speaking students make up 29.9% of the student
body with only 2.1% speaking other languages.
-93-


Denver Public Schools Learning Landscapes
Focur; I ir-ifihliorhoodr;
itw .i
Learning Landscapes
DPS Elementary Schools
Census Boundaries

Learning Landscape
1 Barrett
2 Bromwell
3 Castro
4 Colfax
5 Columbian
6 Columbine
7 Cowell
"ta8 Crofton
9 Eagleton
10 Ebert
11 Fairmont
12 Fairview
13 Garden Place
14 Gilpin
15 Greenlee
. 16 Mitchell
^fe7 Munroe
18 Remington
19 Smediey
20 Smith
21 Swansea
22 Whittier
Figure 19 Eagleton, Munroe, and Remington Denver Public Elementary Schools located within former Mayor
Wellington Webb's Focus Neighborhoods (Graphic created by Bambi Yost, 2005)
fh^e.are no true boundanes forDenver Public Schools beci^se
i^tiisesahywti§re within the district. In addition, students from l_
vijithin OPS district For the most part, students are ftom.soirpa|Sng heighbcNljQt^f
schools, Eagleton, Munroe, and Remington, are all locded in V\festand_N(
- -r -
, The neighborhoods that are most often serviced a|
1 Eagleton Elementary Schdol Villa Par
2. ; Munroe Elementary School ^ Athmar Park, ValvjeS^|
Remington Elementary School Berkely and Sunnysa



As expected, overall school enrollment is increasing district wide but it is not
occurring where schools already exist. Instead, the population increases are in
neighborhoods traditionally comprised of non-family households. As a result,
Denver Public Schools has been forced to build new schools. With a dwindling
tax base and limited political support Denver Public Schools face increasingly
difficult challenges.
Latinos were concentrated iu neighborhoods west and north of downtown.

n
0 Greater than 50% Latino (21)
Greater than 50% .African-American (3)
Greater than 50?. White (44)
No Racial-EthnicGroap Greater than 50% (8)
Less than 3 Events (1)
fTTTTT FVjor Neighborhood
At-Risk Neighborhood
Pd
Figure 20 Latino Populations within the City and
County of Denver. (Source: U.S. Decennial Census -
2000)
Children in Denver represent almost 25% of the total population and of these
21% live in poverty. Over the last five years, Denver, like the rest of the
country, was hit by a major recession. Since 2000, the city has lost more than
one third of the jobs it gained over the decade. The majority of jobs lost were in
-95-


industries that employ large numbers of unskilled and low-income workers.
Corresponding with the job loss was a sharp increase in unemployment and
the poverty rate.
According to the 2000 census report, overall economic
trends indicate a decrease in poverty levels, however with
an increase in population the actual number of residents
living in poverty has not changed. Families with children,
the majority of which are Latino, represent the majority of
persons living in poverty. Students receiving free or
reduced lunch represent 70.3% of the district, or 26,512 students.
Povaty; How Pool it Pool? 2000
Siaof Federal Poverty
Fam% GirideSnee
1 $ 8.350
2 $11,250
3 $14,150
4 $17,050
5 $19,950
6 $22,860
7 $25,750
8 $28,650
In addition, large disparities in educational attainment by race/ethnicity and by
place of residence exist. In Denver, 48% of white adults age twenty-five or
older have college degrees, but only 18% of black and 8% of Latino adults age
twenty-five or older do.
-96-


Poor and at-risk neighborhoods in Denver had the highest percentage of
households with children.
Household type- 2000: Denver neighborhoods j
U.S. D-*o=nntai Census 2000 STFl Title Pie
Pdcect laniia
with CMMe* 2IM
Greater than 40%
0 25% to 40%
15% to 25%
Less tun 15%
Less tun 3 Event
mn Poor Neighfccvhood
^3 4t-Risk Neighborhood
(11)
(24)
(22)
(18)
(2)
Figure 21 Poor and At-Risk Children in Neighborhoods within the City and County of Denver.
(Source: U.S. Decennial Census 2000)
2.6.2 Socio-Economic and Cultural Influences
With respect to health and childrens physical and psychological development,
family income seems to matter (Mallahy and Wolfe, 2002). Adolescents from
families with incomes below 130 percent of the federal poverty threshold are
twice as likely to be overweight (16 percent) as those from families with
incomes that are 130 percent above the federal poverty level (8 percent). With
so many Denver youth living in poverty, is it any wonder that we have seen
increases in obesity? And along with obesity comes decreased opportunity for
physically active exploratory play as a result of intrapersonal barriers (Zabinski,
2003).
-97-


According to Dennis Raphael, author of Health Effects of Inequality (2000)
and Health Inequities in the United States: Prospects and Solutions, (2000)
poverty is potentially the strongest determinant of health. The impacts of
poverty on health have been documented since the nineteenth century (Sram
& Ashton), and more recently in the United Kingdom in the Black and the
Health Divide reports (Townsend, Davidson, & Whitehead, 1992). These
reports show that people living in poverty have a greater likelihood of suffering
from a wide range of diseases and of death from illness or injury at every stage
of life (Townsend, 1999).
The New York Times (Johnson, February 1, 2004) reported that Colorado,
once the healthiest state had obesity rates surging to almost 17% in 2002 and
almost doubling in the last decade. Only ten states did worse in 2002 in holding
down or reducing the number of severely overweight residents.
And in Colorado,
School nurses identified a growing problem across Denvers 72,000
student district. One school nurse is quoted describing the increase in
juvenile diabetes, cardiac problems and hypertension. Nationally, nearly
9 million children between ages 6 and 19 were overweight in 2000, triple
the proportion reported in 1980, according to the National Center for
Health Statistics. Applied to DPS students, more than 10,000 pupils are
overweight. Colorado figures show the trend begins early. In 1983, 4.8
percent of Colorado children ages 2 to 5 enrolled in a federal nutrition
program were considered overweight. In 2002, that figure had nearly
-98-


doubled to 8.7 percent, according to the state health department.
(Rocky Mountain News, February 2, 2004)
According to an after-school Program Leader at Munroe Elementary School,
A lot of these kids really want to participate in Denver Scores but they
cant because they are not allowed to walk or ride their bikes to school
and their parents are unable to pick them up at the end of the day. We
offer transportation to and from games but unfortunately we dont have
the money to shuttle kids back and forth to their houses as well.
(Spring 2005, Personal Interview)
When I pressed for details regarding biking I was told,
The school actually has a policy forbidding students to ride their bikes
here. A lot of the kids live on the other side of Federal Boulevard and
you know how busy that street gets. Plus, they [Principal and others]
are worried about theft and liability. We dont even have bike racks.
(Spring 2005, Personal Interview)
The experience of Denver Public Schools 37,712 elementary students is
comparable to that of other urban schools districts. DPS has wide socio-
economic disparities in its student population. In March of 2004, the Denver
Board of Education passed Resolution that established a commission of
community experts to address growing concerns about the quality of school
nutrition and physical activity in the schools. According to the Commission on
School Nutrition and Physical Activity Final Report (DPS, 2004),
-99-


There is no single overriding cause of childhood obesity. Rather, its a
confluence of trends that combine to have a more potent effect than any
one variable could have on its own. Like every other American
community over the last two or three decades, the city has experienced
the rise of manufactured fast food, the explosion of sedentary
entertainment, plus daunting work and school schedules that preclude
the traditional home-cooked meal or healthy brown bag school lunch.
Concurrently, we've suffered from declining public education budgets
that have impacted school cafeteria meals, physical education
programs, sports activities and school nursing. (DPS, 2004)
Denver Public Schools Physical Education Instruction and Curriculum
Coordinator, Eric Larson, has this to say,
There is great variability in program offerings in physical education (PE)
within the Denver Public Schools. Some elementary schools are able to
offer a healthy 150 minutes of physical activity per week. Others have
no program at all. Over the last thirteen years, the average amount of
time that students spend in elementary school PE has declined by 44%.
In the last year alone, staffing has declined 16 %. (DPS, 2004)
Eric recommends that one way to get kids moving is by setting requirements
for gym classes. Students in elementary school, for example, would build up to
spending 30 minutes per day in physical education. In addition, Larson said,
as many as one in four elementary schools have eliminated recess, other than
a brief period at lunch, to focus on academics. One recommendation calls for
all elementary students to have daily morning or afternoon recess.
-100-


Another idea is to integrate outdoor environments and play equipment into
regular Physical Education classes so that students understand how to get a
physical workout on things readily available to them outside of school hours.
Larson also said, I used to do outdoor circuits all the time. Its a great workout
and the kids really enjoy it. By creating routes that get incrementally more
challenging on play equipment and on other areas of the playground, students
have the opportunity to challenge themselves and each other outside of class
time. And thats good for overall fitness, as well as, motor skills, balance,
confidence levels, self-esteem, and safety on the site.
"They're bold recommendations," Larson said, while drawing a line between
physical education and academics. "I believe the more active kids are, the
better they are prepared to learn." Although Denver Public Schools
acknowledges that there is a growing concern over obesity in Denvers student
population, they state that outside factors play major roles as well. How has
risk management policy affected childrens willingness to push themselves
physically? How do these policies limit their behavior on playgrounds? Are
children as likely to be physically challenged in nonsupportive, over-protective
environments?
-101 -


Full Text

PAGE 1

PERCEPTIONS OF RISK IN DENVER PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PLAYGROUNDS : A MULTI METHODS RESEARCH STRATEGY AND DESIGN by Bambi Yost

PAGE 2

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Landscape Architecture & Masters of Urban and Regional Planning University of Colorado at Denver 2005 This thesis for the Master of Landscape Architecture & Master of Urban and Regional Planning degree by Bambi Yost Has been approved by / ) ;) ... ----------------j Professor Joseph Ju hasz Professor Ray Studer

PAGE 3

"The design of the environment reflects the ideas, attitudes, and ethics of the time." (Stine, 1997, p.93) "Probability is a net that supports us and a cage that confines us." (Davis, 1998, p 31) "Childhood placed at a tangent to adulthood, perceived as special and magical, precious and dangerous at once, has turned into some volatile stuff-hydrogen, or mercury, which has to be contained The separate condition of the child has never been so bounded by thinking, so established in law as it is today . ... How we treat children really tests who we are, fundamentally conveys who we hope to be." (Marina Warner, 1994, 'Managing Monsters' The Reith Lectures) "It is tempting to impose our goals on other people, particularly on children or our subordinates It is tempting for society to try to impose its priorities on everybody. The strategy will however be self defeating if our goals, or society's goals, do not fit the goals of the others. We may get our way but we don't get their learning. They may have to comply but they will not change We have pushed out their goals with ours and stolen their purposes. It is a pernicious form of theft which kills the will to learn." (Charles Handy, 1990)

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT m LIST OF FIGURES VDI LIST OF TABLES X ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XI PROLOGUE 12 1.1 ISSUES RELATED TO RISK AND SAFETY 15 1.2 INTRODUCTION 19 1 3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 22 1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 23 1.4. 1 Children's Perceptions 24 1 4. 2 School Personnel's Perceptions 25 1.4.3 Policy Related 26 1.5 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 28 1 5. 1 Underlying Theories 28 1 5 2 Social Ecological or Socioecological Model 32 1.5.3 Defining Risk 36 1 5. 4 Risk as a Social Construct 40 1.5.5 The Nature of Play 47 1.5.6 Health and Behavioral Risks of Limited Play Opportunities 50 1.5. 7 Playground Design and Physical Activity 55 1.5.8 Children's Participation and Access to their Local Environment 60 1. 5. 9 School Policies and Educational Programs 64 1 5 .10 Supportive Environments 66 1 6 RATIONALE FOR THE INVESTIGATION 67 2 PROCEDURES 2.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIXED METHODS RESEARCH 2.2 MULTI-METHODS DESIGN 2.3 VISUAL MODEL AND PROCEDURES OF THE DESIGN 2 .3.1 Steps to be Taken -Idea to Conclusion 2.3.2 Concurrent Transformative Mixed Methods Strategy v 68 69 71 72 72 74

PAGE 5

2 3 3 Balancing the Costs, Benefits, and Risks 7 6 2.3.4 Proposed Playground Quality Index Assessment 7 9 2.3.5 Proposed Cost Effectiveness Analysis 8 2 2.4 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES 83 2.4 1 Types of Data 8 3 2.4 1 1 Risk Management Policy & Injury Reports 83 2.4.1.2 Physical Site Design & Specifications 83 2.4 1.3 User Perceptions of Risks & Benefits 83 2 4.2 Sampling Strategy 8 3 2.5 DATA ANALYSIS 85 2. 5. 1 Cost Benefit and/or Cost Effectiveness Analysis 8 5 2 6 SUBJECTS 92 2. 6 1 Eagleton, Munroe, and Remington Denver Public Schools 92 2. 6 2 Socio-Economic and Cultural Influences 9 7 2.7 PROCEDURE 102 2.8 PRECEDENT 103 3 ETHICAL ISSUES 3 1 BASIC ETHICAL PRINCIPLES 3 2 HUMAN SUBJECTS 4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 5 HYPOTHESIS 6 CONCLUSION 7 APPENDIXES: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION, POTENTIAL FOCUS 107 108 110 111 113 114 GROUP QUESTIONS, AND PROPOSED TIMELINE 115 7.1 APPENDIX ANATIONAL PLAYGROUND STANDARDS 116 7.2 APPENDIX BU.S. CENSUS STATISTICS 117 7.3 APPENDIX CU.S PLAYGROUND STATISTICS 119 7.4 APPENDIX D-DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS (DPS) DATA 126 7.4. 1 DPS Playground Standards 127 7.4. 2 DPS 2004 Design Guidelines for PE Areas 165 7 4.3 DPS Play Equipment Inventory Forms 1 7 1 7.4. 4 DPS Safety Assessment Forms 192 7.4.5 DPS Risk ManagementNational Award Winning Program 195 7 4. 6 DPS Risk Management Recognitions 198 V1

PAGE 6

7.4 7 DPS Playground Safety Handbook 200 7 5 APPENDIX ELEARNING LANDSCAPE INITIATIVE DATA 223 7. 5 1 History of Learning Landscape Playgrounds 223 7.5.2 UCD-DPS Master Plans 226 7 5 3 UCD-DPS Design Documents 226 7.5.4 UCD-DPS Construction Documents 226 7 5 5 UCD-DPS As-Built Documents 227 7 5 6 UCD-DPS Maintenance Documents 2 2 7 7 5 7 UCD-DPS Baseline Data 227 7. 5. 8 UCD-DPS 2005 District-Wide Playground Survey 229 7 5 9 UCD-DPS Baseline Incident Log Data 233 7.5 10 UCD-DPS Before and After Photographs of Playgrounds 2 3 4 7 5 .11 UCD-DPS Schoolyard Consortium Educational Programs 235 7 6 APPENDIX FPOTENTIAL SURVEY TOOLS 237 7 6 1 Potential Survey Questions for Focus Groups 2 3 7 7.6 2 Potential Domain-specific Risk-attitude Scale 238 7 6.3 Potential Photo Survey Images 246 7.7 APPENDIX GPROPOSED TIMELINE 251 8 REFERENCES 252 9 AUTHOR'S BRIEF BIOGRAPHY ENDNOTES Vll 270 271

PAGE 7

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 PLATFORM SHOES SIMILAR TO THE ONES DESCRIBED ON THE KINDERGARTENER'S FEET AND CONSIDERED INAPPROPRIATE PLAYGROUND ATTIRE BY PE TEACHER. 12 FIGURE 2 GIRLS HANGING UPSIDE DOWN ON PLAY EQUIPMENT 13 FIGURE 3 BROMWELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL'S LEARNING LANDSCAPE FEATURES A COLORADO NATIVE PLANTING AREA CREATED SPECIFICALLY FOR DENVER'S URBAN STUDENTS TO LEARN ABOUT THE PRAIRIE. WOULD YOU BE WORRIED ABOUT YOUR CHILD PLAYING IN THIS ENVIRONMENT? {PHOTO TAKEN BY BAMBI YOST AUGUST, 2003) 15 FIGURE 4 A YOUNG GIRL PLAYS ON TOP OF A SCULPTURE AT GREENLEE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS SHE AT RISK? SHOULD THE SCULPTURES BE REMOVED? ARE THEY APPROVED PIECES OF PLAY EQUIPMENT INTENDED FOR SUCH USE? HOW DO YOU DETERMINE RISK FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC ART? (PHOTO TAKEN BY BAMBI YOST, OCTOBER 2001) 18 FIGURE 6 A YOUNG GIRL WATERS TREES ON SMITH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL'S 'LEARNING lANDSCAPE' PLAYGROUND DOES THIS LOOK RISKY TO YOU? 27 FIGURE 7 BOOK MARKS CREATED WITH STUDENT INPUT ARE PART OF THE DPS SCHOOL SAFETY CURRICULUM. 30 FIGURE 8 2004-2005 DPS SCHOOL SAFTEY 31 FIGURE 9 SOCIOECOLOGICAL MODEL 32 FIGURE 10 SOCIOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR DETERMINANTS OF ACCIDENTS, RISKTAKING BENEFITS, PERCEPTIONS OF RISK, AND COSTS 33 FIGURE 11 BOYS AT REMINGTON ELEMENTARY SKIDDING OUT OF PUDDLE ON BIKES. (PHOTO TAKEN BY BAMBI YOST, 2003) 46 FIGURE 13 IMAGE COMPLIMENTS OF GREEN & HART, 1998. 52 FIGURE 14 SUSAN BARDWELL WITH GROUNDS FOR LEARNING TEACHES STUDENTS HOW TO PLANT AND MAINTAIN PLANTINGS AT MUNROE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (PHOTO TAKEN BY BAMBI YOST, 2005) 65 FIGURE 15 DIAGRAM OF STEPS INVOLVED IN A RESEARCH STUDY 73 FIGURE 18 ALL 3RD-5TH GRADE EAGLETON, MUNROE, AND REMINGTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS 92 FIGURE 19 EAGLETON, MUNROE, AND REMINGTON DENVER PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS LOCATED WITHIN FORMER MAYOR WELLINGTON WEBB'S FOCUS NEIGHBORHOODS (GRAPHIC CREATED BY BAMBI YOST, 2005) 94 V11l

PAGE 8

FIGURE 20 LATINO POPULATIONS WITHIN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER (SOURCE : U S DECENNIAL CENSUS2000) 95 FIGURE 21 POOR AND AT-RISK CHILDREN IN NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER. 97 FIGURE 22 A GIRL TESTING HER LIMITS RISKY OR NOT? 2 46 FIGURE 23 HANGING UPSIDE DOWN RISKY OR SAFE BEHAVIOR? 2 46 FIGURE 24 CLEARLY PUSHING THE LIMITS OF SAFETY BUT YOU CAN T HELP WONDERING WHAT HAPPENED. 247 FIGURE 25 INAPPROPRIATE USE OF EQUIPMENT LEADING TO POTENTIAL INJURY OR GIRLS JUST WANTING TO HAVE FUN? 2 47 FIGURE 26 BOY PLAYING IN A PUDDLE. RISK OF DROWNING OR HARMLESS PLAY? 2 48 FIGURE 27 LITILE BOYS PLAYING ON ROCKS DANGEROUS OR CHALLENGING OR BOTH? 248 FIGURE 28 BOYS ON TOP OF LARGE BOULDER WITH AT LEAST A TEN FOOT FALL. RISKY OR NOT? WHAT IF THEY WERE GIRLS? 249 F I GURE 29 ONCE A COMMON PIECE OF PLAY EQUIPMENT, NOW A LIABILITY AND SAFETY CONCERN. WHERE HAVE ALL THE GEODESIC DOMES GONE AND WHY? 2 49 FIGURE 30 MANMADE CLIMBING BOULDER TO ACCOMODATE DIFFERENT SKILL LEVELS. THIS IS A DPS APPROVED PIECE OF PLAY EQUIPMENT AS OF 2005. 2 50 ix

PAGE 9

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 MATRIX TO DETERMINE PROS AND CONS OF CHALLENGING PLAY ENVIRONMENTS 78 TABLE 2 PROPOSED PLAYGROUND QUALITY INDEX ASSESSMENT MATRIX 79 TABLE 3 PROPOSED COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS MODEL 82 TABLE 4 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF DEATHS OCCURRING ON PLAYGROUNDS 119 TABLE 5 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF INJURIES OCCURRING ON PLAYGROUNDS 120 TABLE 6 ESTIMATED NUMBER OF INJURIES THAT MAY OCCUR ON DENVER PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PLAYGROUNDS 120 X

PAGE 10

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to my advisory board members, CU Denver Professors Ann Komara, Joe Juhasz, Ray Studer, Lois Brink, and Dwayne Nuzum, for their assistance in the preparation of this manuscript. In addition, special thanks to Tom Kaesemeyer with Gates Foundation and Allen Balczarek, Don Moon, and Stephen Finley with Denver Public Schools, for providing information and insight. Thanks also to the faculty, staff, and children of Denver Public Schools and the Learning Landscape Initiative for their valuable input and boundless dedication. Thanks also to my family, friends, and boyfriend who have offered so much support, coffee, mental breaks, playful moments and continued faith in me throughout this entire process xi

PAGE 11

PROLOGUE The school day has ended. I am on a Northwest Denver Elementary School playground to discuss play equipment, playground design outdoor education, and physical activity with the school s physical education teacher I ask Are the chi l dren less active now than when you first started teaching seventeen years ago?" She answers Yes, Kids weigh more now and that makes it more d i fficult for them Also, so many of them come unprepared for gym class. See that little girl over there climbing up the ladder? She is in kindergarten Look at her shoes They are those stupid platform shoes that all the girls want. They wear them to class I can t let them run in those." Figure 1 Platfonn shoes sim i lar to the ones described on the kindergartener's feet and cons i dered inappropriate pla1ground attire by PE teacher. She turns from me and yells to the girl "You know you are not allowed to climb on that equipment in those shoes Get off before I have to ask you to leave the playground." Not more than two seconds later she spots another little girl disregarding playground rules 1 2

PAGE 12

This time her shoes are fine Instead it is her position on the overhead bars that is in question. She is hanging upside down, about 6 feet off the ground with her legs securely wrapped in place feet locked under the bars, swinging back and forth and laughing F i gure 2 G i rls hanging upside down on play equ i pment.2 The off-duty teacher yells, You know you are not allowed to hang upside down like that! Get down from there right now before I have to ask you to leave the playground." From the teacher's perspective potential injuries and litigation are everywhere Policies, rules, and regulations require enforcement if they are to be effective. Consistency is key. By following district playground safety mandates injuries are less likely to occur at least this is what teachers are told Unfortunately they are also told that lawsuits are no longer restricted to institutions Personal liability is an added factor Although Denver Public Schools has only lost one lawsuit in the last ten years due to negligence on a playground, the fear of l i tigat ion is great.3 -13-

PAGE 13

VVhile the physical education teacher sees potential harm and inherent danger in behavior I see children having fun playing and using their bodies to explore their environments and to test their limits. One little girl is developing an amazing ability to balance and perform in adverse conditions and another little girl is exhibiting sophisticated motor control strength and coordination. Because I am not liable for any injury these children might incur I am far more at ease But I believe it is more than just liability that limits what we allow children to do on playgrounds and what we perceive to be risky behavior Clearly a physical education teacher with seventeen years of experience is more aware of the inherent dangers on playgrounds than I am Moreover, her genuine and compassionate concern about the safety of the children precludes any thoughts of lawsuit. How much do perceptions of risk influence children s abilities to be phys i cally active experiential learners on playgrounds? Are safety fun and learning possible? Or do the risks associated with playgrounds and children s play truly outweigh the benefits? 14-

PAGE 14

Figure 3 Bromwell Elementary School's learning landscape features a Colorado native planting area created spec i fically for Denver's urban students to learn about the prairie Would you be worried about your child playing in this environment? (Photo taken by Bamb i Yost August 2003) 1.1 ISSUES RELATED TO RISK AND SAFETY As a Landscape Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning student who plans designs and builds community-based learning landscape playgrounds, I find myself asking the questions, "How are our perceptions and attitudes of risk and safety influencing the way we modify environments and the behaviors of children and is this to their benefit in the long run or have we gone too far?" Much like playground expert Dr Robin Moore I too grew up as a free range" kid (Moore 2003). Robin Moore s freedom to explore the countryside of England has influenced his design beliefs and practices, just -15-

PAGE 15

as my freedom to explore the forests and hills of rural Pennsylvania have influenced my own In 1994 I began teaching environmental education all over the Chesapeake Bay watershed I would take 4th-12th grade students and teachers out in canoes to explore r i vers lakes marshes, and the Bay It was at th i s time that I first noticed a difference in the way that children and adults from suburban and urban places interacted with unfamiliar natural" settings Unfamiliar environments feel dangerous and threatening. Much of my time teaching was spent reassuring participants that there was nothing to fear S i milarly, as a ski instructor of seven years, a large portion of my lesson was dedicated to convincing students that fear was their biggest enemy How did I become such an assured and competent individual in such adventurous occupations? I attribute much of it to my parents who always encouraged me to try new things and to explore new places. Because I had their support I was much more willing and able to accomplish things that others would have never dreamt of pursuing In addition, my exposure to the outdoor environment from birth through adulthood was extensive Research supports my intuitive understanding of my development showing that individuals who are encouraged to take risks and are supported when they succeed or fail gain confidence and security in their abilities (Williams 1986 ; Benard 2004 ; Jensen, 2005 ; Jambor, 1990 & 1996 ; Stine 1987 ; Moore 2003 ; and others). 16

PAGE 16

Many adults are restricting children s activities and physical design opportunities out of fear. How do we promote risk-taking and challenging educational opportunities like physical activity, outdoor learning and creative play for youth? Why are we so focused on controlling children s behavior and limiting our physical environments? Where is the balance? And how might we achieve it? While much has been written about injuries, safety and risk management from legal and medical prevention perspectives, very little has been written about the influence of perceptions of risk in relation to the built environment. How much of what we design or don't design, is influenced by our perceptions of risk? And specifically how has this influence impacted the Learning Landscape playgrounds and the people who use them? -17-

PAGE 17

Figure 4 A young girl plays on top of a sculpture at Greenlee elementary school. Is she at risk? Should the sculptures be removed? Are they approved pieces of play equipment intended for such use? How do you determine risk factors associated with publ i c art? (Photo taken by Bambi Yost October 2001) -18-

PAGE 18

1.2 INTRODUCTION Denver Public Schools (DPS) is prone to experiment. For the last seven years, DPS has been building Learning Landscapes in an effort to improve elementary school playgrounds Learning Landscapes are intended to be fun participatory play areas that encourage outdoor play and learning improve opportunities for physical activity for children of all ages, green" the grounds, and facilitate community ownership and use of the playgrounds (Brink and Yost, 2004) To date, thirty-six new playgrounds have been built or are under construction with an average cost of $450 000 each. DPS knows that the physical environment is important for their student's health and well-being (Moore, 1990), physical activity (Sallis & Owen, 1999), and educational opportunities (Malone & Tranter, 2003). Despite this investment, children are limited by what they can and can not do in these exploratory environments. No one would argue that safety is important, but with increasingly regulated play comes limited opportunities for personal growth and development. Researcher Tom Jambor states, "Those who design and develop playgrounds are caught between the desire to provide developmentally appropriate challenging opportunities for play and the desire to restrict play challenges in order to reduce danger to children or the likelihood of being held liable for injuries V\lhile there can be no argument against accident and injury prevention, an argument can be made about the extent to which recommended playground standards should be allowed to -19-

PAGE 19

restrict children's developmental play. Safety standards are producing playgrounds that are colorful and cute rather than challenging and complementary to children's development. Construction of safe playgrounds involves consideration of a few important developmental facts. First, children are natural explorers of their limitations, seeking higher levels of challenge that will enhance their repertoire of skills and competencies Second what is safe and unsafe to an adult is often a matter of personal perception judgment and past experience Third, children with high and low self-efficacy differ in their perception of what they can do with the skills they possess. A challenge and a hazard differ in that a hazard is something that is hidden or at least not perceived by the child while a challenge is something the child may see as dangerous Playgrounds must provide numerous entry levels with ascending increments of challenge. (Jambor, 1990) Having recently witnessed a concerned teacher at a learning landscape reprimand students for unsafe play, I find myself asking Are these new playgrounds designed to improve opportunities for safety fun, and learning so limited by perceptions of risk that they fail to meet the needs of the children who use them? What do the children and school personnel who use these places th i nk about the risks and benefits of fun challenging play environments? -20-

PAGE 20

Figure 5 Munroe Elementary School's Learnin g Landscape (Photo uken b y Bambi Yost, April 8 2005 ) -21-

PAGE 21

1.3 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This purpose of this paper is to create a research strategy and design that may be used to evaluate how perceptions of risk influence Denver Public Schools Learning Landscape playgrounds and the children who play on them. This proposal offers one of many ways to study such a complex topic Both qualitative and quantitative methods are proposed in order to describe and evaluate findings. Analysis of data in terms of financial costs and benefits is explored. In addition a cost effectiveness analysis emphasizing the qualitative findings is proposed. Because policies are not driven by financial outcomes alone it is important to evaluate them from multiple perspectives. Risk management policies are typically focused on minimizing insurance claims and lawsuits At DPS the Department of Risk Management clearly wishes to address fun and learning in addition to safety (see Appendix D) but how policies are carried out by individuals interpreting them is not clear. The research strategy and design described attempts to unveil some of the many ways that perceptions of risk directly influence policy behavior, and environments -22-

PAGE 22

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS The following lists of questions has been derived from multiple disciplines and sources in an effort to address gaps in literature regarding perceptions of risk and its influence on playground design and the children who play there. While not exhaustive, the breadth of the questions clearly frames the scope and relevance for this investigation. -23-

PAGE 23

1 4 1 Children s Perceptions \Nhat do children think about the safety limits placed on them? Do children perceive risks differently than adults? \Nhat are children's perceptions of risk on playgrounds? Do children take responsibility for their own actions when injuries occur? Are children aware of the risks of injury? Do they do things knowing they could get hurt and if so why, and how does it benefit them? Do children behave differently when unsupervised? How much peer pressure do children experience to do or not to do risky things? Are children less likely to play in places where they are restricted? With what rules do children agree or disagree? Do children help establish and regulate rules? Do students consider the playground challenging and fun? \Nhat challenges students the most? \Nhat challenges students the least? \Nhat is boring or unappealing about the playground? Are children s preferences being heard? How might we better engage them in the process of establishing not only safety protocols but also measures of quality play environments? 24

PAGE 24

1.4.2 School Personnel's Perceptions What do school personnel responsible for children s safety think of policies and rules for playground activity and behaviors? Are they too strict not strict enough or just right? How do they feel about lawsuits and the possibility of litigation revolving around playground injuries and accidents? What is an accident? Do school personnel think that policies and equipment for school playgrounds are overly protective? What do they consider to be the best things on the playground for children's development? What aspects of the playground are most appropriate for teaching? How many and what kinds of injuries do they see on a regular basis? How many of these could have been avoided with increases in safety guidelines? How many and what kinds of injuries could not have been avoided? How likely is it that a child could die on the playground during supervised play or unsupervised play? What are the odds of someone dying on the playground as a result of negligence? How willing are the teachers to take responsibility for studenfs injuries or risky behaviors? What type of environment best promotes exploratory and challenging play while minimizing injuries and accidents? -25-

PAGE 25

1 4 3 Policy Related How much do perceptions of risk influence playground design policy and behavior? How do the designs policies and behavior management techniques used to minimize risk of injury influence children? Is it possible to achieve a healthy balance that promotes safety while providing challenging, fun healthy, physical and experiential educational opportunities for students? VVhat are the costs of meeting risk management requirements in terms of direct costs and forgone opportunities? VVho pays the financial costs, and what are the sources of funds? VVho supports and opposes risk management policies and on what grounds? VVhat strategies have been effective in increasing support for risk management policies? VVhat strategies have been ineffective? VVhat strategies have been employed to oppose or dilute implementation of the policies? VVhat strategies have been employed to overcome opposition to the policies? How much do i nsurance companies dictate risk management policy? How important are actual numbers of injuries or fatalities on DPS sites in determining policy guidelines? VVhat are the actual numbers of injury and death? -26-

PAGE 26

Figure 6 Waters Trees on Smith Elementary School's Learning Landscape Playground Does this look risky to you? -27-

PAGE 27

1.5 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 1 5 1 Underlying Theories Environment-Behavior Theory Several behavior health models have been applied to physical activ i ty program design and outdoor education Of these the most applicable to th i s particular research design are Social Cognitive Theory, Ecological or Social Ecological Models and Hungerford and Volk s Environmental Education Model. Social Cognitive Theory commonly used in nutrition education interventions (Contento Balch & Bronner 1995) developed from social learning theory. It offers a comprehensive framework for understanding health related behaviors and changing them (Baronowski & Baronowski 1998). The Social Cognitive Theory concept of reciprocal determinism proposes that behavior is a function of aspects of the environment and of the person all of which are in constant reciprocal interaction (Baronowski et al, 2003) Self efficacy goal setting self-monitoring expected outcomes, individual skills influence of positive role models and availability of physical activity opportunities are all important variables to consider when applying this model. It has been proposed that environmental variables (adult support parenting availability of physical activity opportunities) may be the most influential for younger children (Baronowski et al, 2003). -28-

PAGE 28

need to change or sensitized to a problem that requires behavioral change The second thing people need is a level of knowledge that supports this awareness The third thing is a level of ownership of the problem, which is often obtained by directly relating actions to outcomes And finally by acting on the problem using newly acquired knowledge and motivation, individuals gain empowerment over the problem by modifying their own behavior (Hungerford and Volk, 1990). This model has been used as the basis for a substantial amount of research and program development in outdoor educational fields This model is at the core of the DPS school safety curriculum program which raises awareness in users, provides knowledge, asks for user input in the form of competitions, and empowers users through the production of physical products like calendars, book marks, and posters. Students gain a voice in risk management policy and are more likely to modify their own behavior as a result of this program. Figure 7 Book marks created with student input are part of the DPS school safety curriculum .4 -30-

PAGE 29

Ecological and Social Ecological Theories have been used extensively in environment-behavior and physical activity research. These models and theories explain human activity as a function of interactions between people and their environments (Stokols, 1992) The Ecological and Social Ecological models have much to offer obesity prevention (French et al, 2001 ; Booth et al, 2001 ) Within this framework, human development is conceptualized as taking place within a set of embedded contexts that include both microand macro-level systems and their interaction (Bronfenbrenner 1979) Behavior settings (e.g., playgrounds) refer to the intertwining of these dimensions with human activities (Georgiou et al, 1996 ; Barker, 1968; Clitheroe, 1998) Environments contain a range of behavior settings that are seen to provide in different degrees opportunities or affordances for desired behaviors; the extent and the ways that those behaviors occur are further dependent on factors that are conceptualized as filters (e .g., perception cognition motivation) and antecedent conditions (e g., access to play equipment peer support physical ability) (Wicker, 1972 ; Gibson, 1977 1979 ; Michelson 1977). Environments exert, therefore, probabilistic influences making certa i n behaviors more or less likely Thus environments vary in the support they provide for activities enabling or promoting some while preventing or discouraging others (Sallis et al, 1998). Hungerford and Yolk s Changing Learner Behavior Theory is based in environmental education and explains how learners make behavioral changes based on a four step process. The authors argue that in order for individuals to make a behavior change they must first be made aware of a -29-

PAGE 30

Figure 8 2004-2005 DPS school Sattel Cale n dar h ighli ghting student s drawings Unfortunately DPS does not solicit student participation when determining what is a risky opportunity or behavior or when determining what is considered challenging by children in outdoor play environments Instead the emphasis is on known hazards like safe techniques for pedestrian crossings in traffic preventive strategies like wearing a helmet when biking, and general guidance to hold tight" when using play equipment to reduce the chance of falling Although these are all good and sound pieces of advice they come more from a perspective of adults looking out for the welfare of the child and are not necessarily beneficial for children who need to determine their own boundaries and limits concerning risky behavior and positive risk-taking opportunities When risk is continually presented as a negative factor with respect to play the benefits associated with positive risk-taking challenges are negated and devalued As a result students are denied on valuable learning experiences that enhance social cognitive physical and developmental needs -31

PAGE 31

1 5 2 Social Ecological or Socioecological Model According to the Socioecological Model individual behavior can be influenced at multiple levels : individual interpersonal organizational community, and public policy The model combines individual behavior with social and physical environments. The strategies in this proposal to determine user perceptions of risk and benefits of risk-taking recognize the level of self-responsibility that individuals need to have when identifying safe positive risk-taking opportunities. This level of personal responsibility is influenced by outside forces from policies, physical designs specific site details, fear of litigation perceptions of risk actual number of injuries and/or personal experience with injuries, and community values ; l Figure 9 Socioecolog i cal Model (Graphic provided by CDPHE's COPAN 2010 State Plan) -32-

PAGE 32

Socioecological Framework for Determinants of Accidents, Risk-Taking Benefits, Perceptions of Risk, and Costs PUBLIC POLICY COMMUNITY Enablers of Choice situation or context physical and social i nterpersonal relationsh i ps cost source of information I knowledge / educational / attainment _, nei ghborhood safety-' Lifestyle Psychological Core : genetics self-identity Cultural : personal life exper i ences Enablers of Choice: tactors that attect choices Lifestyle : visible choices Behavior Setting: DPS Learning landscape Playgrounds ProAirnal Leverage Points; controllers of the structure that affects choices Distal Leverage Points : additional factors that influence choices Created by Bambi Yost May 13.2005 Figure 10 Socio l ogi cal Framewo r k for determina nts of Acciden t s Ri s k Taking Benefits, P e rc e pti o ns of Risk and Costs

PAGE 33

The figure on the preceeding page titled 'Socioecolog i cal Framework for Determinants of Accidents Risk-Taking Benefits Perceptions of Risk and Costs', illustrates different factors that influence an individual s choices or levels of risk taking. The diagram demonstrates the importance of the environment in shaping individual behavior and how different factors affect behavior changes Multiple factors affect individual choices and perceptions of risk. Currently insurance companies policies and other distal factors have a much larger societal impact than individual and interpersonal factors When looking at the many factors that contribute to why people are not taking advantage of physically challenging and educat i onal exploratory activities-threat of lawsuits and litigation, potential injury, and risk management policies-it is important to look at how the individual is affected by societal and environmental influences When individuals feel that the actions they might take or that they might approve of others taking may result in harm, fear is at play. Whether this fear is justified is not important. What is important is understanding how the beliefs and values, and perceptions surrounding a variety of positive risk-taking opportunities like racing exploring gardens and edible plants jumping off of things perceived to be high, spinning in circles, and more Using the perspective of the Socioecological Model an individual s action toward healthy risk-taking behavior may be supported by organ i zational and policy change At the core of every policy is a societal perspective and statistical analysis Sometimes the statistical data dominates -34-

PAGE 34

decision-making At other times social constructs dominate Given that the odds of a child getting seriously injured on public playgrounds is relatively low (1 child for every 410 children may be injured and require medical treatment in a year6), how has the decision to limit the behavior of all children been established? Typically costs associated with these injuries are not substantial for the school district. In the last ten years only one lawsuit has resulted as a result of negligence from DPS (DPS, Stephen Finley Risk Management, 2004). In spite of these low actual costs and occurrences playgrounds continue to be designed and managed with more and more restrictive guidelines How can balance be achieved? What are the limits of diminishing returns with respect to user's perceived quality of playgrounds? Might a cost benefits or cost effectiveness model help answer these questions? 35-

PAGE 35

1 5. 3 Defining Risk What is risk? There are differences between perceived and actual risk. J K. Sanchez (2005, p 15) defines actual risk as "exposure to the chance of injury or loss ... a dangerous chance ... the degree of probability of such loss In order to determine risk we must calculate and compare probabilities. One way of doing this is to divide the number of unfavorable occurrences by the number of possible unfavorable occurrences For example, if 10 out of 50 cats have fleas, then we say 50 I 10 = 5 or 1 out of 5 cats is flea ridden. Or, if 56 000 auto fatalities occur each year out of 224,000,000 Americans, we can calculate 56,000/224,000,000 = 0.00025 or 1 out of 4,000 (Sanchez, 2005). Perceived risk Probability, the calculation of the likelihood of an event, was developed roughly 350 years ago. A French nobleman, the Chevalier de Mere, was a gambler who asked his friend, the mathematician Pascal, to explain why some gambling bets made money over time but others consistently lost over time Pascal wrote to his colleague Fermet and the ensuing correspondence became the foundation of probability Probability initially wasn't considered a serious branch of mathematics because of it's involvement in gambling. In 1662, John Graunt first used probability for a purpose other than gambling. He analyzed death records to assess mortality risk and set -36-

PAGE 36

appropriate fees for the first English life insurance policies Today probability is widely used to assess risk and aid decision making in many fields In medicine the risk of different treatments is compared ; car i nsurance rates are based on the chance of a claim and product quality i s assessed based on the probable defects of components All assessments of risk are based on historical statistical data As a result they are not prescriptive but are instead descriptive meaning they tend to assume that things will continue to happen in the same manner over time. Problems w ith this type of analysis result when statistical changes are not projected adequately. This type of model assumes that historical odds will continue to be the norm and disregards any social or environmental changes that may result over time An example of how actual numbers of probability and risk follow to help explain the significance of this problem -37

PAGE 37

The following figures show actual numbers of occurrences ( Siovic 1980,181-216 & CPSC 2001) : Source of Risk Annual Actual Deaths Smoking 150,000 A l cohol 100 000 Motor Vehicles 50 000 Handguns 17 000 Electric Power 14 000 Motorcycles 3 000 Swimming 3 000 Railroads 1 950 Bicycles 1 000 Nuclear Power 100 Home playgrounds 10 Public Playgrounds 4 Of the previous items listed which appear to pose great threat or risk? Assuming a population of 224,000 000 Americans, what are the actual odds? For example the risk of dying from the effects of nuclear power would be 100/224,000 000 = 0 0000004 --a very small risk. The current population of children in the United States is estimated to be 71,618 000. This means that the odds of death occurring on a home playground are actually 10/71 618 000 = 0.0000001396297020, an extremely small risk with less than 1% likelihood of occurrence And odds on a public playground are even smaller. It has been estimated 173,800 injuries requiring medical attention occur on public playgrounds each year Given a -38-

PAGE 38

population of 76,618,000 the odds of an accident happening are 173, 800n6,618 000 = 0 002426764 a relatively small risk, still less than 1% likelihood of occurrence. But when translated, these numbers can be interpreted as 1 child out of 412 is likely to be injured on a public playground This interpretation creates a heightened level of awareness of risk See Appendix C for a complete listing of actual odds of injury and risk. The way that probabilities and risks are communicated influences the way that we perceive risks and how we behave in an effort to counter those perceived risks. -39-

PAGE 39

1.5.4 Risk as a Social Construct Risk has been described as a social construct by Ulrich Beck in his book, Risk Society (1992) Beck argues that the concept of risk has changed and evolved into a pervasive aspect of our modern world because of societal influences. Beck states that increasing advancements of statistical analysis, technology, and mass communication have enhanced society's level of risk awareness How has the perception of risk on playgrounds been socially constructed by insurance agencies, lawyers media, and risk management experts? How much of what we perceive to be a risk is actually influenced by fact? And how do perceptions of risk hamper the quality of play environments created for children? In a study conducted in northwest England, researchers found that children enjoy playing in commercial playgrounds (although they argued that they would enjoy themselves more if the play equipment was more challenging) and that adults are more concerned with making playgrounds safer (McKendrick, 2000). Policy, landscape architecture, and litigation esearchers are starting to question the influence of insurance, litigation, and perceptions of risk on playgrounds Are playgrounds being "dummied up" as a result of adult fears of lawsuits and litigations? Philip Howard author of the bestselling novel The Death of Common Sense : How Law is Suffocating America (1995) writes -40-

PAGE 40

"In 1924 Will Rogers said Americans thought they were getting smarter because 'they're letting lawyers instead of their conscience be their guide.' Rogers was from Oologah, Oklahoma, where in 1995 a child suffered minor injuries when playing unattended on the slide in the town park The parents sued the town, which subsequently dismantled the slide 'I knew it was going then,' said Judy Ashwood, fifty-three who herself had played on the slide as a child It's hard for me to think that people who live here would actually sue the city if their child fell off the slide.' But the town board decided it had no choice, notwithstanding a citizen petition asking that the slide remain in the park It auctioned off the slide to a resident of a nearby town, getting $326.50, and the Oologah park slide was carted away. (Howard, 1995, p.3) All across America playgrounds are being closed or stripped of standard equipment. In 1997, Bristol, Connecticut, removed all of the seesaws and merry-go-rounds from its playgrounds. When told of the decision, the face of thirteen-year-old Jennifer Bartucca fell with disappointment. "Every time I come here, I ask a friend to go on the seesaws It is one of my favorite things to do at the park," said Jennifer : "I love merry-go-rounds. My father would push me on them when I was a little kid." Nicole LaPierre, sixteen, was equally disappointed "If you play right you re not going to get hurt." (Howard, 1995, p.5) Being safe has come a long way since Ralph Nader pointed out the -41-

PAGE 41

absence of safety guidelines for cars and other consumer products Avoiding risk is now practically a religion But it's not clear that the resu l ts are necessarily what most people want. Some towns have the resources to replace the playground equipment with new, safer alternatives but some experts and kids say new equipment is too boring According to Lauri Macmillan Johnson a professor of landscape architecture at the University of Arizona ch i ldren make up dangerous games, like crash i ng into the equipment w i th their b i cycles in order to make safer, newer playgrounds more exciting Products come plastered with imbecilic warnings (on a baby stroller : Remove child before folding "') for the same reason seesaws and merry go rounds are endangered species of playground equipment: fear of liability. The federal playground safety handbook morosely warns : "Seesaw use is quite complex So seesaws are being replaced with spring-driven devices used by only one child at a time This hardly seems as economically advantageous or as socially and experientially rewarding as an old school seesaw that also provided valuable lessons of applied physics. Unless we do away with gravity children are bound to fall down The federal handbook states : "Earth surfaces such as soils and hard packed dirt are not recommended because they have poor shock-absorbing properties At a local school in northwest Denver children are not allowed to run on the grass because it provides an uneven surface with potential to sprain ankles and does not provide enough cush i oning when children fall. These same children are not allowed to run on the blacktop because it is a hard surface that might result in injuries from falling In short there i s no 42

PAGE 42

place on this playground that children are allowed to run Why? Because of fear of injury In contrast the early twent i eth century playground movement aimed to acquaint children with mild risks In 1917 a movement leader said : "It is reasonably evident that if a boy climbs on a swing frame and falls off the school board is no more responsible for his action than if he climbed into a tree or upon the school building and falls There can be no more reason for taking out play equipment on account of such an accident than there would be for the removal of the trees or the school building (Howard, 1995 P.5) Today Denver Public Schools cuts branches off trees so children will not be tempted to climb The National Center for Injury Prevention and Control states, Few data exist about injury incidence and prevalence, costs relative risks of injury from different activities risk and protective factors and effective programs to prevent sports recreation and exercise injuries While some emergency departments surveillance data are available they lack exposure information and exclude the large proportion of sports, recreation and exercise i njuries that are treated i n primary care settings sports medicine clin i cs orthopedic cl i nics and chiropractic clinics (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control 2002 p .1) Stephen Kline North Vancouver Media Risk Reduction Intervention specialist states It seems paradox i cal that the modern risk sciences that -43-

PAGE 43

enable us to predict and control threats to our well being also produce an immobilizing sense of anxiety that surrounds those threats (Furedi 1997 p .1). In our risk society, consumers are both more aware of the health and environmental risks they face and more uncertain about what they can do to avoid them This seems particularly true of the myriad daily lifestyle choices related to their children's health that Canadians make in a growing atmosphere of fear, anxiety and confusion Of these lifestyle risks, some of the most difficult to manage and control are those associated with children's increasingly sedentary lifestyles (Kline 2003) We need to separate the probability that an event may occur in our country and the probability that it will occur to us as individuals In making an informed decision about my own behavior, I need to know the probability that I will be personally affected by a death or injury on a playground, not what the probability is that such an act may occur at some place and some time The odds of dying in an automobile accident each year are about one in 7 000, yet we continue to drive The odds of dying from heart disease in any given year are one in 400 and of dying from cancer one in 600 yet many of us fail to exercise or maintain a healthy diet. As adults, we have learned to live with these common threats to our health yet we have not had a government policy established to ensure that we are not harmed by our own actions Children do not have the luxury of choice in th i s regard In our litigious society we do not empower children to take personal responsibility and encourage them to identify positive risk-taking -44-

PAGE 44

opportunities. Instead we attempt to control their risks of injury through restrictive practices and policies A former national racing champion and one of Canada's most respected advocates of improving the driving environment Gary Magwood argues in his article "Safe is as Safe Does (2000), We humans are by nature a risk-taking species In ancient times we took risks just to eat. Later we took huge risks by setting out in little wooden ships to explore the earth's surface. We continued as we sought to fly travel faster than the speed of sound and to head off into space. We rely on increasingly more complex equipment and constantly strive to design and manufacture faster and even more elaborate devices It goes without saying that every effort is made to ensure our "safety"; to keep us from harm or danger (Magwood 2000, p 1) The only way to play safety is to be aware of potential harm and to learn to spot problems before they happen. If we never allow children the opportunity to do this on their own how will they develop these valuable life skills? Risk management research typically assumes that risk is an objective term but is it really? Although the statistical data available for playground risks is admittedly weak and incomplete, policies and practices are determined based on these available measures. Understanding how perceptions of risk i nfluence playground policy management use and design is not only -45-

PAGE 45

important for users but also for risk management and other decision makers. In Denver the need to meet safety regulations has offered the Learning Landscape Initiative the opportunity to create more creative and desirable playgrounds But are the new Learning Landscape play areas offering exciting appealing safe challenging and enriching environments or are we actually limiting the potential of these outdoor learning env i ronments out of fear of litigation? What do children think about the places in which they play and how might we better create safe and rewarding opportunities for the users? Figure 11 Boys at Remi ngton Elementary skidding out of puddle on bikes (Photo taken by Bambi Yost 2003 ) Children get bored easily and once a child has a piece of equipment mastered they will "create" other uses Not all of these uses are safe or desirable ." (Washington State Dept of Health 1998 p.51) -46-

PAGE 46

" Play is children s work ." (Ray Studer, 2005 Personal Interview) 1 5.5 The Nature of Play What motivates children to be physically active and to play? Most children love to play and most of their play enhances perceptual-motor development (Macintyre 2001) Children engage in complex movements which are typically categorized as gross movements, fine movements and manipulative skills Gross movements use the large muscle groups and are the ones most often recognized as beneficial for aerobic exercise like running and swinging Gross movements which involve balance and coordination are developed first. Fine movements, like dancing to a beat or rhythm and manipulative movements like those required to hit a ball with a bat, take more time to develop In addition, body awareness spatial awareness, and coordination are required for children to engage in any kind of strenuous physical activity What intervention may best enhance physical activity while addressing children's different developmental needs? How might the intervention reinforce existing behavior rather than trying to reinvent the wheel? Programs that do not address the existing behaviors of the participants are less likely to succeed (Hill, 2005) Physical activity can best be promoted by taking advantage of children's inherent desire to play -47-

PAGE 47

Exploratory/Functional play occurs when children actively explore materials and environments over and over again As children run their hands through sand and water they make neural connections that cannot be made in any other way As they climb up stairs and slide to the ground, they strengthen even more neural connections As they challenge themselves on climbers and overhead ladders cross clatter bridges and slide down fire poles they insure that the neural connections that are forming become permanent parts of their brains. In addition to these benefits climbers and upper body equipment also provide children with opportunities to develop emotionally These components are highly difficult to master and they physically challenge children. Thus, as children increase their skills on overhead ladders and climbers they develop a sense of accomplishment and independence Moreover exploratory play can be enjoyed in groups offering social development opportunities Children often enjoy swinging alongside one another as they test themselves and others Playgrounds that are full of natural elements in addition to fixed playground structures, promote exploratory play and physical activity (Brown et al, 2005) Researchers have found that elementary school children are most likely to enjoy : 1 Activities that focus on having fun and developing motor skills rather than on competition ; 2 Activities with flexible rules ; 3 Activities that require little instruction ; 4. Activities that do not require complex motor and cognitive skills (e g., entry-level baseball soccer) ; -48-

PAGE 48

5 Activities that require entry-level complex motor and cognitive skills ; and 6 Activities that continue to emphasize motor skill development but that begin to incorporate instruction on strategy and teamwork (Patrick et al, 2001) Playgrounds that address this set of activity are most likely to provide optimal experiential learning conditions to students Figure 1 2 S tu dents at M unroe Elementary School testing outdoor playground warm up circuit from boul ders t o swings to intermediate p lay equipment (Photos taken by B ambi Yost Apr. 21, 2005 ) -49-

PAGE 49

1 5.6 Health and Behavioral Risks of Limited Play Opportunities Sedentary lifestyles can lead to poor health later in life (Sallis & Owen 1999) Some of the common health problems associated with inactivity include obesity heart disease type II diabetes, decreased self-esteem and confidence, increased l i kelihood of depression decreased lifespan increased levels of stress, decrease of good" HDL cholesterol loss of bone density and increased risk of osteoporosis, decreased cognitive abilities decreased motor skills, decreased physical skills, lifelong drug dependency decreased student participation in sports decreased attention span i ncreased risk of cancer, decreased value of physical education and increased health care costs (Sallis & Owen, 1999; Welk 2002) Some factors and behaviors contributing to children's increasingly sedentary lifestyles as they relate locally to Denver Public Schools include student socio economic status, parental attitudes and behaviors, increased opportunities for sedentary recreation increased adult perceptions of risk regarding outdoor play and exploration, student fashion preferences lack of physical education requirements decreased opportunities for free play limited time for recess decreased value of play and physical activity increased curriculum requirements decreased quality of children's physical environments, and limited perspectives on what constitutes physical activity All of these are factors or behaviors that can be modified to a degree Of these socio-economic status is the least likely to be readily changed. The easiest thing to do is to raise awareness about what physical act i vity -50-

PAGE 50

actually is and how you can increase daily levels by simply doing a little more of what you already do on a day to day basis This includes raising awareness about walking and climbing stairs as phys i cal activities as well as awareness about physical activity levels required for playing on playgrounds, an overlooked activity Another relatively easy thing to do is to raise awareness about the risks and benefits of safe fun and challenging playgrounds Risk communications regarding playground injuries and fatalities frequently use scare tactics to promote safety Statistics in these promotional pieces tend to be misleading and poorly explained Even with current research declaring alarming national increases in obesity and reductions in phys i cal activity, the value of school ground settings has not improved (Frank 2002). In a recent study conducted to identify opportunities for increasing children s physical activity the playground setting was not addressed at all. The recommendations focused on new PE programs, increasing the duration and testing of physical education but never mentioned the quality of the outdoor physical environment and its ability to strengthen physical activity (Pyramid Communications 2003) Unfortunately, the social and built environment of many minority children living in impoverished urban neighborhoods frequently fails to support their healthy development. They are often exposed to lifeand health threatening environmental stressors such as street violence homelessness illegal drugs, and negative role models (Mcloyd, 1998) They also have limited access to safe outdoor play spaces and to structured opportunities 5 1

PAGE 51

for involvement in organized sports and activity lessons (Sallis et al, 1996) Research shows that low socioeconomic status (SES) minority children are more likely than non-minority children with high SES to have negative health related outcomes, including low levels of physical activity (Nader et al, 1995; US Department of Health and Human Services, Sallis et al, 1996 ; Nader et al, 1995 ; Mcloyd, 1998) and high rates of obesity (Ogden et al, 2002) PI.Al'JNO W1'l'U Nntll: i 8 ( ouli.h n ht J11 uich U11d bu1. '1\ hn hu bat) h;atlannd h alf C'UC oft' It] llwt ,,( litll., 6oi
PAGE 52

Finally, in terms of promoting the mental health of children and young people research by the Mental Health Foundation (1999a) highlights the importance of children being able to play and take risks and to use their own initiative It is also essential for them to have opportunities to practice making and maintaining friendships and to deal with conflict the basic skills needed in order to become emotionally literate' which increases their resilience to mental health problems (Mental Health Foundation 1999b) In the mental health field the importance of unsupervised play enabling children to take risks, to think through decisions and to gain in self confidence has been emphasized (Mental Health Foundation, 1999). The increasing restrictions on children s free time and opportunities to explore play environments without close adult supervision and structured activities are thus a cause for concern and require further research in terms of their effects on children s mental health Overall research focused on the role of play in promoting mental health among school-age children is lacking with much of the existing data focused on the use of play therapy with children already experiencing mental health difficulties. Health and behavioral benefits associated with stimulating unstructured play environments have been documented but have not been researched enough F i nancial savings that express hea l thy development as part of a preventive measure is needed To date, most research has been focused on problems and has not addressed preventive strategies that enhance -53-

PAGE 53

children's development. So far, only physical inactivity has had a dollar amount determined in an effort to argue for increased opportunities for play for children Estimated savings are described in detail in the cost effect i veness analysis section of this proposal. -54-

PAGE 54

1 5 7 Playground Design and Physical Activity The available quantitative and qualitative research though sparse, supports the hypothesis that differences in playground design are accompanied by d ifferences in physical activity (Moore and Wang 1997 ; Weinstein and Pinciotti, 1988) and outdoor education levels (Moore 2003 ; Hungerford and Volk 1990) For example, the transformation of an empty fenced-in blacktop schoolyard to a tire playground led to significant increases in active play. Children s engagement in organized games also increased while uninvolved behavior decreased substantially and active play rose from 16% to almost 40% of all observed behavior \1\/hile limitations in the research design make it impossible to draw conclusions from this research, the results of this and other research indicate that it is possible to design playgrounds that facilitate physical activity by providing stimulating environments that increase opportunities for active play (Malone and Tranter 2003 ; Weinstein and Pinciotti 1988). Children will often make do with whatever resources are available to them (Moore 1974) but it is likely that a high quality outdoor environment will attract children outdoors and provide a broader range of opportunities for physical activity and other educational pursuits Comments from an initial evaluation conducted by the Center for Research Strategies in 2003 for the Learning Landscape Initiative found that students were less likely to be injured and were more likely to engage in positive physical and exploratory activities on the rebuilt playgrounds -55-

PAGE 55

" Bloody knees elbows and injuries were a da i ly event on the o l d playground-not any-more. Principal Comment (CRS 2003) Increased physical activity is an immediate outcome of the Learning Landscapes. Eighty percent of the teachers surveyed agree that children are more physically active during recess Fifth graders stated that the girls are more act i ve using the new play equipment and boys are playing more football and they described the new playgrounds as more challenging and more organized Students also recognized the benefits of improved fall zone attenuation with the engineered wood fiber used in all play equipment areas reducing cuts They were also aware of the safety issues with the older equipment. Although students exhibit increased physical activity, the PE program has not incorporated new components of the playground into the physical education curriculum and data is lacking that substantiates improved hand-eye co-ordination and physical/motor skills. The playground gives the students a sense of responsibility and pride." Teacher Comment (CRS, 2003) Overall changes in the behavioral patterns of children were immediate Principals at the seven schools researched observed that the design and organization of the different play zones work well to disperse children and to give everyone a place to play with fewer conflicts Principals a l so -56-

PAGE 56

observed that the new playgrounds are easier to supervise because of the way they are organized Social gathering places are an integral part of the playground experience. It i s argued that effectively designed playgrounds impact social skills by decreasing uninvolved behavior" and reduc ing levels of bullying (Weinstein and Pinciotti, 1998) Of the teachers surveyed seventy-five percent agreed that students interact more with their peers during recess In addition principals reported that children were more ready to learn as a result of increased opportunities for challenging and creative play on the Learning Landscape playgrounds Once the playground was open, there was a sense of calmness in the children when they entered the building that didn t exist before." Principal Comment (CRS 2003) The recognition that students are more attentive after school has been documented (Jarrett et al 1998) and can be related to similar studies that relate worker's productivity to physical activity breaks Most recently new work on the effects of physical activity is also indicating that more sedentary lifestyles among children may be adversely affecting their academic performance and that by increasing levels of physical activity academic performance can be stimulated (Berliner 2001) This research which is still in its infancy is based on the premise that increased physical activity increases blood flow to the -57-

PAGE 57

brain which when coupled with learning tasks, causes the formation of dendrites and thus increases the neural pathways within the brain A variety of school based projects which have introduced more phys i cal activity into the school day have reported positively on the effects of these changes in terms of children being more alert gaining better scores in government standardized tests and in some schools, less truancy and bad behavior (Berliner 2001) results wh ich are likely to attract more detailed research attention in the future This i dea that children need phys i cal activity and healthy challenging play environments to stimulate thought is crucial and directly related to the notion that positive risk-taking can enhance beneficial cognitive processes In Macintyre s recent work Enhancing Learning through Play (2001), she notes that the current pressure for children to achieve a range of key competences means that "There is likely to be less time for either free or structured play fewer opportunities for children to decide what they would like to do and to determine their own pace of learning To achieve the targets the children must conform to an outside notion of what education in school is for and to someone else's idea of what they should learn. They must, in following that agenda confront someone else s problems rather than setting and solving their own". (Macintyre 2001 p.45) -58-

PAGE 58

To a large extent Macintyre suggests that the value of play in education is in question because of differing views as to what exactly education in school is for to pass exams (which suggests the need for direct instruction) or a more enabling exploratory form of learning (where play may have a greater role in helping children to explore and to learn from their activities). Having suggested that there are significant questions about the impact of play on formal learning, within the school setting two specific areas of research interest have focused on the positive outcomes of school playtimes : firstly, the impact of play periods on social learning and the formation of friendships and peer networks; secondly, the effects on children's attention span in ensuing lessons (Cole-Hamilton et al, 2001) -59-

PAGE 59

1 5 8 Children's Participation and Access to their Local Environment A range of literature with the fields of environmental psychology geography and urban studies, has highlighted that children have been marginalized in the decision making processes and that as a consequence, feel that urban areas have no spaces for them (Davis & Jones 1997 ; Woolley eta/, 1999) This in tum can have adverse consequences for their use of public spaces with some research based on an extensive survey of over 1 300 children in six neighborhood clusters, suggesting that there has been a decrease in the independent use of public space by children in England since the 1970s (O Brien eta/, 2000) According to the New Policy Institute such research findings have implications for public play provision and are also of relevance in terms of progress to date in meeting the requirements set out by the UN Convention to take account of children s views and to promote their participation (Cole-Hamilton et al, 2001 p.33). They also raise fundamental public health issues. The research study by Davis and Jones, wh ich involved semi-structured questionnaires with a sample of over four hundred 9-11 year olds and 13 14 year olds in four state schools in a major United Kingdom city is an example of one of these studies which examines the problems arising from the failure to consult w i th and involve children and young people in the planning of their environment, to take account of children's needs and 60-

PAGE 60

aspirations Th i s argues that the conceptualization of children in transport and env i ronmental planning as a problem' has resulted in an urban environment which is extremely hostile to the i r needs and aspirat i ons As problems, children are tidied away behind railings in parks in gardens and -best of alli ndoors (Cole-Hamilton et al, 2001 p 33)." The researchers argue that it is as a result of the urban environment becoming more dangerous that children find themselves i ncreasingly constrained and that in particular opportunities for independent mobility and access associated with the development of i mportant life skills have declined as traffic levels have increased". This they suggest should be a major agenda for public health and for environmental modification so that children "can begin to travel play and participate in urban life without fear." Without action the alternative is a more physically inactive less independent and less healthy young population", also that by allowing such marginalization young people are in danger of social exclusion Davis and Jones note that the findings of their study support the findings of VVheway and Millward that the majority of primary school children's outdoor play was active and that 'hanging out' was a valued activity However for many dirt lack of safety and traffic noise were perceived to be major problems -61-

PAGE 61

The New Policy Institute authors conclude that The views of children and young people are worth listening to if urban planners are to create environments in which young citizens can participate If they continue to be as at present marginalized in planning and policy making then the high (to some worryingly high) numbers who spend most of their out of school time watching television and playing computer games, and being driven to leisure activities in parents cars will continue to increase". (Cole-Hamilton et al, 2001 p 33) Although these studies were conducted in the United Kingdom similar research is underway in the United States As part of the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation s Active living research agenda multiple studies investigating children s environments and needs are being addressed In particular, a study to be conducted on Denver Public School playgrounds will assess the way that children use playgrounds and their activity levels on traditional playgrounds verses enhanced Learning Landscape playgrounds. This study will begin in the summer of 2005 and will utilize objective observatory measures from James Sallis SOP LAY and SO FIT studies The need to include children in discussions concerning safety and risks on playgrounds is extremely important if we are to help children take a more active role in i mproving their environments When children are included i n decision-making they gain a sense of ownersh i p and empowerment (Hungerford and Volk 1998) and are more l i kely to cla i m personal -62-

PAGE 62

responsibility for their actions as a result. This is particularly important when considering risk management practices and policies on playgrounds. If we wish to minimize injuries, we need to ask the users what they recommend DPS has already recognized the value in this approach from a safety awareness perspective (see Appendix D) but they have not inciu ded students in the decision-making process regarding play challenging play opportunities -63-

PAGE 63

1. 5 9 School Policies and Educational Programs Although ensuring access to high quality school playgrounds is expected to increase levels of physical activity and educational opportunities in children, the impact of this environmental enhancement is likely to be strengthened through directed educational and behavioral programs that encourage children to take advantage of such supportive, built environments Research suggests that environmental modifications will have greater effects when combined with strategies that target individual and social factors to foster participation in physical activity (CDC 2003; Giles-Corti and Donvan, 2002) For example one study found that only a small percentage of middle school students (2% of girls and 6% of boys) were physically active during unstructured time without environmental support In contrast children had the highest levels of physical activity when the school had supportive environmental opportunities and adult supervision Outdoor education research reveals similar results According to environmenta l e ducation researchers Hungerford and Volk, people are more likely to take advantage of outdoor teaching opportunities if they have been empowered to do so through social and environmental supports (Hungerford and Volk 1990) These findings imply that school policies and programs, such as allowing sufficient time for outdoor recess permitting children to get dirty wh i le playi n g dur ing r e cess and e ve n i n c orpo r ating children in the work requ i red t o maintain the upkeep of quality play areas may be important in increasing -64-

PAGE 64

physical experiential learning opportunities Addressing multiple levels of influence on behavior through environmental interventions as well as educational and behavioral programs is likely to result in the creation of social and built environments that enable and encourage healthy levels of safe and challenging physical activity and educational exploration Figure 14 Susan Bardwell with Grounds for Learning teaches students how to plant and mai ntain plantings at Munroe Elementary school. (Photo taken by Bambi Yost 2005) -65-

PAGE 65

1. 5. 10 Supportive Environments A recent study published in the Pediatrics Journal suggests a direct link between physical activity and the environment to which children are exposed (Brown et al, 2001 ) With the average child spending 1300 hours at school each year schools are important environments for children (Day 1 995). Schools have the potential to provide numerous opportunities for the p r omotion of physical activity (CDC, 1997) and creative free play (Jambor, 1990; Macintyre 2001; Bronfenbrenner, 1979) The opportunities to promote physical activity may include physical education recess intramural programs, interscholastic sports, and access to schooi physical activity facilities during and outsjde of school hours (Wechsler et al, 2000). The opportunities to promote outdoor education may include recess after school programs, outdoor class sessions, science fairs, and gardens A pro m ising way to increase physical activity and outdoor education is by improving children's access to areas where they can have high rates of challenging and exciting physical activity and exploration while providing supportive role modeling and encouragement to succeed -66-

PAGE 66

1.6 RATIONALE FOR THE INVESTIGATION Risk management and safety on playgrounds has been stressed repeatedly in literature Costs associated with insurance litigations, injuries and prevention programs are well documented and established Statistica l analysis of injuries occurring on playgrounds is weak and largely unques tioned Yet administrators, designers users and policy make r s continue to follow recommendations based more on fear of litigation and raising insurance rates than on accurate statistical analysis. As a counter to these accepted norms this research strategy and design contends that there are benefits of challenging play environments that can be economically and statistically determined. Because current risk management policy is driven by costs and probable risk an investigation that assesses the benefits from this same perspective is more likely to be well received and understood by risk assessment professionals This research strategy and design aims to put the benefits of risk-taking and challenging play environments into terms that risk management, insurance and policy makers can utilize. -67-

PAGE 67

2 PROCEDURES A linear approach to problem solving works for limited, focused problems with right and wrong answers but in complex situations like the study at hand this is not the case. Instead, a nondeterministic approach i s necessary to evaluate the complexities of risk and playgrounds. Th i s r esearch strategy and design a i ms to explore perceptions of r i sk po licies d es ign s and overall quality of playgrounds us i ng multi-methods to ga the r data and a cost effectiveness analysis model. See visual models section for complete details. "We need to encourage students to try a patterned approach where they explore a proble m Move f orward and backward o r u p and down between levels of the problem/solution spaces and struggle with different definitions and solutions ." (Bardwell and Tudor, 1994) 68-

PAGE 68

2.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIXED METHODS RESEARCH Research design models provide framework or structure for inquiry There are a variety of ways to approach r esearch John Creswell author of Research Design Qualitative Quantitative and M ixed Methods Approach (2003) argues that good research design models cons ider three framework elements These elements are : 1) philosophical assumptions about what constitutes knowledge claims 2) general procedures of research called strategies of i nqu i ry 3) and detailed procedures of data collection analysis and writing called methods. In addition, M Crotty states in his book The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process ( 1998) that in designing a research proposal four questions should be considered : 1) VVhat epistemology theory of knowledge imbedded in the theoretical perspective-informs the research (objectivism subjectivism, etc)? 2) VVhat theoretical perspective philosophical stance lies behind the methodology in questions (e.g positivism and post-positivism, interpretivism, critical theory etc )? 3) \Nhat methodology strategy or plan of action that links methods to outcomes-governs our choice and use of methods (e g expe r imental research survey research ethnography etc .)? -6 9

PAGE 69

4) What methods-techniques and procedures-do we propose to use (e. g., questionnaire, interview focus group etc .)? These questions address interrelated levels of decisions that go into the process of developing a research strategy and design for a particular inquiry Traditionally social researchers have followed the scientific method or positivist or post-positivist approach ; there are however a number of other available approaches This investigation takes a pragmatic approach utilizing multiple methods to gather data from a variety of sources, in the hopes that a more child focused planning process will result with regards to playground design Currently, risk management decisions are all based on statistical analys i s and insurance related costs The decis i on makers are not the users but are i nstead adults charged with p r otecting children from hann and injury The argument that safety is an important factor when designing playgrounds i s not in question What i s in question are the properties of a safe playground by today s standards with respect to user perceptions and actual likelihood of injury. What are the odds of injury? V\lhat are the benefits of challenging play environments? Have we created places where children no longer wish to go? -70-

PAGE 70

2.2 MULTI-METHODS DESIGN This multi-methods research strategy and design investigates Denver Public Schools risk management policies and practices and user perceptions of risk. How do perceptions influence policies, practices and safety, fun, and learning on playgrounds? Creswell's (2003) Concurrent Transformative Mixed Methods Strategy Model will be implemented in this study so that quantitative and qualitative data can be gathered and analyzed concurrently in an effort to best converge information to provide evidence for inequalities (Creswell, 2003) Inequalities are expected to be proven between user perceptions of risks and benefits of risk-taking and safety policies and actual injuries This method allows for multiple methods, varying types of data, and extensive interpretations. Mixed methods offer a variety of strengths to a research design It allows the researcher to collect different forms of data concurrently during a single data collection phase which can further inform the next phase of data gathering. It also enables multiple perspectives to emerge at different times of the study. Because quantitative and qualitative data are not easily transformed into readily paired variables and parameters, some difficulties may arise with analysis. One way to resolve this issue for this particular study is to use focus groups in conjunction with a survey asking participants to determine their own weighted value system for risks and benefits. An example of how this has been done in prior studies can be found in Weber's 2002 Domain-Specific Risk-Attitude Scale Study. Details of this study are located in Appendix F. 71

PAGE 71

2.3 VISUAL MODEL AND PROCEDURES OF THE DESIGN 2.3.1 Steps to be Taken-Idea to Conclusion The diagram on the following page illustrates the steps required for research. Certainly some of these steps may occur out of sequence. In fact, often the funding source is identified prior to the research proposal. It simply depends upon the project and available resources 72

PAGE 72

Figure 15 Steps involved in a research study from initial idea to conclusion Created by Bambi Yost Diagram of steps involved in a research study -73-

PAGE 73

2 3 2 Concurrent Transformative Mixed Methods Strategy QUANTITATIVE + QUALITATIVE Vision, Advocacy Ideology Framework Figure 16 Adap ted from Creswell, 2003, p.214 The Concurrent Transformative Mixed Methods Strategy will be implemented in this study so that quantitative and qualitative data can be gathered and analyzed concurrently in an effort to best converge information to provide evidence for inequalities (Creswell, 2003). Qualitative case-study methodology will be used to determine user perceptions of risk at three Denver Public elementary school playgrounds. This research will utilize focus groups, cognitive mappings, and photo surveys to gather data, establish var i ables and constraints, and user perceptions associated with risks and benefits on each site's playgrounds Both students and adult supervisors will be asked to participate but the focus group meetings will be held separately Cognitive mappings of the playgrounds highlighting perceived playground risks and benefits will be created by participants. These data will be analyzed for general themes and will be integrated into part two of the study As part of this research participants will be asked to rank risks and benefits These weighted values will be applied to identified playground elements or spaces -74-

PAGE 74

Concurrently, a more quantitative method that utilizes Geographic Information System (GIS) technology and as-built maps and playground data for each site will be created. Data gathered from part one will be added to the GIS database showing layers of perceived risk and benefits relative to user's perceptions in an attempt to further identify patterns. Individual meetings with participants will be held so that students and adults may clarify their cognitive mappings in relation to the site-based technical GIS maps created They will be asked to add any additional opinions or insight at this time as well. In addition, participants will be asked to rate risks and benefits for cost effectiveness and/or cost benefit analysis of findings. It is hoped that by comparing user values of benefits to costs incurred with risks, a new policy directive may emerge This type of approach empowers children and creates a participatory process where individual voices have equal weight. -75

PAGE 75

2 3 3 Balancing the Costs, Benefits and Risks Injury-Related Costs Benefits Insurance Litigation & R i sk Management Pol i cy Psychological & Developmental Health Mediators Perceptions of Risk Challenging Risk Taking Educational Opportun i ties Value of Challenging Play Opportunities & Probability of Risk Figure 17 Diagram of Costs, Benefits, and Mediators Created by Bambi Yost, May 13, 2005. Currently insurance l i tigation and risk management policies determ i ne the design management and behav i or on playgrounds There is a definite imbalance. This is mostly because i t is difficult to place a dollar value on psychological and developmental health benefits associated with fun challenging playg r ounds (Clark 2003). How might these variables be 76

PAGE 76

better balanced and determined? How do you establish economic values of intrinsic psychological and developmental health benefits? By establishing various influences of the perceptions of risk user values of risk-taking opportunities, and the actual probability of risk for Denver Public Elementary School Learning Landscape Playgrounds, I hope to provide a method for balancing the costs and benefits. -77-

PAGE 77

Table 1 Matrix to Determine Pros and Cons of Challenging Play Environments Pros Savings Associated with Preventive Care and Optimal Conditions for Children's Healthy Development Perceptions of Children's Developmental Benefits Associated with Fun, Challenging and Exploratory Play Environments Cons Costs Associated with Lawsu i ts, Insurance & Injuries Perceptions of Risks Associated with Fun Challenging and Exploratory Play Environments -78-Quantitative Financially & Stat i stically Determined (POLICY) Qualitative Value-Based & Personally Determined (INDIVIDUAL)

PAGE 78

2 3 4 Proposed Playground Quality Index Assessment Focus Groups and surveys will determine the values and any additional indicators for the proposed playground quality index assessment matrix below. Tab l e 2 Proposed P l ayground Quality Inde x Assessment Matrix Proposed Playground Quality Index Assessment Matrix mpo rta W hts G" nee 1ven Scale 1 to 1 00 DECISION-MAKERS USERS Playground DPS Risk Children's DPS DPS Management Development Quality Indicators Experts Experts Personnel Students 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Fun Challenging I Promoting Positive Risk-Taking Capacity # of Students Using Playground (during school hours) # of Students Using Playground (outside school hours Age Appropriate Supervision Accessability (ADA and hours of operation) Cost of Playground Durability & Maintenance Appearance Upper Body Opportunities Lower Body Opportunities -79-

PAGE 79

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Scale 1 to 1 00 Playground Quality Indicators Balance Opportunities Imagination & Creative Opportunities Academic Education Opportunities Physical Education Opportunities Art Education Opportunities After School Program Opportunities Community Focused I Gathering Opportunities Multi-Generational Opportunities Social Opportunities Autonomous & SelfDirected Opportunities Perceptions of Risk # of Injuries Requiring Advanced Medical Care #of Deaths #of Lawsuits DECISIONMAKERS USERS DPS Risk Children's DPS DPS Management Development Experts Experts Personnel Students Additional variables to be determined based on focus group meetings and existing risk management policies Initial assessment of possible variables based on literature and findings to date Using a modified version of Professor Thomas Clark's cost effectiveness model7 allows for qualitative input in the planning process. Both experts and users are able to have equal input with this model. Once values have been determined by users, different indices will be created to represent each group's preferences This allows for a weighted evaluation that is not 80-

PAGE 80

simply based on cost alone A risk management quality index a playground quality index and a health and developmental quality index will be created and then standardized and applied to the cost effectiveness model. 8 1

PAGE 81

ostl;ft4!< 2 3 5 Proposed Cost Effectiveness Analysis Using the proposed cost effectiveness model illustrated on the following page existing playground plann i ng procedures can be compared to proposed playground planning procedures to identify inequalities and influences of risk percept i ons on existing policies and user behaviors The proposed cost effectiveness model enables weighted qualitative assessments of r i sk management playground quality and health & developmental quality based on the proposed playground quality i ndex assessment matrix explained in the previous section. Table 3 Proposed Cost Effectiveness Analysi s Model IIVtnHt MatYIII Av.._coot ofiMunnce, Aver09" Sav ings of HtaMh-Awerage l of 11\'W .......... CoM ot tn)un..per Qoro,eiopm.m..t eo.w TOUI Coa t of '"Acuv..-Tot.l of atu cte n ta P layground per Playground Playgrou n d u ,. ACU. atod .. ExtemtlhiH ... UnM (Tl eso oNi ndJeu Tht higher lh t lndox tilt moN nfj o live tflo l mpoct) T olol Coot of A"!!costol I(A"''/ cost of P0ygroond + A"''/ Plnypround A "'I Co.t of Ri>lt of Heoilh & generolitod lllndordizod genl!lizod A"11Heollh & Oevelopmenlol Costs) Stondordile.1i/M-.t
PAGE 82

2.4 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES 2 4. 1 Types of Data 2 4 1 1 Risk Management Policy & Injury Reports Data will be gathered from the DPS Risk Management Grounds and Facilities Departments, as well as at the three selected elementary school sites to determine current safety practices and policies Some of this information has already been collected and can be viewed in Appendix D. 2.4.1.2 Physical Site Design & Specifications Data regarding specific play equipment and playground elements and designs will be obtained through the DPS facility management and grounds departments and the Learning Landscape Initiative Some of this data is available in Appendix D 2.4.1.3 User Perceptions of Risks & Benefits Children's perceptions and school personnel perception's of risks and benefits in relation to the playgrounds will be gathered in separate focus group meetings. In addition informational interviews to establish present influences of litigation upon risk management strategies will be conducted with risk management and safety personnel, thus yielding valuable quantitative and qualitative data. 2.4 2 Sampling Strategy Three schools have been selected based on similar student socioeconomic demographics. These schools will be used as individual case studies Further cross-sectional evaluation is possible because of the fairly homogenous nature -83-

PAGE 83

of the populations management and designs at these schools. In addition, longitudinal studies may be carried out to examine what changes if any occur in social constructs of risk perceptions over time -84-

PAGE 84

2.5 DATA ANALYSIS Balancing the associated risks with the benefits is a difficult task but one worth undertaking This is especially true because so little quantitative research has been conducted on the benefits of risk-taking and the perceptions of risk However, in order to counter the existing risk management costs predicated on lawsuits and insurance that drive current policy development a balancing of costs need to be established for limits placed on risk-taking and challenging opportunities in playgrounds. 2 .5.1 Cost Benefit and/or Cost Effectiveness Analysis VVhat are the benefits of providing challenging play environments that enable a safe level of risk-taking? How might these benefits be calculated in financial terms? Do the benefits of challenging outdoor play environments outweigh the costs? One way to determine potential costs is to calculate the savings associated with challenging environments is to measure the associated benefits of providing challenging and rewarding play environments According to the Center for Disease Control, "Inactivity, with its associated health problems has a tremendous impact on the U.S health care system. Inactivity increases morbidity and mortality associated with many chronic diseases and the costs of caring for persons with those diseases (CDC, 2003). From direct and indirect health care costs, the nationwide expenses attributable to obesity totaled $117 billion in 2000 (CDPHE, 2005) Direct medical costs -85-

PAGE 85

associated with physical inactivity were $29 billion i n 1987 and nearly $76 b i llion in 2000 (NCOA 2004) At a state level the Colorado Department of Public Health s Physical and Nutrition State Plan 2010 estimated the costs from overweight and obesity prevalence in Colorado to be $657 million in direct costs and $607 million in indirect costs. Direct health care costs refer to preventative diagnostic and treatment services. Indirect costs are the value of wages lost by people unable to work because of illness or disability, and the value of future earnings lost by premature death Excess body weight increases loses in productivity from health complications as well as decreases years of earned wages due to premature death (CDPHE, 2005) The benefits of physical activity in reducing morbidity and mortality are well established but the effect of physical inactivity on direct medical costs is less clear (Pratt et al, 2000) In a study conducted for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1987 to describe the direct medical expenditures associated with physical inactivity the mean net annual benefit of physical activity was $331 82 per person When converting 1987 dollars to today's 2005 value using the online program called The Inflation Calculator that net benefit is actually $557.81 (Friedman 2005) The research design consisted of a cross-sectional stratified analysis of the 1987 National Medical Expenditures Survey that included US civilian men and nonpregnant women aged 15 and older who were not in institutions in 1987. The main outcome measure was direct medical costs 86

PAGE 86

Findings revealed that for those 15 and older without physical limitations the average annual direct medical costs were $1,019 (or $1712.99 in 2005) for those who were regularly physically active and $1, 349 (or $2267.44 in 2005) for those who reported being inactive Medical care use (hospitalizations, physician visits, and medications) was also lower for physically active people than for inactive people These results suggest that increasing participation in regular moderate physical activity among the more than 88 million inactive Americans over the age of 15 might reduce annual national medical costs by as much as $29 2 billion in 1987 dollars$ 49.1 billion in 2005 dollars (Pratt et al, 2000) This means that for every individual, an annual reduction of $331 82 in 1987 (or $557.81 in 2005) in direct medical expenses could be expected simply by increasing regular moderate physical activity Due to the nature of extrapolations this data should only be used for estimates. These extrapolated direct medical cost benefits numbers will be applied to Eagleton, Munroe, and Remington's student populations Worker's salaries and loss of income will be exchanged for student academic hours spent in school and associated performance levels needed for scholastic success This argument is based on findings showing student academic performance and classroom attentiveness are increased when physical activity is provided (Taylor, 1993; Moore, 1974; CRS 2003) -87-

PAGE 87

Estimating the Cost of Injuries to Children at School: According to Children s Safety Network (CSN) Economics and Insurance Resource Center (EIRC) "Cost analysis is an important research tool that is increasingly a focal point for debate and decision-making In injury prevention research, cost analyses provide data that help formulate health policy and improve delivery systems. These analyses provide a way to reduce disparate outcomes-traumatic deaths, fractured wrists, head injuries-to a common metric That makes cost data invaluable for problem size and risk assessment, broad priority setting, resource allocation modeling, health and safety advocacy regulatory analysis, and program evaluation." (CSNEDC, 1997) The CSN-EIRC has undertaken two projects that estimate the cost of injuries to children at school. First, EIRC is collaborating with the Utah Department of Health's Child Injury Prevention Program (CIPP) to analyze the cost of injuries in Utah schools. The Utah Student Injury Reporting System collects data on date, time, activity, location, victim demographics, body region injured type of injury and level of treatment of the injury. Costs are estimated based on the body region and type of injury, as well as treatment received. CIPP will share the results with state legislators school administrators, the Utah Offices of Risk Management and Education, and parent-teacher organizations to promote school safety programs Recently, EIRC estimated the national incidence and cost of injuries to children at school using 1987-1992 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) data The -88-

PAGE 88

NHIS annually collects information from 45 000 nationally representative households regarding demographic characteristics health care use and acute and chronic conditions including episodes of persons injured and place the injury occurred Costs were estimated based on the injury diagnosis. Results show that each year, an estimated 1 in 14 children suffers a medically treated injury at school. These injuries annually result in $3 2 billion in medical spending and nearly $89 billion in good health lost (CSN-EIRC 1997). Scope of the Analysis: Costs and consequences will be measured for the students and school personnel who directly use the playgrounds Estimated Value of Outcomes: Benefits of enhanced physical activity levels in students can not be measured as i mmediate outcomes but rather need to be assessed based on expected lifelong behavior change and expected patterns of health awareness and physical activity engagement. Even small changes in daily activities can enhance physical health and well-being (Welk, 2002) According to a study conducted by Dr Chenoweth in 2003, "Preventive action even action that convinces only a small percentage of residents to incorporate physical activity into their lifestyle has the potential to deliver an enormous return on investment. Expected direct medical cost benefits associated with a learning landscape program are extremely high in comparison to actual costs to run the program 89-

PAGE 89

In addition there are a number of cognitive developmental benefits associated with physical activity (Williams 1986 ; Cohen & Trostle, 1990 ; Moore 1990 ; Jensen 1998 & 2000 ; CRS 2003) Also several findings have shown student academic performance and classroom attentiveness are increased when physical activity is provided (Taylor 1993 ; Moore 1974 ; CRS 2003) potentially increasing Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) numbers over t i me Another associated benefit of this program is a reduction of playground injuries in relation to play equipment as students participating in the program will have train i ng on proper use of equipment. The numbers associated with a dec r ease i n injuries has not been included explicitly however it is expected to be substantial. Conclusions With ever increasing costs of health care prescriptive planning programs like the one proposed make sense It is estimated that every dollar spent on the Learning Landscape Program will yield approximately three t i mes that amount in direct medical cost benefits. A small number of individuals making long-term heath changes now will make a huge financial difference saving tax payers money far into the future. Studies show that be l iefs attitudes behaviors and lifestyle choices are established during childhood (Hungerford & Volk 1990 ; Benard 2004; Bronfenbrenner 1979, and others) In addition programs linked to Phys i cal Education classes offer additional daily support and have been shown to produce higher than expected healthy benefit outcomes as a result (Task Force on Commun i ty Preventive Services 2000) Also cognitive and developmental benefits associated with phys i cal activity will be greatly 90-

PAGE 90

enhanced potentially improving academic performance in students who have traditional rece i ved low or unsatisfactory scores -91

PAGE 91

2.6 SUBJECTS 2 6. 1 Eagleton Munroe and Remington Denver Public Schools Eagleton, Munroe and Remington Denver Public Elementary Schools have been selected for pilot risk perception studies focused on 3n:1 -5111 graders, their parents, and faculty members at the schools using nontraditional strategies in outdoor play environments These schools were chosen because of their specific socioeconomic and ethnic demographics (DPS 2005), observed increases in sedentary behavior during recess and in physical education classes (Principals and PE teachers, informal interviews, 2004), and personal observations of limited creative free play Figure 18 All 3rd-5th grade Eagleton Munroe, and Remington Elementary School Students The three selected DPS Learning Landscape playgrounds built by school students, parents, staff, faculty, and invested community members, are located within three of Mayor Wellington Webb s sixteen Focus Neighborhoods. Denver's Focus Neighborhood Initiative (FNI), originated by Mayor Wellington Webb and managed by the Housing and Neighborhood Development Services (H&NDS) of the Community Planning and Development Agency (CDA) of the City and County of Denver, Colorado contracted a research/survey Neighborhood Needs Assessment of sixteen different neighborhoods that -92-

PAGE 92

demonstrate economic distress (Baker Clayton Cole Elyria/Swansea Five Points, Globeville, Jefferson Park, La Alma/Lincoln Park Northeast Park Hill Skyland, Five Points Sunnyside Sun Valley Valverde Villa Park Westwood and Whittier). More than half of Denver's neighborhoods experienced an increase of 50% in their Latino population over the last decade. And by 2000, twenty-one of the seventy-six neighborhoods had populations greater than 50% Latino Immigrants concentrated in neighborhoods in west and northeast Denver, including West Colfax Villa Park Barnum Westwood Valverde, Baker Highland, Globeville, Clayton and Elyria Swansea. In Jefferson Park about 50% of residents were foreign born; about 41% in Cole Since 2000, Latino populations have grown in the Southwest and Northeast sections of the city. Between 1990 and 2000, the city experienced an increase of almost 200% in its foreign-born population, from 35,000 to 97,000 Mexicans are Denver's largest immigrant group, making up two-thirds of the immigrant population. According to the 2000 Census, almost 40,000 Denver residents eighteen years of age and older (9%) did not speak English well or at all. Of those, 87% spoke Spanish Within Denver Public Schools 32 1% of the children do not speak English as their first language Spanish speaking students make up 29 9% of the student body with only 2.1% speaking other languages -93-

PAGE 93

Denver Public Schools Learning Landscapes ...... .... 0J<', ;-r. '* Learning Landscapes DPS Elementary Schools Census Boundaries 1 2 Bromwell 3 Castro 4 Colfax 5 Columbian 6 Columbine Cowell Crofton Eagleton Ebert 11 Fairmont 12 Fairview 13 Garden Place 14 Gilpin Greenlee Mitchell Munroe Remington Smedley 20 Smith 21 Swansea 22 Whittier Figure 19 Eagleton, Munroe, and Remington Denver Public Elementary Schools located within former Mayor Wellington Webb s Focus Neighborhoods (Graphic created by Bambi Yost 2005)

PAGE 94

As expected overall school enrollment is increas ing district wide but it is not occurring where schools already exist. Instead the population increases a r e i n neighborhoods traditionally comprised of non-family households As a result Denver Public Schools has been forced to build new schools With a dwindling tax base and limited political support Denver Public Schools face increas i ngly difficult challenges. Latinos were coacentrated ia neighborhoods We$t and north of dowatown. Percent populaDoo by race and ethnicity 2000 : Denver n eighborhoods Figure 20 Latino Populations within the City and County of Denver (Source : U S Decenn ial Census 2000 ) -_,_ n G reaer than SO'f. la'dno (21) D G reaer thanSO
PAGE 95

industries that employ large numbers of unskilled and low-income workers Corresponding with the job loss was a sharp i ncrease in unemployment and the poverty rate Pwt:r1y: H Poer i s Pelrf 2000 Sin of F.dtral Poweny F411liy Guldoliut 1 $ 8 .350 2 $11.250 3 $14. 150 4 $17,(l)() 5 $19.!150 6 $22,850 7 $25.750 8 $28.650 According to the 2000 census report overall economic trends indicate a decrease in poverty levels however with an increase in population the actual number of residents living in poverty has not changed Families with children the majority of which are Latino, represent the majority of persons living in poverty Students receiving free or reduced lunch represent 70.3% of the district or 26 512 students. In addition, large disparities in educational attainment by race/ethnicity and by place of residence exist. In Denver, 48% of white adults age twenty-five or older have college degrees, but only 18% of black and 8% of Latino adults age twenty-five or older do -96-

PAGE 96

Poor aad at risk neigllborhoads in Denver had the highest 11ercentage of households with children. Pac:eetfilnles with Cllildte1 21H Greater than .W.i. (11! 25'HJ (24) D (22) D Less tun (18) 0 Le--..s hn 3 Events (2) llJDPOOINeighborhood rn At-Risk Neighborhood Figure 21 Poor and AtRisk Children in Neighborhoods within the City and County of Denver. (Source : U S Decennial Census 2000) 2. 6. 2 Socio-Economic and Cultural Influences With respect to health and children's physical and psychological development, family income seems to matter (Mallahy and Wolfe, 2002) Adolescents from families with incomes below 130 percent of the federal poverty threshold are twice as likely to be overweight (16 percent) as those from families with incomes that are 130 percent above the federal poverty level (8 percent) With so many Denver youth living in poverty, is it any wonder that we have seen increases in obesity? And along with obesity comes decreased opportunity for physically active exploratory play as a result of intrapersonal barriers (Zabinski, 2003). 97-

PAGE 97

According to Dennis Raphael author of Health Effects of Inequality (2000) and Health Inequities in the United States : Prospects and Solutions," (2000) poverty is potentially the strongest determinant of health The impacts of poverty on health have been documented since the nineteenth century (Sram & Ashton) and more recently in the United Kingdom in the Black and the Health Divide reports (Townsend, Davidson & \1\/hitehead 1992) These reports show that people living in poverty have a greater likelihood of suffering from a wide range of diseases and of death from illness or injury at every stage of life (Townsend 1999). The New York Times (Johnson February 1, 2004) reported that Colorado, once the healthiest state had obesity rates surging to almost 17% i n 2002 and almost doubling in the last decade Only ten states did worse in 2002 in holding down or reducing the number of severely overweight residents. And in Colorado School nurses identified a growing problem across Denver s 72 000 student district. One school nurse is quoted describing the increase in juvenile diabetes, cardiac problems and hypertension Nationally nearly 9 million children between ages 6 and 19 were overweight in 2000, triple the proportion reported in 1980 according to the National Center for Health Statistics Applied to DPS students more than 10 000 pupils are overweight. Colorado figures show the trend begins early. In 1983 4 8 percent of Colorado children ages 2 to 5 enrolled in a federal nutrition program were considered overweight. In 2002 that figure had nearly -98-

PAGE 98

doubled to 8 7 percent according to the state health department. (Rocky Mountain News February 2, 2004) According to an after-school Program Leader at Munroe Elementary School, "A lot of these kids really want to participate in Denver Scores but they can t because they are not allowed to walk or ride their bikes to school and their parents are unable to pick them up at the end of the day We offer transportation to and from games but unfortunately we don't have the money to shuttle kids back and forth to their houses as well. (Spring 2005 Personal Interview) When I pressed for details regarding biking I was told, "The school actually has a policy forbidding students to ride their bikes here A lot of the kids live on the other side of Federal Boulevard and you know how busy that street gets. Plus, they [Principal and others] are worried about theft and liability. We don't even have bike racks (Spring 2005 Personal Interview) The experience of Denver Public Schools 37,712 elementary students is comparable to that of other urban schools districts DPS has wide socio economic disparities in its student population. In March of 2004 the Denver Board of Education passed Resolution that established a commission of community experts to address growing concerns about the quality of school nutrition and physical activity in the schools According to the Commission on School Nutrition and Physical Activity Final Report (DPS, 2004) 99-

PAGE 99

" There is no single overriding cause of childhood obesity. Rather, it's a confluence of trends that combine to have a more potent effect than any one variable could have on its own Like every other American community over the last two or three decades, the city has experienced the rise of manufactured fast food, the explosion of sedentary entertainment, plus daunting work and school schedules that preclude the traditional home-cooked meal or healthy brown bag school lunch Concurrently, we've suffered from declining public education budgets that have impacted school cafeteria meals, physical education programs sports activities and school nursing." (DPS, 2004) Denver Public Schools Physical Education Instruction and Curriculum Coordinator, Eric Larson has this to say, "There is great variability in program offerings in physical education (PE) within the Denver Public Schools. Some elementary schools are able to offer a healthy 150 minutes of physical activity per week. Others have no program at all. Over the last thirteen years the average amount of time that students spend in elementary school PE has declined by 44%. In the last year alone, staffing has declined 16 %." (DPS, 2004) Eric recommends that one way to get kids moving is by setting requirements for gym classes Students in elementary school for example would build up to spending 30 minutes per day in physical education. In addition, Larson said, as many as one in four elementary schools have eliminated recess other than a brief period at lunch, to focus on academics One recommendation calls for all elementary students to have daily morning or afternoon recess 100

PAGE 100

Another idea is to integrate outdoor environments and play equipment into regular Physical Education classes so that students understand how to get a physical workout on things readily available to them outside of school hours Larson also said I used to do outdoor circuits all the time It's a great workout and the kids really enjoy it. By creating routes that get incrementally more challenging on play equipment and on other areas of the playground students have the opportunity to challenge themselves and each other outside of class time And that's good for overall fitness as well as motor skills balance confidence levels self-esteem and safety on the site." They're bold recommendations Larson said, while drawing a line between physical education and academics. "I believe the more active kids are the better they are prepared to learn." Although Denver Public Schools acknowledges that there is a growing concern over obes i ty in Denver s student population they state that outs i de factors play major roles as well. How has risk management policy affected children s willingness to push themselves physically? How do these policies limit their behavior on playgrounds? Are children as likely to be physically challenged in nonsupportive, over-protective environments? 101

PAGE 101

2. 7 PROCEDURE First focus group discussions will be held to determine user perceptions of risk and variables associated with perceptions of risk After several meetings held with different user groups (students school personnel risk management, insurance and litigation experts at DPS) a follow up survey will be created to determine how perceived benefits of challenging playgrounds weigh in relation to perceived risks associated with challenging play environments Once variables are established a cost benefit analysis will be utilized for those variables that can be directly linked to financial outcomes. An example of such a variable is physical activity If enhanced physical activity is recognized as a benefit of playgrounds, then a cost benefit analysis of insurance rates and medical expenses can be compared to those of the costs associated with inactivity The Robert Woods Johnson Foundation has recently completed a study to determine the costs associated with physical inactivity See the visual model presented in the proposed cost effectiveness analysis model section above 102-

PAGE 102

2.8 PRECEDENT Several studies have investigated perceptions of risk risk-taking benefits and learning opportunities in relation to built environments for children In a study conducted by Janice Butcher in 1993 the relationship between playground skill (measured on the Playground Skills Test) and several socialization variables including opportunities for practice and parental involvement with playground play (measured on a parents' questionnaire) were measured. Data were collected for 64 children (24 girls 40 boys) ages 7 to 9 years Descriptive statistics were presented for availability of playground equipment frequency of playground play outside of school hours, and amount of parental involvement. Playground proficiency was not related to frequency of playground play or to direct parental support (attendance and assistance while child was at a playground) Parental percept i ons of a child's skill and attempts at risk-taking were significantly correlated with playground proficiency. A regression analysis of all socialization variables showed that the only significant predictor of playground proficiency was a child's risk taking attempts (Butcher 1993) In another study conducted by Karen Malone and Paul Tranter in 2003 school grounds were examined as sites for play and environmental learning Thi s study is based on a three-year project that involved 50 eight to ten year-old children at five Australian primary schools Data collection occurred through multiple methods i ncluding behavior mapping of children s play interviews with children and teachers and analysis of children's draw ings of their -103-

PAGE 103

schoolgrounds The findings show large variations between the schools particularly in the types of play and environmental teaming in which children engage These variations are related to variations in the physical qualities of the schoolground However researchers also found that school philosophies concerning the use and management of the outdoor school environment are equally or more important. Two studies conducted by Janice Green in 1997 and 1998 focused on perceptions of risk and children s perspectives. Questions from these studies are presented as possible tools for this proposed study and can be found in Appendix F. The first study draws on data from a focus group based research project of children's stories about accidents It examines the ways in which talk about accident risks is used as a resource for constructing social identities. In their stories children claimed responsibility for managing their own accidents and risks and in doing so constructed themselves and their peers as mature risk assessors and managers Furthermore stories about accidents were used to construct gendered identities and to delineate the boundaries of peer groups This suggests that rather than undercutting subjectivity discourses of risk can be used to construct social identity (Green, 1997) The second study conducted by Green and Hart in 1998 examined children's accounts of injury risks and opportunities for prevention Research was conducted in schools, youth clubs, and a holiday activity scheme in the south east of England Sixteen focus groups were held with 7-11 year old children 1 04

PAGE 104

Transcripts of the discussions were analyzed using qualitative methods Children were found to be knowledgeable about injury risks and how to reduce them They also saw injury prevention as primarily their own responsibility However they were also sophisticated in their criticisms of generalized prevention advice and evaluated safety messages i n the light of local environmental and social knowledge. Personal experience was more often reported as a reason for risk reduction than formal prevention advice Risks for injury were not isolated from other risks faced and children discussed multiple external risks and safety concerns beyond their control at length This study concludes that effective educational interventions aimed at changing children's risk behavior should build more on children's own competence and knowledge of their local environment, and stress the need to manage risks rather than avoid dangers (Green and Hart, 1998) In another study conducted by Weber, Blais, and Betz in 2002, risk perceptions and risk behaviors were measured using a domain-specific risk-attitude scale. A psychometric scale that assesses risk taking in five content domains : financial decisions (separately for investing versus gambling) health/safety recreational, ethical and social decisions was presented. In part I, respondents rated the likelihood that they would engage in domain-specific risky activities An optional Part II assessed respondents' perceptions of the magnitude of the risks and expected benefits of the activities judged in Part I. The scale s construct validity and consistency was evaluated for a sample of American undergraduate students. As expected, respondents degree of risk taking was highly domain-specific i.e. not consistently risk-averse or consistently risk seeking across all content domains Women appeared to be more risk-averse 1 0 5

PAGE 105

in all domains except social risk A regression of risk taking (likelihood of engaging in the risky activity) on expected benefits and perceived risks suggests that gender and content domain differences in apparent risk taking are associated with differences in the perception of the activities benefits and risk rather than w i th differences in attitude towards perceived risk (Weber et al, 2002) See Appendix F for survey questions used in this study Although these studies are somewhat related to the one being proposed they are not identical. Green's studies represent the closest evaluation of user perceptions for this project but because their research was conducted in England the results are likely to be very different based on cultural variations alone Likewise Weber's study assessing risk perceptions and risk behavior offers a solid model but because the psychometric scale has been created for adults it is not likely to be easily applied to children and would need to be modified if it were to be utilized in this research proposal. 106-

PAGE 106

3 ETHICAL ISSUES As political and sociological theories explain all positions are based on some form of political or cultural belief and are therefore prejudiced (Ball 2002). Any research proposal is based on a position and as such is inherently biased thus creating a potentially biased report It is important to state intentions of research methods so that reviewers understand the intentions of the research and the researcher. All efforts should be made to report findings in as unbiased a way as possible All efforts will be made to be as objective as possible when working with focus groups and when analyzing data 107-

PAGE 107

3.1 BASIC ETHICAL PRINCIPLES The University of Colorado at Denver s Sponsored Programs website states The Belmont Report issued by the National Comm i ssion for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1979, defines "basic eth i cal principles" as those general judgments that serve as a basic justification for the many particular ethical prescriptions and evaluations of human actions Three basic principles are particularly relevant to the ethics of research involving human subjects : respect for persons, beneficence and justice Respect for Persons : Respect for persons incorporates at least two ethical convictions : (i) that individuals should be treated as autonomous agents and (ii) that persons with diminished authority are entitled to protection Subjects should enter the research voluntarily and with adequate information while protection is to be given to those subjects unable to make considered judgments Beneficence : Persons are treated in an eth i cal manner not only by respecting their decisions and protecting them from harm but also by making efforts to secure their well-being Two general rules which express the beneficent actions relating to research subjects are : ( i ) do no harm and (ii) maximize possible benefits and reduce possible harms 108-

PAGE 108

Justice: Justice addresses the issues of who ought to receive the benefits of research and who bears its burdens, in a sense of "fairness in distribution" or ''what is deserved An injustice occurs when some benefit to which a person is entitled is denied without good reason or when some burden is imposed unduly -109-

PAGE 109

3.2 HUMAN SUBJECTS In addition the University s Sponsored programs website also defines Research and Human Subjects as follows : According to 45 CFR 46.1 02 resea rch and human subjects are defined in the following manner : Research : means a systematic investigation including research development testing and evaluation designed to develop or contribute to generalized knowledge Activities which meet this definition constitute research for purposes of this policy whether or not they are conducted or supported under a program which is considered research for other purposes Students conduct i ng research must obtain HSRC approval before collecting data It is the responsibility of the faculty to inform their students of this requirement. For masters and Ph .D. students failure to obtain approval may make the research project unacceptable to the Graduate School and therefore inapplicable toward the degree Human Subject: means a living individual about whom an investigator conducting research obtains : (1) data through intervention or interact i on with the indiv i dual (i.e interviews and surveys). or (2) identifiable private information." 110-

PAGE 110

4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ... risks must be taken because the greatest hazard in life is to risk nothing the person who risks nothing does nothing has nothing is nothing. They may avo i d suffering and sorrow but they cannot learn feel change grow love or live Chained by the i r certainties they are slaves they have forfeited their freedom Only a person who risks is free unknown author This study offers potential to yield important findings regarding pe r ceptions of risk and its influence on playground design policy and management as well as its influence on playground users Very little research has been conducted to determine the effects of physical and behavioral limitations placed on children as a result of r i sk management. Potential risks resulting from an overprotective environment include (1) reduced levels of physical activity opportunities potentially leading to increased rates of obesity (2) reduced quality of play environments leading to a reduction in children s personal enjoyment of playgrounds, (3) reduced opportunities for children to challenge themselves resulting i n a reduction in children s development and (4) reduced opportunities for outdoor education result ing in reduced learning outcomes. One of the main goals of this study is to question assumptions and perceptions of risk in an attempt to establish a solid understanding of the costs and benefits associated with fun challenging experiential act i ve play This study has the 111-

PAGE 111

potential to influence policies and designs of playgrounds so that children can experience safe, fun learning environments without fear of litigation and lawsuits compromising the quality of playground and outdoor opportunities they experience In addition, data gathered can be used for future cross-sectional or longitudinal studies 112

PAGE 112

5 HYPOTHESIS Expected outcomes of this research include increased dialogue and awareness of perceptions of risk a better understanding of what risk is, and potential empowerment of students to voice their opinions regarding risk management policies and physical and behavioral limitations placed upon them in an effort to protect them from themselves. Other possible outcomes include better integration of students into playground safety policy making, increased opportunities for exploratory outdoor education and physical activities and a reduction of anxiety levels for school personnel with regards to risks on playgrounds The ultimate outcome of this study would be a counter-balance approach to risk management where benefits of challenging environments are not only appreciated but are truly valued. If school personnel were able to see the costs associated with risks that result when we overprotect kids, perhaps this would result. This research proposal sets the stage for an in-depth cost-benefit analysis to be conducted in this regard 113

PAGE 113

6 CONCLUSION "Only the spoon knows what is stirring in the pot." -Sicilian Proverb Risk assessment and injury research related to public playgrounds always err on the side of caution in an attempt to avoid unnecessary preventable injuries and fatalities. This increasingly cautious approach to playground design and management threatens to alienate the very children these places were designed to use After receiving a comprehensive list of playground dos and don'ts one child is reported to have stated "Mom, what they're telling us is they don't want us to play there at all." By removing challenges and risk-taking opportunities in an effort to increase safety and reduce injury, playground administrators are reducing the quality of play and the value of their outdoor environments. What good are playgrounds if no one uses them? Sure they may be safe but at what expense? In this paper I make the argument that high quality playgrounds which offer safe, challenging, and diverse opportunities for experimental play are inherently valuable to children and to their development. This research strategy and design may be used to investigate perceptions of risk Cost effectiveness and cost benefit analysis is proposed to better align findings with insurance and legal agencies currently influencing risk management policies and procedures In addition, the use of multi-methods strengthens the investigation and allows for a richer interpretation of the data 114

PAGE 114

7 APPENDIXES: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION, POTENTIAL FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS, AND PROPOSED TIM ELINE What follows are supplementa l data for the research proposal. Potential focus group questions have been identified as well as potential surveys and interview and focus group questions to stimulate conversations about risk. A proposed timeline for this study is also included, although it would need to be significantly altered for an actual study based on the availability of multi disciplinary researchers and DPS timelines and restrictions. -115-

PAGE 115

7 1 APPENDIX ANATIONAL PLAYGROUND STANDARDS To download the comple t e file go to http ://'MVW. cosc gov/cpscoub/pubs/325.pdf Theses standards are used by all insurance compan i es and play equipment manufactu rers DPS guidel i nes which follow have been modified but are based on th i s handbook Handbook for Public Playground Safety l i :-' ((,J'l'-;UI'"t"! Pr\'\iUG ., rx. l7 -116-

PAGE 116

7.2 APPENDIX B-U.S. CENSUS STATISTICS (NP-T3-B) Projections of the Total Resident Population by 5-Year Age Groups and Sex with Special Age Categories : Middle Series 2001 to 2005. Source : Populat i on Projections Program Population Division, U.S Census Bureau, Washington D.C 20233 Contact: Statistical Informat i on Staff, Population Division U.S Census Bureau, (301 )763-2422 by telephone POP@CENSUS .GOV by e-mail (please include telephone number) Internet Release Date: January 13 2000 ( Numbers in thousands Consistent with the 1990 estimates base ) July 1 2005 Total Females Males Population, All Ages 287,716 147 018 140,698 Summary Indicators Median Age ... ... ... 36 7 37 9 35.4 Mean Age . ... ... . . 37 2 38.4 36 0 Five-Year Age Groups Under 5 years ....... 1 9 212 9 397 9 815 5 to 9 years ..... . 19 122 9 348 9 774 10to 14years . . . 20 634 10 069 10,564 15 to 19 years . .... 20 990 10 202 10 788 20 to 24 years ...... 20,159 9 889 10 269 25 to 29 years .... 18,351 9 207 9,144 30 to 34 years .... . 18,582 9,436 9 146 35 to 39 years . .... 20 082 10 155 9 927 40 to 44 years ...... 22 634 11, 412 11, 222 45 to 49 years ... . 22 230 11, 264 10 965 50 to 54 years ...... 19,661 10,082 9 578 55 to 59 years ...... 16,842 8 ,741 8 ,101 60 to 64 years ...... 12,848 6 762 6 086 65 to 69 years . . . 10 086 5,425 4 ,661 70 to 7 4 years ..... 8 375 4 618 3 757 75 to 79 years . .... 7 429 4 257 3 172 80 to 84 years . .... 5 514 3 356 2 157 85 to 89 years ...... 3 028 1 982 1 046 90 to 94 years ...... 1 402 998 404 -117

PAGE 117

95 to 99 years ..... 1 00 years and over . Special Age Categories 442 96 338 77 104 18 5to 13years ...... 35,475 17,331 18,144 14 to 17 years ...... 16,931 8 222 8 709 18 to 24 years...... 28,498 13, 956 14, 543 16 years and over... 224 ,447 116,111 108, 336 18 years and over... 216,098 112,068 104, 030 10 to 49 years ...... 163 ,661 81, 635 82, 026 1 6 to 64 years ...... 188,077 95,059 93, 017 55 years and over... 66 060 36,555 29, 505 65yearsandover... 36, 370 21,052 15, 318 85 years and over... 4 968 3,396 1 ,572 Note : For a description of the methodology and assumptions see the corresponding menu item "Methodology and Assumptions for the Population Projections of the United States : 1999 to 2100 Work ing Paper #38. Retrieved by Bambi Yost on May 11, 2005 from http : //www census gov/population/projections/nation/summary/np-t3-b.pdf -118-

PAGE 118

7.3 APPENDIX CU.S. PLAYGROUND STATISTICS The following tables were created based on published data and are estimates only Table 4 Est i mated numbe r of deaths occurr ing o n playgrounds Estimated Estimated# Estimated# Estimated# #of of deaths of deaths of deaths Odds of death on Odds of death on Odds of death on children per year on per year on per year on all playground home playground public playground In US, all home public (70%) (30%) July 2005 playgrounds playgrounds playgrounds 71 618 000 14 1 0 4 0 00000019548 15 828 0 000000 13 9629 7 020 0 00000005 585 1 8808 1 child out of 1 child out of 1 child out of 5 115 571 7,161 800 17 904 500 children Is likely to children Is likely to children Is likely to be killed on a be killed on home be killed on public _pla_yground pla_yground playground 119

PAGE 119

Table 5 Estimated number of injuries occurring on playgrounds Estimated# Estimated# Estimated# Estimated # of of Injuries of injuries of injuries children In US, per year on per year on per year on odds of injury on odds of Injury on odds of injury on July 2005 all home public all playgrounds home playground public playground playgrounds playgrounds playgrounds (21 o/o) (79%) 71 618 000 220 000 46 200 173 800 0 003071853 0 000645089 0.002426764 1 child out of 1 child out of 1 child out of 326 1,550 412 children are likely to children are likely to children are likely to be Injured on a be injured on home be injured on public playground playground playground Table 6 Estimated number of injuries that may occur on Denver Public Elementary School Playgrounds # of public elementary A vg. # of students per school playgrounds in # of students at schools DPS elementary school 90 37,712 419 Based on statistical odds, DPS can expect up to 1 injury resulting in hospital visit per year per average elementary school but given the number of other available public playgrounds this estimate is extremely high and misleading. ______ 120-

PAGE 120

Selected data from various sources follow : Approximately 200 000 children each year visit EDs for playground related injuries. Injury prevention efforts should focus on identifying environmental and supervisory modifications Research should begin by studying the components of the problem : developmental and other characteristics of children physical aspects of indoor and outdoor equipment and play spaces and the balance between safety and the level of challenge the equipment poses Effective prevention strategies will address each component as well as the relationships among them Research may also help define the role of supervision in various settings. About 60% to 80% of playground-related injuries involve falls Research should include testing of indoor and outdoor playground surfaces to determine which ones protect children from injury and which ones increase the likelihood of injury Researchers should study children's behavior human tolerances or impact biomechanics and ideal surface characteristics Research should also address how best to comb ine injury prevention and requirements of the Amer i cans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ADA requ irements are intended to ensure that children with disabil i ties have equal access to appropriate play spaces. However, common playground surfaces that lessen injury-producing forces may hamper the mobility of children with disabilities and pathways that allow easy access are frequently tripping hazards. Research should identify materials and mechanisms that will accomplish both safety and accessibility needs (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. CDC Injury Research Agenda. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2002.) In another report findings show injuries but not actual numbers in relation to playgrounds : 121

PAGE 121

f t d 10 to 20 per cent of "The research literature indicates that an es e d h 1 all injuries to children and adolescents occur 1n and aroun sc. oo 5 Yet serious injuries that happen on school grounds and resul t In hospitalization have not been well studied in the United States The following facts were compiled from a descriptive analysis of the causes and outcomes of 1 ,558 cases reported to the National Pediatric Trauma Registry (NPTR). Although this is not a populationbased source of information, the data are useful in drawing attention to the problem of severe injuries in the school environment. School Injuries Overall The ratio of injury t I 46% of th . o rna es vs. females was 3 1 olds ese InCidents occurred among 1 0 to .14. year 17% those injured in school (e.g. physical or o s or chrome 49 M, of the injuries ha en to the schoolpbuildecJI.ngm recreational areas as e ratio f or othe injuries w:s injuries to vi:/ premises. F II 1 ence-re/ated as were th follow d b e most frequent ca . Othe e :Y sports activities of tf1)ury (43%) causes of injury assaults mi%) (National P and being struck b d cut, strikinn Reports fli ecJ,atr;c Tra regarcJ;n o"! 7 4 Part; .uma Regist occurr; 9 Children CIPating h 1}', Octobe the cJa ng in the ages 0-ts osp;fals r 1988--Q 1,Sss :;;oss the 1995. Occu,., ChiJrt woes '111ent 0 es Of &ed Sta ed durin ren Yolln not lit Of 49.$4 'njllries tes by a c Y transp Yer fha e cases '. lof81 -41! reiJo a nadia, t 'II 5 or 0/tJe 0/Jiljurie. cases in a""""ues orr,.%$ 'f /han 18_ '$ Oq 8Ch oiJI ho& ChOol 'IIJOse '00/ 'e. fhit . qtb ill

PAGE 122

" The research literature indicates that an estimated 1 0 to 20 percent of all injuries to children and adolescents occur in and around schools. Yet serious injuries that happen on school grounds and result in hospitalization have not been well studied in the Unite d States. The following facts were compiled from a descriptive analysis of the causes and outcomes of 1,558 cases reported to the National Pediatric Trauma Registry (NPTR). Although this is not a popul a tion-based source of information, the data are useful in drawing attention to the problem of severe injuries in the school environment. School Injuries Overall The ratio of injury to males vs. females was 3 : 1 46% of these incidents occurred among 10 to 14 year olds 17% of those injured in school had a preexisting medical condition (e g., physical or mental disability or chronic illness) 49% of the injuries happened in recreational areas as opposed to the school building or other prem i ses. The ratio of unintentional injuries to violence-related injuries was 9 : 1 Falls were the most frequent cause of injury (43%) followed by sports activities (34%) and assaults (10%) Other major causes of injury included being cut, striking against objects and being struck by objects." (National Pediatric Trauma Registry, October 1988-0ctober 1995. Reports from 7 4 participating hospitals across the United States regarding children ages N = 1 ,558 cases of injuries occurring in the schoo environment out of 49,540 total cases in the database. NPTR does not include cases of injuries on school grounds to children younger than 5 or older than 18, those that occurred during transportation to or from school, and those reported by a Canadian hospital ) All reports acknowledge difficulties obtaining accurate data and rely on averages from hospital records internal audits and other sources -122-

PAGE 123

E"'THS -RE'-" 1E0 0 GROUNOEQU\ HOME p\-A "( of playground oms \NJUR\ES d a special studY tal emergencY ro conducte u s. hoSPI cPSC staff treated m d-related deaths equipmenHeb:re1998 ed data on playgrovn from staff also revieW The study covered october ust 2000. January 1990 both publiC playgrounds an playgrounds and CPSC /ated to home This report highlights involvement in safety stan a c PI yground Study Findings of ad. source of childhood injury. Many Playground eqUipment IS a lea tng deaths and injuries occur on home playgrounds. From 1990 to August 2000, at least 90 children under age 15 died on home playground equipment. This represents about 70 percent of all playground-related deaths at known locations. In 1999, there were an estimated 46,930 children underage 15 who went to U .S. hospital emergency rooms with injuries related to home playground equipment. This represented more than 20 percent of the more than 200 000 estimated playground equipment-related injuries treated in emergency rooms. The proportion of pre school h '/d ( aqe 5) imured on with about 27 at home were younger Almost 40 (Figure 1). This diffl percent of those injun d. n years, as reflects that /ocaljons Percent) h lry S/Utiy, it S U!at IOr,i' 'Per 'lfaci/Jntr'f 1eJt Jt CIIJg lfl IJ. r r;(l,, 1 10tn eq" het/'e SfltrA l''e f1eviJ .. ? h11t1. h f1A.

PAGE 124

HOME PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT-RELATED DEATHS AND INJURIES CPSC staff recently conducted a special study of playground equipment-related injuries treated in U.S hospital emergency rooms from November 1998 through October 1999. Staff also reviewed data on playground-related deaths reported to CPSC from January 1990 through August 2000 The study covered both public playgrounds and home playgrounds. This report highlights findings related to home playgrounds and CPSC involvement in safety standards Findings of Recent CPSC Playground Study Playground equipment is a leading source of childhood injury Many deaths and injuries occur on home playgrounds From 1990 to August 2000, at least 90 children under age 15 died on home playground equipment. This represents about 70 percent of all playground-related deaths at known locations. In 1999 there were an estimated 46,930 children under age 15 who went to U.S hospital emergency rooms with injuries related to home playground equipment. This represented more than 20 percent of the more than 200,000 estimated playground equipment-related injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms The proportion of pre-school children (younger than age 5) injured on playground equipment was higher on home playgrounds Almost 40 percent of those injured at home were younger than 5 years, as compared with about 27 percent of those injured in other locations (Figure 1). This difference likely reflects that pre-school children most often play on backyard playsets rather than in other locations. In CPSC's injury study, it was found that very few home playgrounds (9 percent) had proper protective surfacing (Figure 2). In contrast about 80 percent of public playgrounds in the study had proper protective surfacing. Proper surfacing can help prevent serious head injuries 123-

PAGE 125

Results of the CPSC Study Deaths on Playground Equipment From January 1990 through August 2000, CPSC received reports of at least 90 fatal incidents that occurred in home locations This represents about 70 percent of all playground related deaths at known locations A total of 147 deaths to children younger than age 15 were reported for all playground locations Almost three-fourths (66) of the deaths in home locations resulted from hanging from ropes, cords, homemade rope swings, and similar items Other deaths resulted from home equipment tipover or collapse, falls from equipment, and other causes In all locations, over one-half of the deaths involved hanging Other cause of playground equipment-related deaths included falls, equipment tipover or collapse, entrapment, or impact with moving components. Injuries on Playground Equipment In 1999, there were an estimated 46,930 children under age 15 who went to U.S hospital emergency rooms with injuries related to home playground equipment (most often swings). This represented more than 20 percent of the more than 200,000 estimated playground equipment-related injuries treated in emergency rooms. Children injured in home locations tended to be younger than those injured in other locations. Almost 40 percent of those injured at home were younger than 5 years, as compared to about 27 percent of those injured in other locations This difference likely reflects that pre-school children most often play on backyard playsets rather than in other locations. Over 80 percent of the injuries on home equipment were associated with falls Specifically, 69 percent involved falls to the surface below the equipment, 1 0 percent involved falls to other parts of the same equipment, and 2 percent involved falls to an unknown surface. 1 2 4

PAGE 126

The activity most often associated with falls on home equ i pment was intentional jumping or dismounting from equ i pment primarily swings. Other scenarios involved victims who lost their grip or balance slipped or tripped bumped into or were pushed by another person, and reached for an equipment component and missed Only about 9 percent of home locations where injuries occurred had proper protective surfacing most often sand Dirt and grass were, by far the most prevalent surfaces present under the equipment ; these are surfaces that do not adequately protect children from serious head injury when they fall. For all playground locations, young children incurred a greater proportion of injuries to the head and face than older children Almost one-half (49 percent) of all playground injuries to children younger than 5 years involved the head or face as compared with 28 percent for older children Overall, fractures were the most commonly reported injury accounting for 39 percent of all injuries on manufactured equipment. Almost 80 percent of these fractures involved the wrist lower arm and elbow Other injuries included lacerations (22 percent), contusions/abrasions (20 percent), and strains/sprains (11 percent) (United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (U.S. CPSC) (2001 ). "Home Playground Equipment-Related Deaths and Injuries." Washington, DC.) Although a significant amount of information has been published regarding the risks of injury on playgrounds the available data does not support it. What the reports do show is that children are injured i n play environments but there is no accurate measure of how where or why the injuries have occurred National campaigns to increase awareness about risks associated with children's play environments are good but the perceptions of the potential risks are higher than statistical analysis warrants 125

PAGE 127

7.4 APPENDIX D DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS (DPS) DATA All Denver Public Schools (DPS) data has been obtained either through e-mail, the DPS webs i te ( www.dpsk12 org ) one to one interviews and University of Colorado at Denver (UCD) and DPS meetings held over the l ast four years Some of this data has been created in partnership with UCD and with students at DPS schools -126-

PAGE 128

7.4. 1 DPS Playground Standards DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS SECTION 00800 PLAYGROUND STANDARDS DRAFT FOR REVIEW FEBRUARY 10, 2004 127

PAGE 129

PREPARED BY : DEPARTMENT OF FACILITY MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF CONSTRUCTION SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS APPLICATION OF THIS STANDARD REFERENCES SAFETY ACCESSIBILITY ECE I PRE-SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL FIELD SPORTS FACILITY PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS DAILY OPERATIONS DPS FACILITY MANAGEMENT REVIEW GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS GENERAL CRITERIA STUDENTS PLAYGROUND USE AND SCHEDULES COMMUNITY USE SUPERVISION MASTER PLANNING LEARNING LANDSCAPES FUTURE EXPANSION HISTORIC FACILITIES PROTOTYPES CURRENT STANDARDS RELATIVE TO EXISTING PLAYGROUNDS AREA REQUIREMENTS QUANTITY OF PLAY APPARATUS SAFETY ACCESSIBILITY PHYSICAL EDUCATION SECURITY VARIETY OF SURFACES 128 -1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6

PAGE 130

DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS NO LOOSE PARTS SOLAR ORIENTATION CHECKLISTS SAFETY SURFACING GENERAL UNACCEPTABLE SAFETY SURFACING MATERIALS ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER (EWF) PLAY APPARATUS OVERALL DESIGN CRITERIA SAFETY ACCESSIBILITY HEIGHTS OF PLAY APPARATUS PLAYGROUND SAFETY SIGNS SPECIFIC PLAY COMPONENTS MINIMUM APPARATUS REQUIREMENTS TO PROMOTE DEVELOPMENTAL SKILLS PLAY APPARATUS TO AVOID EXISTING APPARATUS NEW APPARATUS OTHER PLAYGROUND LANDSCAPE COMPONENTS PLAY SAND CRUSHER FINES SQUEEGEE EDGES AND CONTAINMENT WALKS AND PAVING PLANT MATERIALS IRRIGATION WATER LANDSCAPE FURNISHINGS BICYCLE PARKING HARD SURFACE PLAY GAME LINES GAME EQUIPMENT ROLLER HOCKEY FIELD ACTIVITIES 129-6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

PAGE 131

GENERAL MATERIALS TRACK SOFTBALL KICKBALL AND T-BALL BASEBALL SOCCER, FOOTBALL AND OTHER FIELD ACTIVITIES TENNIS BLEACHERS SPECTATOR AREAS APPENDIX FORM: "INTENT TO MODIFY OR BUILD A PLAYGROUND CHECKLIST: "PLAYGROUND PLANNING CHECKLIST" DRAWINGS: GAME LINE LAYOUTS PLAY PIT ACCESS RAMP ATTACHMENTS : CAD DRAWINGS TYPICAL GAME LAYOUTS (9 SHEETS) (DPS ARCHIVES PLEASE DRAFT) CAD DRAWINGS ACCESS RAMPS (2 SHEETS) (DPS ARCHIVES PLEASE DRAFT) -13017 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 A B,C

PAGE 132

I. APPLICATION OF THIS STANDARD: A All new and redeveloped Denver Public Schools (DPS) playgrounds shall meet or exceed minimum requirements of this standard. B This standard applies to playgrounds for: 1 Elementary school level students (Early Childhood Education [ECE] and Kindergarten through Grades 5 or 6) 2 Middle school level students (Grades 6 through 8) 3 High school level students (Grades 9 through 12) C This standard also applies to DPS sites that may conta in community playgrounds D This standard is complementary to playground information contained in the following DPS Design and Construction Standards : 1 Section 00003 General Design Considerations 2 Section 00700 Accessibility Standards 3. Section 02000 Sitework 4. Section 02511 -Concrete Paving 5 Section 02513Asphalt Paving 6. Section 02830Chain Link Fencing 7 Section 02870-Site Furnishings 8. Section 02880 Outdoor Bleachers 9 Section 02900 Landscaping 10 Section 11480Athletic & Recreation Equipment E. This standard is complementary to playground information contained in DPS Educational Specifications II. REFERENCES: A SAFETY : 1 American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) designation F 1487 98 (or current issue) Standard Consumer Safety Performance Specification for Playground Equipment for Public Use (a. )U S Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Handbook for Public Playground Safety (Publication No 325) (based on -131-

PAGE 133

ASTM F 1487) Internet address : www.cpsc gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/325 pdf (b. )CPSC Playground Surfacing Materials (Publication No 3005) B ACCESSIBILITY : 1 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidel ines (ADAAG) for Buildings and Facilities Internet address : www access-board gov/play/finalrule.htm C. ECE I PRE-SCHOOL: 1. State of Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Care Rules Regulating Child Care Centers (a. )Applies to certified Early Childhood Education (ECE) programs D HIGH SCHOOL FIELD SPORTS : 1. Nat i onal Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) Court & Field Diagram Guide E. FACILITY PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS : 1 DPS Elementary Education Specification 2 DPS Middle School Education Spec i fication F. DAILY OPERATIONS : 1 DPS Playground Safety Procedures guidebook 2 DPS Operations Checklist for Playground I nspections 3 DPS Office of Risk Management-various guidelines for safe playground use Ill. DPS FACILITY MANAGEMENT REVIEW: A Before planning a playground project initiated by an individual school or department, submit an Intent to Modify or Build a Playground form to the Executive Director of Facility Management. This form is included in the Appendix to these Playground Standards B During funding planning and des i gn phases, all playground projects shall be reviewed by DPS Facility Management. 132-

PAGE 134

1uring construction all playgrounds shall be inspected and accepted by IPS Facility Management. hese requirements apply to all DPS playground projects, otwithstanding sources of funding, design, and construction iENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS: iENERAL CRITERIA: DPS playgrounds shall be designed to address student needs and to complement the educational program of each individual school. Playgrounds shall also reinforce appropriate physical education standards for each facility This Standard applies to interior playgrounds as well as exterior playgrounds SEPARATION BETWEEN AGE GROUPS: (a.)On DPS sites it is generally preferable to create separate play apparatus areas for each of the following student groups (1. )Pre-primary (2.)Primary (3.) Intermediate (4.)Middle School (S. )High School (b.)State ECE regulations require physical enclosure of ECE playground areas (c.) Need for separation between other age groups shall be determined for each individual site and project. Criteria often include supervision, safety, security and flexibility (d.)Physical separation is often provided by chain link fencing ; alternate landscape barriers may be considered. TUDENTS: ELEMENTARY : (a.) PRE-PRIMARY (1.)1ncl udes Early Childhood Education (ECE) and Kindergarten (2. )Ages 3-6 (b )PRIMARY : (1. )1ncludes Grades 1 and 2 (2. )Ages 6 and 7 -133-n y by y by g ed or a

PAGE 135

(c )INTERMEDIATE : (1. )1ncludes Grades 3-5 (or 6) (2.)Ages 7-12 2 SECONDARY : (a.)MIDDLE SCHOOL includes Grades 6 through 8 (1. )Ages 11 through 14 (b )HIGH SCHOOL includes Grades 9 through 12 (1.)Ages 14 through 17 C PLAYGROUND USE AND SCHEDULES : 1 BEFORE SCHOOL : (a. )AII playground areas may be used with some adult supervision 2 LUNCH : (a.)AII playgrounds may be used. Schedules and distribution vary by school. (b.)Adult supervision is provided 3. PHYSICAL EDUCATION : (a.)AII playgrounds may be used. Schedules and d i stribution vary by school. (b. )Adult supervision (by teacher) is provided. 4 AFTER SCHOOL: (a.)AII playgrounds may be used, mostly unsupervised. 5 NON-SCHOOL DAYS : (a.)No supervision (b. )AII playgrounds may be used D. COMMUNITY USE: 1 VVhile community use of school playgrounds is a factor in planning and design the primary focus of planning and design of DPS playgrounds shall be support of the educational program and students needs 2. DPS playgrounds shall be designed to accommodate unsupervised community use E. SUPERVISION : 1 Adult supervision of students is required during school hours 2 Avoid design of playgrounds that cannot be supervised from one or a few central locations 3. Consider provision of shade for adult supervisors 1 34

PAGE 136

4 Adult supervisors should be discouraged from being seated while on duty F MASTER PLANNING: 1 The Playground Designer shall consult with DPS Facility Management to learn whether a Landscape Master Plan is available for the project site 2 Every Landscape Master Plan shall be approved by both DPS Facility Management and the School before the plan is implemented 3 If an approved Landscape Master Plan is in place, playground planning and design shall follow the intent of the master plan. G LEARNING LANDSCAPES 1 Many elementary school playgrounds are intended to be "Learning Landscapes." The Playground Designer shall consult with the DPS Project Manager to learn whether a Learning Landscape is intended for the project site 2 Learning Landscapes are designed with assistance of the Landscape Architecture program at the University of Colorado Denver (UCD). 3 Formal definition of a Learning Landscape is not available. Informally, a Learning Landscape includes non-traditional playground elements that offer an added level of opportunity beyond traditional playgrounds. A Learning Landscape emphasizes four primary opportunities : (a. )Academics (b.)Physical education (c.) Socialization (d. )Community gathering H. FUTURE EXPANSION: 1. Planning and design shall take future playground expansion into consideration 2 VVhere appropriate, provide phased playground designs that can be completed in future phases of construction -135

PAGE 137

I. HISTORIC FACILITIES 1. The Playground Designer shall consult with the DPS Project Manager to learn whether historic facility considerations apply to modifications to the site J PROTOTYPES : 1. The Playground Designer shall consult with DPS Facility Management to learn whether other prototype playground facilities should be used for planning and design. K. CURRENT STANDARDS RELATIVE TO EXISTING PLAYGROUNDS : 1 Where a DPS playground is not substantially altered (less than 20% of the playground apparatus and other play components such as painted games and game courts and fields is altered), the existing playground is not required to be brought into compliance with current guidelines, standards, and regulations. 2 For new playgrounds and where a DPS playground is substantially altered (20% or more of the playground, as defined above, is altered) all current guidelines, standards, and regulations shall apply L. AREA REQUIREMENTS: 1 Colorado ECE regulations include minimum area requirements for outdoor ECE playgrounds. 2. Except for ECE playgrounds, DPS does not standardize playground area requirements. 3 Also refer to DPS educational specifications for guidelines for playground areas. 4 Area needs are to be determined on a site-by-site basis according to site conditions, size of school, space constraints, budgetary requirements and other appropriate factors. M QUANTITY OF PLAY APPARATUS: 1 DPS does not standardize quantities of play apparatus 2. Play apparatus manufacturers can assist with planning appropriate quantities of apparatus for the intended student use and population 3 Appropriate quantities of play apparatus are to be determined on a site-by-site basis according to site conditions, size of school space constraints budgetary requirements, and other appropriate factors -136-

PAGE 138

N. SAFETY: 1. Guidelines (voluntary standards) for public playground safety are contained in ASTM F1487-98 (referenced above) (a.)The CPSC Handbook (also referenced above) illustrates and clarifies the ASTM F 1487-98 safety guidelines. 2 DPS playgrounds shall be designed and constructed to comply with ASTM F1487-98. 0. ACCESSIBILITY : 1 DPS STUDENT SERVICES REVIEW: (a. )During design and prior to bid, every playground design shall be submitted to DPS Student Services for review. (1. )DPS Student Services may review each playground design with the DPS Special Education Advisory Council. (2.)DPS Student Services will review each playground design for accessibility with respect to these standards 2 PRIORITIES : (a. )DPS recognizes the need to establish priorities for making facilities and playgrounds accessible and has developed an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Program Plan. Ultimately the plan calls for bringing all facilities into compliance Initially, the plan emphasizes provision of access to all special program schools and "Sector Schools" throughout the school district. (b.)The Playground Designer shall consult the DPS Project Manager to learn whether the project school is a DPS Sector School and to learn the current priority status for providing playground accessibility for each facility. 3. QUANTITIES OF ACCESSIBLE PLAY APPARATUS : (a.)Provide minimum quantities of accessible play apparatus stated in the ADAAG. (b. )DPS may elect to provide more than the minimum required quantities of accessible play apparatus. 4 DESIGN OF ACCESSIBLE PLAYGROUNDS : (a. )NEW SITES AND BUILDINGS: (1. )Develop sites so that all general areas are accessible to individuals with disabilities Include : (i.) Hard-surfaced play areas (ii.) Soft-surfaced play areas including play apparatus pits (iii.) Play fields as well as other exterior areas such as : 137-

PAGE 139

Building entrances Walkways Parking lots Vehicle drop-off I pick-up areas Viewing areas (b )EXISTING SITES AND BUILDINGS : (1.)When the opportunity arises to make changes to a site or a portion of a site, the objectives of the ADAAG shall be met if reasonable to do so (2. )The ultimate objective is for all sites to be generally accessible to all people. (c ) Playground Designer shall assess requirements and provisions for landscape accessibility for each individual site and project. P. PHYSICAL EDUCATION 1 The Playground Designer shall ensure that the needs and goals of the school's physical education program are met. Q. SECURITY: 1. Avoid creating areas of concealment. 2. Avoid design of elements that would allow climbing onto adjacent buildings. R. VARIETY OF SURFACES 1 Colorado ECE regulations require that a variety of play surfaces shall be provided in each ECE playground S DRAINAGE : 1. Playground Designer shall study drainage requirements for each individual site and project and shall design playground drainage systems Playgrounds shall be designed to prevent erosion and standing water. 2 Playground Designer shall coordinate City requirements with Denver Wastewater Management Division 3 At minimum design drainage to remove a 3 inch rainfall within 4 hours 4 Also refer to WATER standards below 138-

PAGE 140

5. If drainage sumps or drywells are proposed Playground Designer shall arrange for a qualified Geotechnical Engineer to perform a soils percolation analysis T. MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS : 1. SNOW REMOVAL: (a. )Design locations and orientations of playgrounds to enhance natural (solar-assisted) snow and ice removal. 2 LAWN MOWING : (a. )Design playground landscapes to minimize damage from trimming or mowing equipment. 3 DEBRIS AND TRASH REMOVAL 4. MAINTAINING SAFETY SURFACING : (a.)DPS Maintenance will provide EWF maintenance tools for each site including com cob forks and clam rakes." (b. )Maintenance of smooth grades and transitions for access for disabled individuals (c.)Minimize use of resilient (poured-in-place or tiles) safety surfacing. This material is very difficult to repair 5 GRAFFITI REMOVAL : (a )Graffiti are most easily removed from powder-coated metal and stainless steel surfaces. U NO LOOSE PARTS: 1 All components of DPS playgrounds shall be built in or anchored securely to permanent construction V SOLAR ORIENTATION : 1. SHADE : (a )ECE regulations require provision of shade over minimum portions of ECE playgrounds. (Refer to State regulations for current requirement.) (b.)lf possible, shaded areas should be provided within all play apparatus areas 2 SNOW AND ICE MELT: (a.)Avoid placing play apparatus in areas that will not receive enough solar exposure to melt snow and ice. -139-

PAGE 141

W CHECKLISTS : 1. A DPS Playground Planning Checklist is included in the appendix to these Playground Standards 2 Playground design checklists are available from most playground apparatus manufacturers 3 Safety assessment checklists are furnished by DPS Operations and Ma i ntenance to each DPS Facility Manager. V. SAFETY SURFACING: A GENERAL: 1 Safety surfacing shall be installed under all play apparatus and with i n all play apparatus fall zones use zones and safety zones 2 Safety surfacing materials shall have a Critical Height value (see CPSC guidelines) of at least the height of the highest accessible part of the play apparatus 3. DPS Operations and Maintenance will provide engineered wood fiber (EWF) maintenance tools for each site including com cob forks and clam rakes." B. UNACCEPTABLE SAFETY SURFACING MATERIALS : 1. Sand 2 Wood chips, bark mulch or wood mulch not certified by ASTM 3 Any type of gravel including squeegee 4 Loose mats (except wear mats" indicated below) C. ENGINEERED WOOD FIBER (EWF) SAFETY SURFACING : 1. EWF SYSTEM DESIGN: (a )DEPTH OF EWF: (1.)Minimum compacted (aged and used 90 days) depth of EWF is 12 in all safety surfacing areas (2. )1nitially install EWF to a minimum depth of 15 in all playground areas requiring safety surfacing. It is anticipated that the EWF will compact over time to the minimum required 12 depth (b )DRAINAGE LAYER BENEATH EWF : (1. )Provide a minimum 3 deep layer of drainage rock beneath the entire EWF surface 140-

PAGE 142

(2. )The subgrade beneath the drainage layer shall be designed to direct water to a stormwater dra i nage system (c )CONTAINMENT OF EWF : (1.)Design perimeters of EWF areas with a minimum curb height of 4" above the surface of the compacted EWF (2.)1nclude geotextile fabric between the EWF and the drainage layer (d.)RAMPS AND ACCESS PATHS : (1. )Piayground Designer shall design ramps for accessible transitions between play area perimeters and surface of EWF. Refer to the play pit ramp drawing attached to this standard (2.)Access paths shall not contain dead ends. Design continuous paths or paths wide enough to allow disabled students to turn around once play activities are completed. (3.)1n some circumstances, it may be necessary to use a resilient safety surface other than EWF for access path surfacing. In this case, rubberized resilient tiles or poured-in-place surfacing may be specified. (e.)WEAR MATS : (1. )Provide in high traffic zones including beneath swing seats, at slide exits beneath slide poles, and at the base of ramps (2. )1nstall at mid-depth of EWF (f .) GEOTEXTILE FABRIC : (1. )Locations shall be designed by Playground Designer to contain EWF. 2 DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN : (a.)EWF drainage system shall be designed by Playground Designer (b.)Piayground Designer shall design a subsurface drainage system sufficient to prevent standing water in EWF areas (c.)Design drainage system to remove a 3 inch rainfall within 4 hours (d.)Design drainage system so that no free water remains 12 hours after precipitation ends. 3 CERTIFICATIONS : (a. )EWF wear mats, and resilient tiles or poured-in-place material shall meet impact attenuation requirements of ASTM F 1292 Standard Specification for Impact Attenuation of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment. 1 4 1

PAGE 143

(1. )For EWF : (i.) G-max values less than 120G for 12 system at 12 drop height (ii ) HIC value less than 1 000 for both new and 12-yearold material (2.)For wear mats, tiles and poured-in-place material : (i.) G-max values less than 200G at 4' drop height (ii.) HIC values less than 1,000 at 4 drop height (b.)Meet requirements of ASTM F 1951 Standard Specification for Determination of Accessibility of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment. (c )Meet accessibility requirements of the ADAAG. 4 SUBMITTALS (provided by Supplier to Playground Designer and DPS) : (a. )PRODUCT DATA (1. )Submit product data for wear mats (2.)Submit product data for rubberized tiles or poured-in-place safety surfacing 5 EWF SYSTEM MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS : (a. )ACCEPTABLE EWF SYSTEMS: (1. )"Fibar" (2. ) "Soft Fall/ Soft Step (3. )"Woodcarpef' (4 )or pre-approved equivalent (b.)WEAR MATS : (1. )Minimum 2 x 3 x 1-1/2 thick (c ) RESILIENT TILES OR POURED-IN-PLACE MATERIAL (1. )Piayground Designer shall research and specify current available products (2. )Thickness shall be determined by manufacturer, as appropriate to fall height and to meet certification requirements noted above (3. )Color will be selected by Owner. (d.)GEOTEXTILE FABRIC : (1. )Minimum 3.5 OZJSY (2. )Woven synthetic IS THIS WHAT WE WANT??02900 SAYS NON WOVEN 142-

PAGE 144

VI. PLAY APPARATUS: A OVERALL DESIGN CRITERIA: 1 Play apparatus standards apply primarily to elementary school level playgrounds, for children through 12 years of age If play apparatus is designed for middle school or high school level students minimum requirements contained in this standard shall apply. 2. Separation of play apparatus by age group is recommended See Standards section IV. A.3 above. 3. Combinations of composite play structures and individual elements of play apparatus are anticipated 4 Accessible play elements shall be integrated into every play area. B SAFETY : 1 SAFETY CERTIFICATIONS: (a. )Design materials and installation shall be in accordance with ASTM F 1487-98, including associated CPSC Guidelines. (b )Manufacturer's certification: A manufacturer's representative shall provide an on-site inspection and written certification that play apparatus has been installed according to specifications, including safety surfacing 2. SAFETY ZONES, FALL ZONES & USE ZONES : (a.)Determined by Playground Designer and Manufacturer (b.)Shall be indicated for both existing and new play apparatus (c.)Shall be indicated on construction drawings (d. )Shall be indicated on manufacturer's shop drawings C ACCESSIBILITY: 1. CERTIFICATIONS: (a.)Piay apparatus identified as accessible shall be in accordance with the ADMG. 2. WHEELCHAIR TRANSFER POINTS (a. )Grade level access surface and transfer platform steps and ramps on play apparatus shall be large enough to be useful. Meet minimum dimensions recommended by accessibility standards referenced above (b.)lf feasible, locate wheelchair transfer points in close proximity to the bottom of slides -143-

PAGE 145

3 ACCESSIBLE PATHS WITHIN COMPOSITE PLAY APPARATUS STRUCTURES : (a )Meet minimum dimensions recommended by standards referenced above (b.)Consider the possibility that a mobility impaired student may be able to crawl up steps from the transfer platform. Maximum four steps are allowable from one platform to another. (c.) V\lhere a wheelchair accessible ramp is provided for access onto a composite play structure, a continuous accessible route shall be provided to another accessible exit from the play structure. V\lhere a separate accessible exit is not feasible, a platform of sufficient size shall be provided to allow a student using a wheelchair adequate space to turn around in order to exit. D HEIGHTS OF PLAY APPARATUS: 1 GENERAL : (a )Piayground Designer shall design apparatus fall heights to meet critical height limitations of safety surfacing materials. Refer to CPSC Handbook Table 1 (1.)0n all DPS playgrounds, safety surfacing is to be installed at minimum compacted depth of 12 inches (b )"Critical height" of safety surfacing is defined in the CPSC Handbook part 4.2 (c )"Fall heights of equipment are defined in CPSC Handbook part 4.3 (d. )MAXIMUM HEIGHTS FOR DPS PLAY APPARATUS: In addition to apparatus height limitations recommended by the CPSC Handbook, DPS recommends the following maximum play apparatus heights : (1. )PRE-PRIMARY AND PRIMARY PLAY APPARATUS MAXIMUM HEIGHTS: (i. ) Maximum platform or access height: 6 feet (ii ) Height of swingset top rail : Pre-primary : 6 feet Primary : 8 feet (2 )1NTERMEDIATE PLAY APPARATUS MAXIMUM HEIGHTS : ( i ) Maximum platform or access height: 8 feet ( i i.) Height of swi ngset top rai l : 8 feet 144

PAGE 146

E. PLAYGROUND SAFETY SIGNS : 1. The playground apparatus manufacturer shall provide a permanent sign at each play area that indicates the age groups that the play apparatus is designed to accommodate F SPECIFIC PLAY COMPONENTS : 1 SAND BOX I SAND TABLE: (a )Strongly recommended for every elementary level play area (b .)lf possible provide raised area to allow student in wheelchair to transfer into sandbox (c.) Provide raised surface that allows student in wheelchair to wheel up and participate (d.)Provide shade over portion of play sand area 2 SLIDES : (a.)Metal slides (except spiral slides) shall face north (b.)Where feasible locate wheelchair transfer points in close proxim i ty to the bottom of slides (c ) Do not install slides of any material facing south or west. 3 ACTIVITY PANELS : (a. )Unacceptable types of activity panels include: (1.)Activity panels that contain only painted graphic images (2 )Panels containing clear acrylic windows or mirrors (b.)Acceptable types of activity panels include : (1.)Steering wheels (2. )Tic tac toe games (3 )Games such as picture match, number sequences shape and color sequences 4 SWINGS : (a.)Provide minimum one accessible swing at each playground (b .)An accessible swing cannot share a bay with a standard swing. 5. BOULDERS : (a.)Boulders within playgrounds shall be considered as individual pieces of play apparatus Provide safety surfacing Provide safety zones and fall zones per CPSC guidelines. G. MINIMUM APPARATUS REQUIREMENTS TO PROMOTE DEVELOPMENTAL SKILLS : 1 New play apparatus shall be provided to promote specific developmental skills in the following approximate proportions : -145-

PAGE 147

(a.)40% upper body /large motor skills (b )30% passive I imaginary I sensory skills (c )30% motion skills H PLAY APPARATUS TO AVOID: 1 Track rides, track slides 2. Roller slides 3 Open bed slides 8 feet high 4 Multi-occupant swings 5 Rope swings 6 Metal chains that are not vinyl coated, including swi ng chains 7 Merry-go-rounds 8. Seesaws and teeter totters 9 Trampolines 10 Giiders 11. Solid-wall crawl tubes 12. Swings attached to composite play structures I. EXISTING APPARATUS : 1. EVALUATION : (a.)Piayground Designer shall evaluate existing apparatus that may be affected by a construction project. Evaluation shall be relative to these standards. (b )Evaluation will be used to determine whether individual pieces and assemblies of play apparatus should be left untouched or modified in place relocated or demolished 2 RELOCATION : (a.)VVhen it is feasible to relocate existing play apparatus responsibilities for removal modification and reinstallation shall be clearly indicated by the Playground Designer in the construction documents (b .)DPS Maintenance will be assigned the responsibility of relocating or modifying existing play apparatus only with prior approva l of DPS Facility Management. 3 MODIFICATION : (a.)VVhen it is feasible to modify existing play apparatus the Playground Designer shall assure that the designed modifications meet all current applicable safety and accessibility guidelines and requirements 146

PAGE 148

4. TRAVELING RINGS (also called Ringers or Giant Stride ) (a )This type of play apparatus is no longer manufactured (b.)Do not relocate traveling rings (c .)lf new steps are needed for traveling rings, steps will be provided by DPS Maintenance. J. NEW APPARATUS : 1 INSTALLER QUALIFICATIONS AND AGREEMENT: (a.)New play apparatus shall be installed only by personnel trained and certified by the play apparatus manufacturer (b.)ln some circumstances, play apparatus may be installed by community volunteers under supervision of the manufacturer's representative (c .)A construction agreement is required for every play apparatus installation, whether the work is accomplished under a general construction contract, under a contract directly with the play apparatus vendor, or by community volunteers supervised by the manufacturer (1. )Every construction agreement for play apparatus shall contain insurance requirements acceptable to DPS (d.)Unacceptable installers: (1.)DPS Maintenance (except as specifically allowed by Project Manager) (2.)Volunteers (except as specifically allowed by Project Manager) (3 )General Contractors (4.)Anyone except manufacturer-certified play apparatus installers 2 BID PROCESS: (a. )Avoid allowances (b. )Avoid unit prices (c.) For most projects including larger general construction projects specify and design apparatus by one of the listed acceptable manufacturers, and allow bids of equivalent apparatus from other listed manufacturers (d.)Aitemate process for playground specific projects: (1.)Piayground Designer provides a performance specification including apparatus requirements number of users age of users, site characteristics, and cost allowance. -147-

PAGE 149

(2.)Piay apparatus vendors submit proposals and designs based on performance specification. (3.)DPS evaluates proposals and designs, and awards contract to most desirable vendor Potential evaluation criteria include (in no order) : (i.) Play value (ii.) Safety (iii.) Accessibility (iv ) Cost (v ) Durability and maintenance (vi.) Appearance (vii.) Schedule for delivery and installation (viii.) Warranties 3 SUBMITTALS (provided by Supplier to Playground Designer and DPS): (a.)SHOP DRAWINGS (1. )Both plan view and three-dimensional (2. )1ndicate fall zones, safety zones and use zones (b.)PRODUCT DATA (c )COLOR SAMPLES (1.)Principal or other designated school representative shall be allowed to select colors. (d.)CERTIFICATIONS (e )STATEMENT OF ACCESSIBILITY (1.)Manufacturer shall indicate the total quantity of new play components to be provided for each project. (2. )Manufacturer shall indicate which components of new play apparatus are accessible as defined by the ADAAG 4 EXTENDED WARRANTY: (a.)None required for play apparatus 5 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: (a. )Tools (b.)Touch-up paint (c.) Maintenance recommendations (d. )Recommendations for graffiti removal (e. )Spare parts including spare nuts and bolts 6 UNACCEPTABLE MATERIALS: (a.)Wood (b.)Recycled plastic 148

PAGE 150

(c.) Synthetic lumber (d. )Concrete (e. )Rubber vehicle tires (f ) Home made" apparatus 7. PLAY APPARATUS MANUFACTURERS : (a.)Burke (b.)Game Time (c )Kompan (d. )Little Tikes (e.)Landscape Structures (f.) Miracle (g. ) Playworld (h.)??? IS THIS LIST ACCEPTABLE TO ALL??? 8 MATERIALS AND FABRICATION : (a. )SUPPORT POSTS UPRIGHTS : (1.)Material: Galvanized steel minimum 12 gauge (i.) Yield strength : 55, 000 psi ( i i.) Tensile strength : 50 000 psi (2.)Size : Minimum 4 1/2 outside diameter (5 outside diameter preferred) (i.) Smaller diameters may be approved for Pre-Primary playgrounds only and only by the DPS Project Manager. ( i i.) Note : No posts on DPS sites shall be smaller than 31 /2" diameter (3. )Finish : Baked on polyester powder coated paint (i.) Epoxy or hybrid paints not acceptable (b. )OTHER STRUCTURAL MEMBERS, INCLUDING HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS : (1. )Material : Galvanized steel (2. )Size : Diameter of steel tubing will vary according to manufacturer's recommendations. Minimum 1 5/16 outer d i ameter (3. )Finish : Baked on, polyester powder coated paint (i.) Epoxy or hybrid paints not acceptable (ii.) On handrails, textured or knurled surfaces are preferred for better grip (c )PLASTIC COMPONENTS: 149-

PAGE 151

(1.)Material : rotationally molded linear low density polyethylene with UV inhibitors (2 )Min i mum wall thickness : 0.250 (Except as allowed for roofs) (d.)DECKS INCLUDING PLATFORMS, RAMPS WALKING SURFACES, BRIDGES, SLIDE LADDERS : (1. )Vinyl coated (2 )Fully welded (3 )Perforated 12 gauge steel horizontal surfaces (e )SLIDES: (1.)0ne piece double wall plastic (two pieces acceptable for 8' high slides) (2 )Stainless steel preferred, minimum 16 gauge, if budget allows (f ) CHAIN: (1. )Vinyl coated galvanized steel (g. )ROOFS : (1. )Metal preferred for durability (2 )Rotationally molded plastic acceptable (h.)HARDWARE, ACCESSORIES FITTINGS : (1.)POST CAPS: (i.) Cast aluminum (ii.) Finish : Baked on, polyester powder coated paint Epoxy or hybrid paints not acceptable (2.)CLAMPS : (i. ) Cast or die cast aluminum or stainless steel (ii.) Finish : Baked on, polyester powder coated paint Epoxy or hybrid paints not acceptable (3.)FASTENERS : (i.) All fasteners shall be tamper-proof stainless steel. (ii.) All nuts shall be lock nuts (iii.) Lock nuts shall have safety caps (4.)PERMANENT LABELS : (i.) Apply to apparatus or on sign close to apparatus. (ii.) Identify play apparatus manufacturer. (iii.) Include appropriate safety warnings (iv ) Indicate age appropriateness of equipment. (5 )ELEVATION OF SAFETY SURFACING : (i.) Manufacturer shall permanently mark optimum safety surfacing grade level on every post. Marking shall be a s i mple line and shall not be identified -150-

PAGE 152

9 INSTALLATION : (a.)Piayground Designer and Installer shall ensure that all potential underground utilities and structures are located prior to digging (b )lnstaller shall verify that subgrades are properly prepared and compacted (c.) Beginning of installation indicates acceptance of existing conditions (d.)lnstaller shall field verify locations of all apparatus w i th DPS representative before proceeding with installation (e )lnstaller shall provide concrete footings to dimensions indicated by play apparatus manufacturer (1. )Concrete shall meet DPS standards (f.) Protect all excavations from erosion and flooding during apparatus installation. (g )General installation procedure : (1.)Set apparatus in position, and temporarily brace (2 )1nstall concrete in footing voids. (3 )Remove temporary bracing after concrete has set for 48 hours minimum (4 )Piace geotextile fabric as detailed by Playground Designer and secure to each post with manufacturer's recommended adhesive (5.)Set components plumb level and free of warp or racking (6.)Secure components in position using anchorage devices recommended by the apparatus manufacturer (? )Apply thread adhesive to anchors (8 )Protect components from staining cracking chipping vandalism and damage until apparatus has been accepted by DPS -151

PAGE 153

VII. OTHER PLAYGROUND LANDSCAPE COMPONENTS : A PLAY SAND : 1 APPLICATION : (a.)Use for sandboxes on l y 2 SPECIFICATIONS : Sieve #4 #8 #16 #200 B CRUSHER FINES : 1. APPLICATION: (a )Use for running tracks and some pedestrian paths. 2 SPECIFICATIONS : Sieve 3/8 #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 C. SQUEEGEE : 1 APPLICATION : (a )Gravel-surfaced play fields %Passing 100% 40-85% 0-30% 0-2% %Passing 100% 85% 63% 50% 40% 31% 21% 12.4% (b.)ln some cases squeegee that exists as a safety surface may need to be supplemented by a playground project. 2. SQUEEGEE SPECIFICATIONS: Sieve 3/8 #3% #4 #8 #16 #200 -152%Passing 100% 93% 60-90% 5 60% 0 30% 0-2%

PAGE 154

D. EDGES AND CONTAINMENT: 1. FENCES: (a )Aiso refer to DPS specifications 02000Sitework and 02830Chain Link Fencing (b )Chain link fencing has been found to be the most economical, durable, and maintainable fencing material for DPS playgrounds Other types of metal fencing may be considered, as appropriate for specific circumstances and budgets. (c.) Ensure that there are no sharp edges or protrusions on completed fencing. (d.)Wood shall not be used for fencing on DPS sites. 2 CURBS: (a.)Piayground Designer shall design retaining curbs at perimeters of EWF squeegee and sandbox areas (1. )Top of curb shall be minimum 4 inches above finished surface of material to be contained. (b.)Do not use wood for retaining curbs at fencing or other perimeters unless budget restrictions prevent use of preferred materials (1.)1f wood planks or timbers are used preservative-treated wood shall be used. (c ) Do not use synthetic lumber (composed of wood chips or sawdust in a synthetic binder) for curbs (d.)Preferred curbing materials include cast-in-place concrete and plastic. Plastic curbs may be new or recycled material. (e.)Piastic curbs at the base of chain link fences shall be placed at the outer side of the fence fabric, relative to the safety surfacing 3. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC : (a.)Minimum 3.5 OZJSY (b.)Woven synthetic??? 02900 says non-woven What do we want??? 4. LANDSCAPE EDGING : (a.)Edging at landscape transitions such as edges of lawns and planting beds shall be resilient material only (b )Metal edging of any type shall not be used on DPS sites.??? 02900 says metal with protective top cover (whatever that is) Thought this was a big safety issue. What do we want??? -153-

PAGE 155

E. WALKS AND PAVING : 1 Some schools need sidewalks within playgrounds for tricycles and other rolling play equipment. 2. Avoid use of asphalt for sidewalks 3. Refer to DPS Standards Section 02000Sitework Section 02511 Concrete Paving and Section 02513Asphalt Paving F. PLANT MATERIALS: 1 Refer to DPS Standard Specification 02900 Landscaping G. IRRIGATION : 1 All plant materials on all DPS sites shall be irrigated by automatic irrigation systems Refer to DPS Specification 02810 for ir rigation system standards H. WATER : 1. For safety reasons, standing water of any depth greater than Y2" is not allowed on DPS elementary school sites. Denver Wastewater has historically waived requirements for surface storm water retention (detention ponds) on elementary school sites Playground Designer shall design drainage systems. 2 Exterior drinking fountains have been found to be largely unmaintainable and subject to severe vandalism. Exterior drinking fountains are discouraged on DPS sites. 3. If possible locate student playgrounds close to building entrances where interior drinking fountains may be accessed easily. 4 If water play features are desired, the Playground Designer shall coordinate all such designs with the DPS Project Manager. Standing water will not be allowed in water play features Safety and long term operations and maintenance considerations will prevail over other design considerations. I. LANDSCAPE FURNISHINGS : 1 Refer to DPS Standard 02870 Site Furn i shings 2. Place site furnishings on pavement or other inorganic surfacing J BICYCLE PARKING : 1 Need and requirements to be determined by individual schools. Not mandatory except as required by Denver Zoning Administration. 154-

PAGE 156

2 Refer to DPS Standard 02870-Site Furn i shings VIII. HARD SURFACE PLAY: A GAME LINES: 1. Examples of game line layouts are attached to this Standard. 2. Playground Designer shall design and lay out game lines. 3 Need and requirements to be determined by individual schools 4 At minimum provide one wheelchair hopscotch game on each site B. GAME EQUIPMENT : 1 GENERAL : (a. )Aiso refer to DPS Standard Specification 11480-Athletic and Recreation Equipment (b.)Piayground Designer shall design and lay out game equipment on all landscape surfaces (c ) Need quantities and requirements to be determined by individual schools (d. )Relocation and modification of existing equipment is often feasible ; to be determined through evaluation by Playground Designer (e. )Poles in paved surfaces shall be painted safety yellow" to a minimum height of 6 feet above grade. 2 "FUNNEL BALL" (ALSO DROP SHOT," TOSS UP," ETC .): (a.)Normally provided by play apparatus manufacturer. Name and style vary by manufacturer (b.)Consider provisions for play from wheelchairs C ROLLER HOCKEY : 1 Roller hockey is not supported on DPS sites IX. FIELD ACTIVITIES: A GENERAL: 1 Also refer to DPS Standard Specification 11480 Athletic and Recreation Equipment. 2 Layouts facilities, and dimensions will vary from site to site. DPS does not maintain firm standards for field activities 15 5

PAGE 157

3 Playground Designer shall consult with the DPS Project Manager for unique requirements for each site and project. 4 For high school level field activities, refer to the NFHS Court & Field Diagram Guide. 5. If spectator areas are provided provide access for individuals with disabilities 6 IRRIGATION : (a.)AII sod and all trees on DPS sites shall be irrigated (b.)Refer to DPS specification 02810 -Irrigation System. B. MATERIALS : 1 SQUEEGEE: (a. )Used for fields where sod and irrigation cannot be provided. (b. )lnstall2"-3" depth over entire field (c )Material specified above. 2 SOD : (a. )See DPS specification 02930Lawns and Grasses. (b.)Do not use artificial turf on elementary school sites. 3. CRUSHER FINES: (a.)Material specified above (b.)lnstall4 deep, over geotextile fabric. (c.)Compaction required. (d. )Landscape edging is recommended at edges of crusher fine surfaces C TRACK : 1. GENERAL : (a.)lf spectator areas are provided, provide access for individuals with disabilities (b.)Provision of tracks is not required for DPS sites Provide tracks according to individual needs and requirements of each site and program. 2. MATERIALS: (a.)Crusher fines surface preferred on elementary and middle school sites. (b )Track surfacing for high schools shall be individually designed for each site (c.)Asphalt tracks are discouraged. (d. )Edging along track edges is not recommended 156-

PAGE 158

3 DIMENSIONS AND CONFIGURATION: (a )Dimens i ons and configurations shall be designed for indiv i dual needs of each facility (b )Minimum recommended track width for elementary schools : 4 feet. (c .) Elementary level tracks are not used for formal competition. Overall length and configuration are to be designed for each individual site. (d. )Square corners are discouraged. D SOFTBALL KICKBALL AND T-BALL : 1 GENERAL : (a )(Baseball is not accommodated on elementary school sites ) (b )Softball kickball and T-ball should be accommodated on both elementary and middle school sites 2 DIMENSIONS : (a. )Recommended distance home plate to first base : 60 feet (1.)Could extend to 70 feet for 9-10 year olds. (b )Outfield dimensions vary according to size of site Minimum 200 foot radius recommended from home plate. 3. ORIENTATION : (a. )Preferred orientation in Denver is backstop in southwest comer of field. 4. BACKSTOPS : (a.)Fabricated from chain link fencing system (b )Refer to DPS specification 02830Fences and Gates E. BASEBALL : 1 GENERAL : (a )Baseball ( hardball") is not accommodated or allowed on elementary school sites. (b. )Provision for baseball on middle school and high school sites shall be based on individual needs and requirements of each site and program. (c )Piayground designer shall review current recommendations of the NFHS Court & Field Diagram Guide 2. DIMENSIONS : (a. )Recommended distance home plate to first base : 90 feet -157-

PAGE 159

(b.)Outfield dimensions vary according to size of site Minimum radius recommended from home plate : (1. )Middle School : 300 feet (2. )High School : 350 feet 3 ORIENTATION : (a. )Preferred orientation in Denver is backstop in southwest corner of field. 4 BACKSTOPS : (a.)Fabricated from chain link fencing system (b.)Refer to DPS specification 02830-Fences and Gates F. SOCCER FOOTBALL AND OTHER FIELD ACTIVITIES : 1 DIMENSIONS : (a.)Field dimensions may vary from site to site (b.)Piayground Designer should review current recommendations of appropriate athletic association (c.)Preferred field size for 8 vs 8 youth soccer (ages 9-10) is 70 YO X 50 YO (210 x 150' ) 2. SOCCER GOALS : (a.)Aiso refer to DPS Standard Section 11480-Athletic & Recreation Equipment (b )Size of goals may vary from site to site (c.)Official goal sizes : (1. )0fficial (adult) : 8' x 24 x 8 H (2. )Junior : 7' x 19' x 8 H (3 )Mini : 6'0 x 12'W (or 6.5 x 16.5 ) 8 H (d. )6' or 8 high permanent painted steel poles are often used. Paint poles safety yellow." G TENNIS : 1 Playground designer shall design for each individual site. 2 Playground Designer shall follow current recommendations of appropriate athletic association H. BLEACHERS I SPECTATOR AREAS : 1 Also refer to DPS Standard Spec i fication 02880 Outdoor Bleachers 2 Bleachers are not normally provided on elementary school sites 158-

PAGE 160

3 Consideration should be given to provision of spectator areas at softball, baseball, and soccer fields 4. Bleachers and spectator areas, if provided, shall be accessible to individuals with disabilities APPENDIX: FORM: "INTENT TO MODIFY OR BUILD A PLAYGROUND" CHECKLIST: "PLAYGROUND PLANNING CHECKLIST ATTACHMENTS: CAD DRAWINGS, TYPICAL GAME LAYOUTS (9 SHEETS) CAD DRAWINGS, ACCESS RAMPS (2 SHEETS) 159

PAGE 161

INTENT TO MODIFY OR BUILD A PLAYGROUND To: Executive Director Facility Management This form must be faxed (303-575-4004) to the Executive Director of Facility Management i mmediately upon a site-based dec i sion to plan modifications to a playground or to build a new playground on a DPS site The form will be returned to the school by Facility Management provid i ng the name of a DPS Project Manager who will be ass i gned to assist with plann i ng the proposed project Please complete ALL information requested below. Please type or print Dare: ----------------------------------------------------School/Department:----------------------------------------ConmctPeffion : ______________________ FAX : Phone : -----------------------------------------------Brief Description of Playground Project: ---------------------------Funding Source(s) : -------------------------------------------Note : New construction and substantial modifications are required to comply fully with accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regardless of funding source. Is there a Master Plan for the playgrounds? YES NO Preferred construction smrt date : ------------------------------------160-

PAGE 162

Proje ct may include (please check as appropriate): PRE-PRIMARY PLAY APPARATUS PRIMARY PLAY APPARATUS INTERMEDIATE PLAY APPARATUS HARD SURFACE PLAY PLAY FIELDS PLAYGROUND SAFETY SURFACING IRRIGATION (LAWN SPRINKLER) WORK PLANT MATERIALS (TREES, SOD, SHRUBS, ETC ) SIDEWALKS, PAVEMENT FENCES -161

PAGE 163

FOR FACILITY MANAGEMENT USE ONLY DPS Project Manager assigned to this project: Name : DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS PLAYGROUND PLANNING CHECKLIST This checklist is intended to be a general guide for playground planning Checklist tasks are listed in no order "' REF TASK 1 Read DPS Playground Standards 2 Read the ADAAG relative to accessibility 3 Read CPSC Guidelines relative to playground safety 4 Read other rules, standards, and guidelines appropriate to the project. 5 Learn whether or not a playground master plan is in place for the site 6 Determine intended scope and schedule of playground project. 7 If project is initiated by individual school or department submit Intent to Modify or Build a Playground form to DPS Facility Management. 8 If grant funds, donated funds or other non DPS resources are to be used for the playground project submit all required information and documentation to the DPS Grants Office and the DPS Community Partnership/Enterprise Activity Office 9 Obtain services of a qualified Playground Designer 10 Know that scope cost and schedule will need to be constantly refined and monitored throughout project design and construction 11 Prepare a summary of intended project scope 12 Prepare a project cost estimate including all design and engineering fees, DPS administrative costs, other non direct construction costs and direc t construction costs 13 Prepare a summary of resources for funding and construction 14 Prepare a project design and construction schedule 15 If volunteer labor is to be used for any portion of the playground project prepare a detailed plan for this portion of the work. Include responsibilities for defining scope of volunteer work recruiting and organ i zing volunteers supervision, insurance construction site safety press releases and food serv i ce 16 If donated materials equipment or apparatus are to be used for any portion of the playground project obtain approval of DPS Facility -162-

PAGE 164

Management before donated items are accepted by DPS 17 If services of DPS Maintenance crews are proposed ensure that Facil i ty Management reviews and approves the proposed scope and schedule of DPS Maintenance work before materials are ordered or construction begins 18 Determine age groups and quantities of students to be served by playgrounds 19 Study other prototype playgrounds for possible use in planning your project. 20 Determ i ne approximate percentage of existing playground to be altered If 20% or more of playground is altered plan on meeting all current safety and accessibility guidelines 21 Survey existing play apparatus and existing playground facilities. Determine whether existing apparatus and facilities should remain untouched in place, modified in place relocated or demolished 22 Ensure that all applicable safety guidelines are reflected in the playground design Pay special attention to requirements for apparatus height and for safety surfacing under and around play apparatus Ensure that fall zones use zones and safety zones are adequate 23 Ensure that playground accessibility is provided to the extent required by the DPS Playground Standards. 24 Ensure that the school Principal approves of the playground project before any funds are expended on the project. 25 Ensure that DPS Facility Management reviews and accepts the project before any funds are expended on the project. 26 Ensure that DPS Student Services reviews the project for accessibility before materials are ordered or construction begins 27 If non-DPS funds are used for any portion of the project ensure that the funding agency approves of the playground project at the appropriate points in project development. 28 Ensure that DPS Facility Management reviews the playground project during construction and that Facility Management inspects and approves the project before the project i s considered complete I APPROVALS: Don Moon I signatures -163-

PAGE 165

Troy Gamer Date Andy Raicevich Date Susan Ouellette Date Pam Bisceglia (Student Date Services) Eric Larson (Phys Ed) Date Jan Burke (early childhood Date ed ) Lois Brink (UCD) Date Steven Finley (Risk Mgt.) Date Larry Williams Date Rich Cosgrove Date Morgan Deane Date Michael Langley Date 164-

PAGE 166

7.4.2 DPS 2004 Design Guidelines for PE Areas DPS Design Guidelines: PHYSICAL EDUCATION AREAS SPACE DESCRIPTION: Physical Education spaces are utilized for the delivery of Physical Education programs and include interior and exterior spaces playgrounds and play fields A. GYMNASIUM COMPLEX 1 GYMNASIUM 2 GYM OFFICE 3. GYM TOILET 4. GYM STORAGE B. HARD SURFACE OUTSIDE PLAY AREA 1 BASKETBALL COURTS 2. TETHER BALL 3. OTHER COURTS AND MARKINGS c. APPARATUS PLAY AREAS 1 KINDERGARTEN I ECE APPARATUS AREA 2. PRIMARY APPARATUS AREA 3 INTERMEDIATE APPARATUS AREA D. PLAY FIELDS 4 SOFTBALL 5 SOCCER I FOOTBALL DESIGN CRITERIA GENERAL REQUIREMENTS The physical education area should be organized so that the various parts have good relations to each other and are so located that the noise inherent in physical education activities do not interfere with quieter activities within the school. D. GYMNASIUM COMPLEX -165

PAGE 167

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Students rotate through physical education classes which are conducted within the Gymnasium and on outside courts and fields. The gymnasium complex should have close access to outside activity areas Students will normally assemble in the gymnasium for class and will move from this location to the exterior for those programs conducted outside The gymnasium may be used after hours for organized school and public programs Informal leagues may use the gym for games although the basketball court at elementary schools is smaller than a regulation basketball court. Therefore public after-school access to the gym should be provided without compromising security for the remainder of the building. 1. GYMNASIUM a Provide a gymnasium with approximate dimensions of 50 x 70'. b. Provide two adjustable basketball backboards which can be lowered from standard height to 8 above floor level (or lower) c Provide padding at walls behind basketball goals where goals are nearer than 1 0 from the wall d Provide volleyball anchors for two cross court nets and one main-court net. Anchors and net posts should accommodate surface-anchored posts e. Review court markings with the Project Manager f Gym floor covering shall be athletic carpet. g Provide recessed drinking fountain and cuspidor within gym complex area Locate fountains in entryway or other off-court" location where possible h Sound Amplification Systems : ( i ) The system consists of an amplifier, cassette/CO player, speakers, and two wired microphones ( ii ) Provide two microphone jacks in the Gymnasium (ii i ) Locate operation controls in the Gymnasium offices (iv) Locate microphones -166-

PAGE 168

(v) The system is supplied and installed by the construction contract. 2 GYM OFFICE a Provide one office for the physical education instructor(s) The office should be accessible from the gym and should be located near the main gym entrance. b Provide a window between the office and the gymnasium for supervision of the court area 3 GYM TOILET a Provide one ADA accessible toilet which is accessed directly from the Gym Office. b Provide ADA water closet, ADA lavatory and ADA shower with hand-held shower head option and folding shower seat. 4. GYM STORAGE a Gym storage is required for the storage off balls volleyball posts and other athletic apparatus. b Storage shelving (24 deep) will be purchased and installed under the furniture and equipment budget. c Open floor area should be planned for storage of large equipment. d Easy access to outside play areas should be provided Consider that muddy balls etc. will be brought inside for storage. B. HARD SURFACE OUTSIDE PLAY AREA GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Hard surface play areas are used for physical education classes as well as being available for free play during lunch and recess periods These areas are also used before and after school as a gathering place for students Exterior areas are available for use b the general public during non-school hours. 1 BASKETBALL COURTS a Provide 3 basketball courts. -167-

PAGE 169

b One or two courts should be equipped with adjustable backstops which allow the goals to be lowered for ch i ldren s use c Side goals can be added if needed 2 TETHERBALL a. Provide 4 to 6 tetherball poles with pavement markings. b Locate tetherball poles in an area which is out of the way of student traffic 3 OTHER COURTS AND MARKINGS a Provide 4 to 6 four-square courts b Provide 3 to 4 "hopscotch courts c Prov i de one wheel chair hopscotch court B. APPARATUS PLAY AREAS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Apparatus areas are associated with specific age groups of children and are separated by fencing All apparatus areas shall be surfaced with an impact-absorbing material as specified in the DPS Design and Construction Standards. All apparatus areas shall be designed with clear access paths between equipment. All equipment shall be planned with safety fall zones as required by applicable codes and regulations. Accommodation of students with disabilities and/or limited physical ability shall be designed into all apparatus areas See the DPS Design and Construction Standards for detailed information 1 KINDERGARTEN I ECE (Early Childhood Education) APPARATUS/PLAY AREA a The playground and apparatus area for Kindergarten and ECE areas shall be located for direct and easy access from the related classrooms b The Kindergarten/ECE play area shall contain hard-surface, grass and apparatus components. 168-

PAGE 170

(i) Hard-surface areas should be adjacent to the classrooms and should be no less than 1 0' wide. (ii) The apparatus area should be located adjacent to the hard surface area. (iii) The grass area should be located with access to both hard surface and apparatus areas The grass area should be located to provide access for lawn mowing equipment and should be planned for ease of maintenance. c See DPS Design and Construction Standards for detailed equipment requirements 2 PRIMARY APPARATUS AREA a Locate primary apparatus area adjacent to the exterior hard surface play area b Primary apparatus is normally located adjacent to the intermediate area with a 4' fence separating the two areas. This allows for easy supervision of the areas together c See DPS Design and Construction Standards for detailed equipment requirements 3. INTERMEDIATE APPARATUS AREA a Locate intermediate apparatus area adjacent to the exterior hard-surface play area b See DPS Design and Construction Standards for detailed equipment requirements. B. PLAY FIELDS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Play fields should be easily accessed from the hard-surface play area. Play fields should be fenced from surrounding streets Provide access through fences at logical locations Sites with limited area may have play fields overlapped 1. SOFTBALL a Provide 1 or 2 softball fields designed per DPS Design and Construction Standards (standards do not exist as yet) -169-

PAGE 171

b Provide backstops, fencing, etc per DPS Design and Construction Standards. 2. SOCCER I FOOTBALL a If the site area is sufficient provide separate soccer and football fields All football fields should be equipped for use as soccer fields b. Provide a minimum of one combination soccer/football field Consult with the Project Manager if site limitations prohibit this fie l d c See DPS Design and Construction Standards for detailed requirements SQUARE FEET SUMMARY FOR GROUP ... A. GYMNASIUM COMPLEX 1. GYMNASIUM 2 GYM OFFICE 3 GYM TOILET 4 GYM STORAGE TOTAL INTERIOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION SPACE B. HARD SURFACE OUTSIDE PLAY AREA 1 BASKETBALL COURTS 2 TETHERBALL 3 OTHER COURTS AND MARKINGS Hard surface total (not incl. In building area) C. APPARATUS PLAY AREAS 12,000 sf 2,400 sf 5,000 sf 19 400 sf 1 KINDERGARTEN I ECE APPARATUS AREA 3 000 sf. 2 PRIMARY APPARATUS AREA 6 500 sf. 3 INTERMEDIATE APPARATUS AREA 4 000 sf 3 500 sf 120 sf 70 sf 150 sf 3,840 sf Total apparatus areas D. PLAY FIELDS 4. SOFTBALL (not incl. in building total)13 500 sf 38 000 sf 5 SOCCER I FOOTBALL 31, 000 sf Total organized play fields 67 000 sf TOTAL EXTERIOR PHYSICAL EDUCATION SPACE 99,900 sf 170-

PAGE 172

7.4 3 OPS Play Equipment Inventory Forms Finalized January 2005 The following documents were created by Denver Public Schools play equipment vendors and University of Colorado faculty and students. These assessment forms are used to assess the following : 1. play equipment capacity 2. appropriateness of activities for enhanced outdoor physical education curricular development 3. types of cognitive and physical skills required for each piece of play equipment (U-upper body L -lower body M -motion, 1imagination) 4 American s Disability Act (ADA) ratings Play equipment i s now being chosen based on more specific user needs. It used to be evaluated more from an economic standpoint than an educational and functional one As a result of Learn i ng Landscape Alliance s efforts a new policy has been implemented to improve play equipment selection and evaluation. In addition Safety Assessment Forms (located at the end of this section) are used to determ i ne a need for r eplacement of equipment. This form is undergoing minor revisions at this time An example of a completed play equipment site-specific assessment follows 1 7 1

PAGE 173

EAGLETON_ PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT RATING MATRIX VENDOR: CHILDREN S PLA YSTRUCTURES Playworld Systems 12441 Mead Way Littleton CO 80125 {720)270-5878 (720)270 5879 ACTIVITY CLASSIFICATION CAPACITY QTY NOTES I TOTAL I I ADA I VALUE ADDITIVE X X I ADDITIVE PLA YSTRUCTURE ECE u L M I Southeast G E N x 1 per events Hex vinyl deck assembly 2 1 1 connected 2 2 Transfer Station 2 1 1 x4 ( 1 per step 2 3 Double Glide Slide (36in DECK) 2 2 1 1 2 slides 4 2 90 Degree Glide Slide ( 36in Deck) 2 2 1 1 4 2 Animal Locator Panel 1 1 1 1 n/ a Shapes/Color Activity wall 1 1 1 1 1 Storfront panel 1 1 1 1 1 Shifting sands panel ( ground level) 1 1 1 1 1 Deep rung arch cl i mber ( 36 i n I DECK) 3 3 1 1 6 0 Beanstalk Climbe r ( 36in DECK ) 2 2 1 1 4 0 : G r ound t o Ground Babble On 1 1 1 1 1 Camber Hex Roof 1 n / a 1 1 n / a Total 28 29 -172-

PAGE 174

PLA YSTRUCTURE PRIMARY South (6 act i v i ties Square Deck 2 1 1 connected) 2 1 Chinning Bar 5 2 1 2 x1 per piston 14 3 Lift Me Up 5 4 4 1 1 13 0 Sky Rocker 5 2 1 1 x1 user 14 0 Glide Slide 2 2 1 1 4 2 Climb Across 5 5 1 1 10 0 Pikes Peak 4 3 1 1 7 0 Solar Climber (48in Deck ) 2 1 1 x1per step 2 0 Flip Flop 3 3 4 1 x 1 per user 24 3 Total 90 36 PLAY STRUCTURE INTERMEDIATE WestSide x1 per events Hex Deck 2 1 1 connected 2 2 Transfer Stat ion 2 1 1 2 3 Squiggle tube slide 2 2 1 1 4 3 Sonic Slide Barrier 2 2 1 1 4 2 9ft Sonic Slide without Barrier 2 2 1 1 4 2 1Oft Matrix Wall 5 5 5 1 x1 per use r 20 0 Driver Panel 1 1 1 1 1 Ball Maze Panel 1 1 1 1 Telescope 1 Crawl Thru Panel 2 2 1 1 4 2 Centerl i ne P i pe wall Barr i e r 1 1 4 1 n / a Over&Out Climber 3 3 1 1 x4 r ungs 6 0 Upper silo climber 2 2 1 1 0 Plateau climber 2 2 1 1 4 0 Spiral Climber 2 2 1 1 4 0 -173-

PAGE 175

Chinningffuming Bar 5 2 1 1 x1 per piston 7 3 Wobble Wheels 5 5 1 1 x1 perwheel 10 3 Sky Rocker 5 2 2 1 14 0 Spring Training 5 2 1 1 7 3 Bounce Button 2 1 2 x1 per button 4 2 Stationa_ry Buttons 2 1 2 4 0 Camber hex roof 1 n/a 1 1 n/a Total 103 10 What follows next is an inventory of all possible equipment from Denver Public Schools mai n play equipment vendors Sheets like the one presented above have been created for each school with specific site-based play equipment i nformation for evaluat ion. Assessments are underway and will be completed this Spring 2005 for all of the Learning Landscape Playgrounds built to date We are also assessing playgrounds that have not been rebuilt as part of our baseline study. 174-

PAGE 176

COMPONENT PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT ---Straight Covered Tube Slide Tunnel Slide Stralaht Tube None None Yes Uncovered Glide Slide Sinale Poly Slide Groove Slide Tsunami None CyberSiide \Mde Glide None None Double Rail None None Short Glide Single Poly Slide Bunny Hill None Toddler Slide & Glide None Rollerslide None None None None None Wave Poly Slide Mogul Slide Poly Wave Wave Tidalwave Slide Twisting Covered Spiral Tube Turbo Twister Tunnel Funnel Tunnel Straight Tube None Spiral Tube Squiggle Tube EISiide "S"Tube Tube Slide None \Mggle Slide "S"Tube None None S"Tube None "S"Tube None None L Tube "L"Tube Elbow Tunnel Quick "L" Tube None None 31S None None Sky-Hi Spiral None None 420 None Tunnel Sp iral None Sonic S l ide ( 48", 60", Uncovered 72" Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 84" 96" deck hei ght ) Yes None Chameleon Slide None None S Configuration Single "C" 90 G l i d e Sidewinder 2 "L" Slide Quarterturn Slide Elbow S lide Co nfiguration 360 Spira l (one piece) Spvro Slide 360 Typhoon Sp1ral 360 56"-64 PB Spiral Slide SJ)iral Tube None None 405" Typhoon None Spiral Yes None None 630 Typhoon None None Yes None None ass Typhoon None None Yes RacerSIIIde Double Do uble G l ide Double Poly Bump & Glide Slide Tr i pple Rail Doub l e Wide Dou ble Slid e Rumble Seat Slide Double Poly Wave None Double Polywave None Rumble-N-Roll ___ Double Swirl Slide _D_tJp_i-(3ator None None Littlefoot Slide ---------------------------175-

PAGE 177

Triple Crawl Tubes Tube Climbers Vertical None None Triple Racer -----C rawl T ub e "S" Craw l Tube UQ & Down Craw l Tube 90' Craw l Tube Long 90' Crawt Tube None None 12" (30,40 em) Rise CrawtTube None None None None None None None None Rocky Ridge Climber Solar Climber Gemini Sidewinder 2 None None None Flippopotamus Cloudburst Bedway StraiQht Crawl Tunnel StraiQht Cr awl Tube S-Crawl T u nnel "S" Crawl 3'-9' O ffs et Crawl Tunnel inclined Crawl Tube 90' Craw l Tunn e l 8" "L" C rawl Tube 90' Crawt Tunnel 72" Long "L" Crawt Tube "C" Crawt Tunnel None None None 8" 16"Rise Tunnel Inclined Crawl Tube None Hip Crawt View Tubes None None None None None None None None None None None l/lllre Crawl Tunnel Straight Mesh Crawt Cliff Climber Climbing Rope None Twisted Vine 176 -None None VVIshbone Slide None None Double 40 Slide 3-Monster None Bigfoot Slide ------------StraiQht Tunnel S traiQht Craw l StraiQht Tube "S" Shaped Tunnel "S"Crawl "S"Crawi Up-Down Tunnel l ncl1ne Crawl Tunnel Tunne l -Up 90' Tunnel 90' Crawl 90' Cr awl None 90 Extended Boomerang None None 180' Crawt None None 60' Crawl None Incline Crawt Tunnel None None None None None None Straight Peek-A-Boo None None Big Dipper None None Sidewinder Over-Under Tunnels Criss Cross Crawl Tsunami None Animal Crawt None None Steel Crawl None None None Punched Steel Tube ----------None None None Fan Climber None Clover Leaf Climber

PAGE 178

None None Cargo Climber Wiggle Wall None None Ribbon Climber None Cliff Climber Wedge Cfimber None None Beanstalk Climber None Vine Climber None None DNA Spiral Climber Corkscrew S p i r a l Climber Coil Climber Curly Climber Corkscrew Tree Climber Loop Pole Spider Cimber Snake C limber Snake Pole Tree Climber C liff Hanger Conical Climber Vertide Climbing_ Wall Stone SloQ_e Rock Challenge Wall Rock Wall C l imber None Chimney Climber Tensile Tower VVIagle Watchtower None None None None Mast Climber None None None None None Chain ladder None None None None None None None Tikes Peak None Climb.,. (contJ None None VVIggle Worm Adventure Climb None None None None Bump_er Ladder Tree GUmbs Pommel Climber None None None Trap Door None None None None None Canyon Climber None None None None Fire Pole Climbing Pole Sliding Pole Sliding Pole Climbing Pole Horlxontal -----------,___. ---Pikes Peak None None None None Side Stepper Tensile Tough Net Matrix Fish Net Climber Climber WaV':f\Niagle Wall Curved Climbina Wall Carao Net Wall None Spacelink Climber None None None None None Manta Ray Climber None None None None None Slinashot Climber None None None None None None Net Climber Horseshoe None None None Climb Across None None None Side Step Climber Side Stepper None Thunderhead Climber None None None None Inclined ----1--------------------Over & Out Climber Centipede Spider Incline None Wavv Tree Hopscotch Climber None Incline Spider ___ None None -177-

PAGE 179

Climbers (cont) Climbing Wall Balance Walks Deep C limber None None Hoops Climber Spine Climber Chain Net Climber None None None None None None None None None None Rock Blocks -Rock N Roll Bar Sidewalk Critter Crossing Challenge Walk Loop Arch go Tri Deck Snake Climber Cozy Climber None None Circus Ladder Solral Climber Block Climber None None None Summit Climber None None None None None ----None None None None Curved Looo Climbe r Looo Climber Fan C limber Loop Ladder UohiiiCiimber Deck To Deck Clilmber None None Curved Climber Arched Ladder Arch Climber None None Rina Mountain None None None None None Spiny Arch None Climbing Net Chain Net None None None None None None None None Hula Climber None None None Bia Kahuna Climber None None None Duckwalk Climber None None None None None Cliff Climb None Scale-N-Siide Climber None None None Flioooootamus Climber None None None Dupli-Gator Climber None None None Big Timber Log Climber None None I None Vertical Rock None None I Wallcano -None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None Bridges and Connectors Walks Lily Pods I Disc Challenge Bongo Jungle Climber I None I Stones I Lily Pad Links -178-

PAGE 180

"C" Bongo Jungle None "S" Disc Climber None None None None Pod Climber None None None None Brldaes None None None None None None Arch Bridge None Arch Bridge Arch Bridge None None Chain Bridge Chain Bridge None Chain Bridge None None Catwalk None Burma Bridge VVhale Bone Bridge Catwalk None Suspension Bridge None None None None None Adventure Bridge C l a t ter Bridge Suspension Bridge Buckl e Bridae Clatter Bridge C latter Bndae go Cloud Walk Curved Bridge go Level Ramp Curved BridQe go Bridae None None None None None "S" Bridge None None Belt Bridge None Conveyor Belt BridQe None None None Spring Across None None None None None Space Walk Climber None None Cargo Bridge None None None None None Bermese Bridge None Ramp Bridge/ Ramp Ramp Plate Plank None None None None None Loop Rung Bridge None None Twist 'N' Twirl Swing Out Single Sky Wheel Wheel-About Fun Wheel Skv Wheel Wobbl e Wheel s Tripl e Rin a F lina Skv Wheels Wheel Deal Fun Wheels Skv Wheels None Horizontal Ladder Horizontal Ladder Horizontal Ladder Straight Challenge Horizontal Ladder None Wave Net Tensile Tough Climber None None None Circular Horizontal Round-About Ladder Orbit Climber Round-A-Bout 36o Challeroe Ladder None None None None None Tik.es of Steel Four TreeScape None "C" Ladder Horizontal "U" Ladder "C" Shaoed None None --179

PAGE 181

None go Ladder Horizontal "L" Ladder None I None None None "S" Horizontal Ladder Horizontal "S" Ladder "S" Shaped None None None Wave Horizontal Ladder None None Trapeze Challenge Double Dipper Hand-over-Hand Ladder None Single Horizontal RaU None Snake Challenge None None Single "S" Parallel Bar Single "S" Rail None None None None None Single "U" Rail None None None None None Double Horizontal None None None None None Double "L" Rail None None None None None Double "S' Rail None None None Single Beam Loop Wave Ladder Ladder None None Loop Chafteng_e Tree Climber Hand Trek Rinq Bridqe Handrinq Bridqe Rinq Swinq Rinq Trek Traoeze Rinq Singl e None None None None Double Rlna Trek Double Trapeze Straight Horizontal Loop None Straight Triangle None None Yes Ladder None None None None None None None 270" Try Ring Climber "C" Triangle None VVildaoose Loop None None Swing Ring Climber 90" Snake None None None None Serpent Trek None None None None None None None Challenge Ladder None 6' Spiral Horizontal Ladder None None None None None Sky Rocker None Rocking Hover Beam None None Swing'n Sway Spring Training None Hang-A-Round None None None Chinninq/ Turninq Bar Chininq Bar Chinninq/ Turninq Bar Chininq Bar Chininq Bar Chining Bar Monorail Track Ride Straiqht Overhead Glider None Track Ride Track Ride None Track Ride Curved Overhead DippedGiider None None None OverhfHid (c6nt) None I Air Dancer Grip-N-Giide I None I None I None 180

PAGE 182

None None None None None None None Jacob's Ladder Roof and Arch .. Lolli Top Roof None None Umbrella None None Perforated-Stee l Roof Arched Roof Mesh Roof w/ Arches Arched Punched Steel Arched Roof Arched Perforated Arch None One Piece Arch None Arch Decorative Arch Camber Hex Roof None None Hexagonal Peak Hex Roof None Camber Open Hex Roof Tri-Roof None None None Half Dome Camber 112 Square None None None None None None Square Peak _Square Roof Sauare Peak Sauare Roof Slate Roof Hex Roof None Hex Treehouse Roof None None None None None Octaaon Treehouse None None None Cabana Roof Square Poly Trip l e P l ay Roof Midd l e Rectanoular Shinole Stee l Gab l e Shtnole Roof None None None Curved Roof None Dome Roofs None None None Steel Quad Roof None Pyaramid None None None w/Cupola None Cupola Roof None None None Depot Extended Hex Ornamental Roof Rotomolded Roof None None None None None None None None None None Sculptured Roof None None None None None Canopy Roof None None Big Timber Leaf Roof None None Rainforest Canopy None None Flippo Roof None None None Enclosures -Crawi-Thru None None Hole Panel None None Balcony None None None None None Eaale's Perch None None None None None Look-Down None None None None None Play Telescope None Delight-0-Scope TeleScope None None Barrier ------Plastic Bubb l e Barrier Bubb l e Panel Look Out Panel Hole Panel w/ Bubble Bubb l e Panel Bubble Panel Pipe WaR Barrier None None Barrier Panel None None 181

PAGE 183

BIIITier (cont) Pipe Wall w/ Telescope None None Pipe Wall None None None Bubble Mirror None Bubble Mirror Bubble Mirror None None Mirror Panel None Mirror Panel None None ., Activities Stationary Cyder Stationary Cycler None None None None Log Roll Log Roll None None None Log Roll Babbl e On Talk Tube Tal k Tube Talk Tube Talk Tube Talk Tube Rides ----Ffip Flop None None None None None Lift Me Up None None None None None U-Bounce None None None None None Bounce Buttons Spring Pods None None None None 182-

PAGE 184

FREESTANDING PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT -. <2 . . Stra ig ht --Covered Oval Tube Slide None Tube Slide Tube Slide None None Uncovered Glide Slide Single Poly Groove Slide None None CvberSiide T wisti n g Covered None None Funnel Tunel None None None Uncovered 360 Spiral (one piece) None 360 Tvohoon None None None None None None Polv Wave Slide None Tidal Wave Slide RacerSIIIde Double Twist and Shout Slide None None None None None Rumble Seat Slide None None None None None None None None None None VVishbone Slide Triple None None Flippopotamus Monster Slide None Bigfoot Slide Crawl Tubes None Independent Tunnels None None None None None None None None None None Two-Color Up & Down None None None None None Two-Color "S" Crawl None None None None None Oval Crawl Tube None None None None None None VViggle Worm Tunnel None None None None Climbers S ingl e Beam Kid Monorail Overhead G lid er Koaster I Track Ride Tra c k Ride 183

PAGE 185

None None Overhead Diooed Glider None None None None None None Double Beam Keasler None None Craw's Nest None None None None None Rock Blocks None None None None None Turbo Tower None None None None None Twist None None None None None Triple Twist None None None None None Matrix 10' None Tensile Touch Climber None None None Curt None None None None None Climbers (cont.) Hyperray None None None None None Cosmic Warp None None None None None Rally Round None None None None None Climb Across None None None None None Pikes Peak None None None None None Super Dome None Geodesic Climber 13' None None Dome None None Geodesic Climber 18' None None Eagle' s Perch Super Satellite None None None None None Cliff Hanger None Rock Climbing Single None None None R ides FHp Flop None None None None None Lift Me Up None None None None None Panels Activity Half Panels --Maze Trail Tracker SQuirrel Maze None None None Faces None None None None None Plane None None None None -J.JQDI!. 184

PAGE 186

Educational Activity Full Panel Musical Panel (cont.) Roller Activity Driver Navigator Reach Solar System Space Travel Bugs None ABC/123 None None ABC None 123/ Shapes Chimes Chimes Bells None Drums None Post Mount Bells None Chimes Banner None Shifting Sands None Ball Maze Ball Maze Animal Locator Freddie Forecaster ABC/123 None None ABC None 123/ Shapes None None Store Front None Driver None None None None None None None -----------'Command Post w/Wheel Car D river Race Ttme Panel None None None None None None None None None None None ABC/123 None None None None None None None None None None -------___________ None ------------.. Chime None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None None Marble Maze None Jungle Maze None None None None None None None None None None ABC/123 None None None None Alohabet Panel None None None None None Math Monster None None None Store Front Cafe Counter Counter Panel Store Panel Race Car Panel Steerina \Nheel Panel None None Piston Panel Gear Panel Gear Panel None None Slgnino Panel Sian Lanouage Panel Sign Language None None Planets Panel Solar System --------185

PAGE 187

Educational NumberSequence None None None None Counting Shape/ Color Sequencing None None None None Shapes None None None None None Central States None None None None None Eastern States None None None None None Western States None None None None None Math None None None None None Nature None None None None None Endangered Species Matchup Tic-Tac Toe S t ee l X Tic -T ac Toe Tic-Tac -Toe Tic Tac Toe Tic-Tac-Toe Tic-Tac-Toe None None None Animal Village Activity Animal None None None None None Athlete None None None None None Career People None None None None None Noah's Ark None None None Rock-Pape-Scissors None None Cutout Panels l'm-A-Boarder None None None None None Facese None None None None None l'm-A-Pirate None None None None None None None Astronaut/ Nien None None None None None Koala/ TurUe None None None Panels (cont.) None I None I None I None I None I Jurassic Stltttonary Vehicles Freddv Fire Truck None Fire Truck None None None Bernie Bus None School Bus None None None Max Mixer None None None None None -186-

PAGE 188

Tuffy Truck None None None None None Playdozer None None None None Dumptruck None None None None Four VI/heeler None None None Beetle None None None Stationary Anima/a None None None None Calvin The Caterillar None None None None None Harry The Hippo None None None None None Tot Tree None None None None None Dinosaur None None None None None Triceratops None None None None None Frog None Train Set ---------------!------------------!---. -----------------------------Engine Engine None None None None Dining Car Dining Car None None None None Sandbox Car None None None None None Tanker Car None None None None None None Seating Car None None None None Swings Sinole Post Swino Sinole Post Swino Sinale Post Swina Sinale Post Swina Max Plav Sw1nu Sinale Post Swma T Swina Toddler Swing Twing Swing None None T Frame A rch Swina Arch Swina Arch Swing Arch Swino Arch Swino Prime Time Sw1na None Surge Swing None None None None Standard Swing 5000 Series 2 Leg Swing Two Wav Swing Standard Swina None 3 Leg Heavy Duty Swina None 3 Leg Swing Three Wav Swino None None Seats ---------!-----------------------------------1----------Accessible Swing Seat None None None lncusive Swing Seat HandiSwing Tire Seat Tire Seat Tire Assembly None Tire Seat PawerScape Tire -187-

PAGE 189

Swings (cont.) Seesaw Bouncers Slnale Belt Seat Chil d Seat None None Seesaw Wave Rider Seesaw Duo Seesaw None ---. Blast Off Bounce Buttons None Pony Turtle Duck Sea Horse Zebra None None Chipmunk Speedy Racer Dino Rider None Bamstonn Airplane Flutter Bug Wave INinder None None None None Bel t Seat S lashproof Seat Toddler Seat 350 Tot seat None None None Tire Swivel None None Spring Seesaw Twin Rider 4 Seat Spring Seasaw None None None None None Spring Pods Bongo Boingo None None Hors e Rodeo Rocky Turtle None None None ll'lhlims Sea Horse None ll'lhlimsyZebra None Dolphin None None V\lhale None Squirrel Car Rider None T-Rex Triceratops Rhino Dino Rider Dina Rider None None None None None Jet Interceptor None Flippo Offspring None ATVRider None Frog None None 188 -Molded Rubber Seat Belt Seat Belt Infant Seat Tot Swing Tot Sw1ng Polyethylene Seat Dura Glide Seat Super Seats None None None None None None 2 Seat Spring Seesaw None None None None None None See-Saw Snake None --------1---None None None None None Stones V\lhite Bronc None Pony Brown Mare Horse Stallion Turtle None None Duck None Duck None None None Zebra None None None None Porpoise None V\lhale V\lhale SQuirrel None None Burke Race Car None Crusin' mates Burke-a-saurua None Dinosaur Adventure None None None None None None None None None None None Jumbo Fiver None None None None ATV None Froo/Toad None None None None Elephant

PAGE 190

Bouncers (cont.) None Motorcyde None None None Mini Bike None None Big Tow None Bulldozer None None None None None None Donkey None None None None None Pelican None None None None None Rabbit None None None None None Bee None None None None None Chicken None None None None None P i g None None None None None Clifford None None None None None Rocket None None None Locomotive None None None None None Caterpillar None None None None None Skunk None None None None None Panda None None None None None None None Swampy Double ----------------------------------!-----------Sidewinder w/ S i decar None None None None None None 2 Seat Fire Engine None None None None None Seat Airplane Tuff Rider None None None None None Spring Post None Earthquake Surfer None None None Spring Platform None None None None None Standup Spiner None None None None --f--------------r---------Speedy Racer 3x None None Tri-Rider None 2 Seat Buck-A-Bout None None None 4 Seat Spring None 4 Seat Buck-A-Bout Sandbox and Equipment 189

PAGE 191

Custom Sandboxes 6' Border nmber w/ two 30" Stakes Sand Studio 6 Sand Studio 7 Sandbox (cont) None None Egul!!ment EZ Digger Activities Stationary Cycler Log Roll I None Skill Building Triple Shoot out Toss-Up Loopy \Nhoop Tether Ball Dura Balance Beam Curved Balance Beam Horizontal Ladder T ri-Le vel Bars Parallel Bars Fitness Trail Stations with Instructional Sign Steo-U Bodv Cur1 None None None Sand Table None None Turtle Sandbox Super Scoop Stationary Cycler Log Roll None None Drop Shot None None None None None None None None None None None 6x6 Miracle nmber None None None None None None None Sand Table Sand Table Sand Table Sand Table None Double Sand Table None None Therapeutic None None None None None None None ---X-Cavator Little Diggers None Backhoe Digger Power Pedaler None None None Roll Log None Log RoU None Swing Step None None None None None None None Fun Tunnel None Triple Hoop Toss N' Score Pirouette None None Pogo Pole Tether Ball None None Tetherball Set Straight Balance None None Balance Beam Curved Balance None Snake Beam Curved Beam None None None None None None None None None None Parallel Bars None None None None None None None 190-

PAGE 192

Leg Ufl None None None None None Parallel Bars Parallel Bars None None Parallel Bars Parallel Bars Beam Jump None None None None Log Hop Push Up None None None None Push Up Bar Achilles Stretch/ None None None Stretch Pole Achilles Stretch Isometric Squat None None None None Horizontal Loop Ladder None None None None None None Horizontal Ladder None None Challenge Ladder None Jump 'N' Touch Jump Touch Beam None None Jump Touch Beam None Dura Balance Beam Beam Run None None Beam Run Balance Bars Sit-Up Situpl Pushup Bench None None Sit Up Bench Sit Up/Push Up Bench Fitness Trail Stations with Instructional Sign (cont:) Chin-Up Pull-Up None None Pull Up Bars Ch i n Up Bars ClimbinaWall None None None Vertical Ladder None HiD Rotation None None None None None Vault Bar None None None Spring Up Bars Vault Bar None Climbing Wall None None None None Station WorldTrail 1 112 Fitness Cluster None None Ten Station Parcourse Fit Center to 2 Mile Course Fitness Station -191-

PAGE 193

7 4 4 DPS Safety Assessment Forms Fina l ized January 2005 Playground Safety Site Assessment Elementary School : Address : Inspector : Inspection Date : Note : If any NO is checked for any of the individual site assessment issues please provide detail comments on additional sheets of paper and attach to this report. -192-

PAGE 194

Item Issues Yes No N/A Comments A General Concerns I 1. Can the playground be seen from the street? 2. Is the playground fenced off from the street open water sources ditches, etc? 3 Does the playground provide for wheelchair access? 4. Are drinking founta i ns present operational and clean? 5 Is the size of the playground equipment correct for the age group utilizing it? 6. Does the playground have adequate site drainage? 7 Is the equipment free of vandalism? 8. Does the playground provide approved shade structures and/or trees? B Ground Cover 1. Is fall protection, EWF (Engineered Wood Fiber) provided under all play equipment? 2 Is the loose fall material12 inches deep? 3. Does the fall material extend at least 6 feet beyond the play equipment footprint? 4 Is the fall material non-compacted? 5. Is there a rubber mat present that is 1 inch thick for every 4 feet of equipment height? 6. Does the fall material extend beyond the beam swing height? (1 : 2 Height to Distance Ratio?) 7 Is there a provision for keeping the swing area free of conflicting traffic? C Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) Compliance 1. Are there openings p r esent in the play equipment that are between 4 and 7 inches? 2 Are there any "V' shaped entrapments in the play equipment? 3 Are there 38 inch high non-climbable tails on all raised platforms / decks? 4. Are there any protrusions that extend beyond the play equipment surface? If so, is the protrusion s end Qf_its_ bae?

PAGE 195

Item Issues Yes No N/A Comments D Risk Management 1 Have the spin-arounds and see-saws been removed? 2 Are the decks lower than 66 i nches high? Is the equipment height less than 104 i nches? 3 Are the grass areas free of holes and/or protruding sprinkler heads? 4 Are the walkways and ball courts free of trip haza r ds? 5. Are the trash cans/dumpsters child-proofed ? 6 If present are the soccer goals firmly anchored and in good conditi on? 7. If present are the chain-link fencing mesh and any chain link backstop meshing serviceable and free of barbed edges? 8. Are the metal slides shaded? VIJhat i s the slide compass orientation? 9 Have mery-go-rounds pivot type see-saws concrete pipe and glider-type swings been removed? 10 If present are the basketball goals of the nonclimbable gooseneck type? E. Maintenance 1 Are the swings and bearing chains in good order? 2. Are S style hooks closed and swing seats intact? 3. Is the play equipment anchored according to specifications? 4 If present are the wood structures sound smooth and free from splinters and excessive checks? 5 Are the trees properly pruned and healthy? 6. If present are the benches sound smooth and free of any sharp corners? F. Supervision 1. Is the play equipment centralized for easy supervision? -194-2. Is there a separate play areaq provided for the ECE I pre primary children? 3. Have the cha i n nets been removed f rom the basketball rims?

PAGE 196

7.4.5 DPS Risk ManagementNational Award Winning Program DPS RISK MANAGEMENT RECENT AWARDS: DPS Safety Bookmark/Rulers-First Place 2003 Achievement Award for outstanding achievement in the Product Category from the Public Risk Management Association (PRIMA) Award of Merit for distinguished achievement in the Special Purpose Category of the 2003 Publications and Electronic Media Contest from the National School Public Relat i ons Association (NSPRA) . .. DPS Safety and Health Calendar 200212003-Second Place 2003 Achievement Award for achievement in the Product Category from the Public Risk Management Association .!.!:.:::. (PRIMA). Award of Merit for distinguished achievement in the Calendar Category of the 2003 Publications and Electronic Media Contest from the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA) -195-

PAGE 197

II ,..,_ ,,.utd _.,1----..... --:;-...:....,.._ Pazi the Parrot, DPS Safety Mascot-Award of Merit for distinguished achievement in the Identity/Image Package Category of the 2003 Publications and Electronic Media Contest from the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA) Play Cool at School, A Playground Safety Curriculum-First Place 2001 Achievement Award for outstanding achievement in the Product Category from the Public Risk Management Association (PRIMA) DPS Safety and Health Calendar 200112002-Award of Merit for distinguished achievement from the National School Public Relations Association (NSPRA) 2002 Publications and Electronic Media Contest . fl...= DPS School Walk Program 2001/2002-Second Place 2002 Achievement Award for outstanding achievement in the Program Category from the Public Risk Management Association (PRIMA) -196-

PAGE 198

Michael Mayo, DPS Safety Manager-Award for Excellence from the National Association of School Safety and Law Enforcement (NASSLEO) in recognition of outstanding service to the profession of School Safety and Law Enforcement Stephen Finley, Director, Risk Management-2002 Public Risk Manager of the Year from the Public Risk Management Association (PRIMA) 197-

PAGE 199

7. 4. 6 DPS Risk Management Recognitions For the past six years, Risk Management has recognized those schools that made it through the previous school year without a workers compensation claim from the faculty of the school. This year we are recognizing 12 schools. Along with this recognition is a handsomely framed certificate and a gift certificate to Office Depot. New this year we are recognizing schools that have taken advantage of the of the various student safety programs offered by the district. Risk Management Awards for 2002-2003 follow on the next page The awards are for : 1) completing the school year without any faculty/staff workers compensation accidents; 2) completing four out of five (Award of Excellence) or three out of five (Award of Merit) Student Safety Programs (e g., AAA Safety Village Buster the Bus) during the school year. An interesting thing to note is the number of Learning Landscape schools on this list. A follow up study investigating a reduction of risks associated with Learning Landscape playgrounds may be warranted Data retrieved by Bambi Yost on May 12 2005 from http : //www.dpsk12 org/docs/tuesday_telegram/tt11-18-03.doc#_(BACK)_5 198

PAGE 200

Northeast Area Hallett Elementary School Stedman Elementary School Arts and Cultural Studies (Manual Complex) High School Risk Management Awards 2002-2003 Northwest Area Southeast Area WCAwards Smedley Elementary School 1 Fallis Elementary School McKinleyThatcher Elementary School Montclair Elementary School Rosedale Elementary School Place Middle School Student Safety Awards Award of Excellence Fallis Elementary School Rosedale Elementary School University Park Elementary School Award of Merit McMeen Elementary Schoo l Montclair Elementary School Palmer Elementary School Teller Elementary School Designates a Learning Landscape School during 2002 2003 199-Southwest Area College View Elementary School Kaiser Elementary Schoo l Munroe Elementary School Award of Merit Munroe Elementary School

PAGE 201

7.4. 7 DPS Playground Safety Handbook PLAYGROUND SAFETY -200-

PAGE 202

Published : January 2000 -201-

PAGE 203

PLAYGROUND SAFETY PROCEDURES Introduction The playground is a fun-filled place However, with the dramatic increase in playground related injuries over the past two decades it is also a place that requires adult supervision United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) statistics estimate that nearly 200,000 playground-related injuries occur each year requiring emergency room visits. Nearly 40 percent of those injuries are related to inadequate supervision -202-

PAGE 204

Although teachers and supervisors are not to be trained inspectors they can visually inspect the playground for safety problems and make sure that children do not play on unsafe equipment. The following tips offer key points to remember when supervising children on playgrounds Supervision Means ... ... Stay Alert and Attentive Move through the playground area stationary persons only help children nearest to them. Avoid staying on outskirts of playground area Stay involved with the children on the playground, do not use playground time as a time for socializing with other adults or for doing paperwork Observe all children and the "secret" places where they could hide. Realize a child can wander into a hazardous situation in less than a minute Use direct eye contact with children to help prevent inappropriate behavior Ensure you have an adequate number of adults supervising for the number of children ... Being Aware of Age Appropriate Equipment. Equipment should reflect the physical social emotional and intellectual differences of its planned users All playground equipment is not appropriate for all ages of children All KPBSD playground equipment is designed for ages 6-12 If equipment is not labeled or separated for specific ages direct children to equipment appropriate to their ages and development. ... Evaluating Hazards. -203-

PAGE 205

Evaluate the playground for potential hazards that could cause serious or fatal i njuries to children Watch for foreign objects such as glass nails and pop tops that are hard to see Ensure all animal feces are removed from area. Watch for hazards like loose or protruding nuts or bolts broken parts exposed concrete and shallow protective surfacing that occur through the children s regular use of equipment Surface material should be no larger than 1/2" material. If you spot problems that you can remedy yourself, like picking up trash correct the problem If you observe other safety problems like broken equipment or inadequate amount of surfacing material contact the adm i nistrator and request that it be fixed or taken out of service Children s clothes should be inspected for safety Remove any loose clothing, hoods or strings that might catch on playground equipment Equipment that is deemed a safety issue should be taken out of service immediately ... Observing. Keep an eye out for any unsafe behavior such as climbing up a sl ide or sliding down a slide backwards Make sure children keep moving on equipment and keep their hands and feet on supports at all times ... Knowing Safe Playground Rules. Teach children the safety rules of the playground Agree on rules before children are allowed on equipment to prevent confrontations on the playground Real i ze school age children can remember up to five rules while preschoolers should have only three or less Remind children that they are never to leave the playground area without perm i ssion from a supervising adult Instruct children to keep their hands to themselves-no hitt i ng pushing punching kicking or biting No sand throwing Snow stays on the ground Prohibit throwing of snowballs ... When Inappropriate Behavior Occurs ... Warn children verbally about inappropriate behavior ; intervene between fighting children immediately to prevent injury Enforce rules firmly and consistently ; Pushing throwing objects and hitting other children can lead to serious injury. Reinforce safe playground behavior on public playgrounds by following through with appropriate measures ... Being Prepared -204-

PAGE 206

Keep a first aid kit stocked and easily available in case an injury occurs. First aid kits should be maintained by nurse/office staff and include latex gloves Try to ensure at least one playground supervisor is certified in first aid and CPR. Pieces of Equipment Most Likely to be Associated with Injuries Type of Injury Total Victim <6 Victim >6 Equipment Climbers 32% 18% 40% Slides 29% 43% 21% Swings 26% 22% 28% See-saws 6% 7% 5% Other 7% 10% 6% Most Common Injuries by Hazard Falls to surface 58 10% Falls, other 16 50% Impact, moving equipment 13.10% Other 6 90% Impact static equipment 5.40% Injuries by Type of Equipment Climbers 31. 90% Slides 29 10% Swings 26 00% See-saws 6 00% Merry-go-rounds 3 60% Other 3 40% Statistics from 1996 Nat i onal Parks and Recreat i on Associat i on's Nationa l Playg r ound Safety Institute Playground Accident Procedures If an accident occurs on the playground, the following procedures should be followed: 1 Keep other children away from the area -205-

PAGE 207

2 Check for injuries and secure proper medical assistance 3 Always suspect a neck and back injury with head injuries until proven otherwise. 4 DO NOT MOVE THE STUDENT IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS However if the injury is not of a serious nature help the student to the clinic or office 5. If the accident is due to defective equipment, make sure that the other students stay away from the equipment until it is repaired or replaced 6 Notify the administrator of defective equipment. 7 Obtain the names of all witnesses 8 Complete a "Report of Accident as soon as possible if : Student left school or activity for medical treatment Ambulance is called Parent was notified Injury involves weather conditions Injury may have been caused by physical condition of facility Injury involves the head neck or spine Injury was competitive sports related If the form is to be filled out by the school nurse be sure you obtain all of the necessary information in order for the f orm to be filled out completely 9 Send COMPLETED form to the Planning and Operations Department. 10 If equipment is determined to be a safety issue, have administrator contact the R isk Management Department for repair Secure defective equipment and take pictures if a major injury has occurred Phone the Risk Manager at (907) 262-8612 -206-

PAGE 208

The following fonn is available at all schools. Please be sure to use the current version and fill in all infonnation as completely and accurately as possible. KENAI PENINSULA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT INJURY/INCIDENT REPORT 1 Student's Name ___ -:-:--:--:-:-=---:--:-:-----Student ID# ____ D O B .. ______ Male [ ) Female [ ) School ______________________ Grade ____ Father's Name---------------Mother's Name ______ Home Address---------------Phone Number _______ 2 Date of injury/incident ____________ Time of injury/incident. _____ 3 Location where injury/incident occurred : [ ] Bus/bus stop [ ] Cafeteria [ ] Chemistry lab [ ] Classroom [ ] Football field [ ] Gym [ ] Hallway [ ] Home Economics [ ] Ice Rink [ ] Locker room [ ] Parking lot [ ] Play ground [ ) Restroom [ ) School grounds [ ) Shop Wood/Auto [ ] Stairs [ ) Other: _________________ 4 Type of injury: [ ] Abrasion [ ] Amputation [ ] Bum [ ] Laceration [ ] Puncture [ ] Scratches [ ] Pass Concussion [ ] Pass. Dislocation [ ] Pass Fracture [ ] Pass Sprain [ ) Other : __ 5. Part of body injured : (indicate right by Rand left by Lon the item checked when appropriate) [ ] Scalp[ ) Head [ ] Face [ ) Eye R L [ ) Nose [ ] Mouth [ ] T oath [ ) Neck [ ) Chest [ ) Arm R L [ ] Elbow R L [ ) Hand R L [ ] Wrist R L [ ] Finger R L [ ] Abdomen [ ] Back [ ] Leg R L [ ] Knee R L [ ] Foot R L [ ] Ankle R L [ ] Other : __________ 6. Activity student involved in at the time of the incident and cause of injury : (be specific about event resulting in injury) 7. Description of incident by supervisor : Describe how the accident happened what the student was doing location of the student unsafe acts and/or conditions, and specific safeguards used & amount of supervision -207-

PAGE 209

8. Description of injury/incident by the injured student: 9 Description of injury/incident by witness : (include the name of the witness) 10. Description of first aid given by supervisor/teacher (other than by nurse-Sect i on 10 is to be completed by the nurse) Original To : School District Copies To : School Office and School Nurse 0101 Rev. 01/2000 11. Disposition : [ 1 Home [ 1 Physician[ 1 Emergency room [ 1 Returned to class [ 1 Other: (explain) ______________________ 12 'Mlo was notified : [ 1 Mother[ 1 Father [ 1 Guardian [ 1 Emergency contact [ ] Other : (explain), ______________________ 13 Notification made by : [ 1 Telephone [ ] Note : File a copy in the student's cum. Health folder 14. Student transported to: [ ] Home [ 1 Physician[ 1 Emergency Room [ ] Other : (explain), ___ Time :-------15 Student transported by : [ ] Parent [ 1 Ambulance [ 1 Other: ___________ 16 Additional follow-up : This Section to be completed by the school nurse if directly involved in providing emergency care (Be sure to include follow-up notation, especially when not available for emergency care) 17 NURSES ACTION : Time/Date. ________ Nurse Available [ 1 Yes [ 1 No 2 0 8

PAGE 210

( Subjective) Student states : ( Objective) B/P ____ P ____ R ___ ( Assessment) ( Plan) (Please Print) Form Completed by: __________________ Date _______ Teacher or Supervisor: Date _______ School Nurse : Date--------Pri ncipal : Date-------Origi nal To: School District Copies To : School Office and School Nurse D 101 Rev. 01/2000 Common Playground Equipment Dangers THl S NOT T'HIS "S" Hooks: Open-ended hooks especially the "S hooks on swings that can catch skin or clothing should be avoided Contact Maintenance to close open "S" hooks Exposed Screws and Bolts: Most sets include protective caps to cover screws and bolts \A/hen protective caps are not in place tape over all exposed screws and bolts including those that appear to be out of the reach of the children. Call Maintenance for repair. -209-

PAGE 211

.J.-'--/ ':: I .. m i Sharp Edges: Some sets have sharp edges on points where the parts fit together Tape over these areas with heavy tape and call Maintenance for repair. Improper Anchoring: Support legs can be set in concrete for stability All types of anchoring devices should be buried below ground level to avoid a tripping hazard or a hard fall. Inadequate Surfacing: Keep surfaces underneath swings and slides even and with a minimum depth of 6 i nches Keep surfaces raked to fill in holes Protruding Wire: Serious injures can result from exposed wire from broken fences and backstops Wire should be bent back or cut so that the edge is not exposed Call Maintenance Splintering: Wooden logs due to weathering can result in the wood splintering Report splintered wood to maintenance Playground Usage Guidelines The following information is designed to provide you with some assistance in the development of safe and appropriate guidelines for activit ies on school playgrounds. General Safety Rules 1 All games should be approved and played in appropriate areas. -210-

PAGE 212

2 Any danger areas on the playground should be so designated These danger areas may include, for example a softball diamond if a game is in progress Children should be instructed to stand clear of these danger areas and the participants in the softball game should also be given safety instructions including "Do not throw the bats!" 3. All games should be appropriate to the grade level of the participants 4 All playground activities must be supervised 5 The best safety policy is good construction and instruction! 6 No tackle football, ice hockey or other high hazard sports during recess General Apparatus Guidelines 1 Do not carry objects while climbing on equipment. 2 Bars and rings are for children who can reach them without help 3. At least one hand must be in contact with the apparatus at all times. Hands are the last part of the body to leave the apparatus. 4 Apparatus should be dry when in use. 5 Children should be taught to hang and drop bending the knees upon landing as the proper method to dismount from the apparatus 6. Do not sit on the apparatus 7 Do not play under the apparatus 8 Use warm water to release skin from metal during freezing temperatures Rings 1 Rings are to be used for "traveling" ; never for acrobatic gymnastic stunts 2 One child must get half way around before a second child starts. 3 Only one child should be on the approach board at a time. 4 Children should drop from ring to sand or approved surface below when their tum is completed. They should not swing out over the blacktop or other concrete surfaces and release their grip 211

PAGE 213

Bars 1 Grasp the bars with both hands Use overhand reverse or m i xed grip 2 : Pull-ups chin-ups and twining the body over the bar are good conditioning activities 3. Never stand on bars or attempt to jump off. -2 1 2

PAGE 214

Jungle Gym/Climbers 1 Never hang by the knees stand on the top or jump from the jungle gym 2 Children should have both hands in contact with the jungle gym and should not interfere with other children while climbing. 213-

PAGE 215

Horizontal Ladder 1. Travel on the ladder should proceed in the same line of direction 2. One child should be halfway across before a second child starts 3 Children should not sit or stand on top of the ladder -214-

PAGE 216

Slides 1 Climb up the ladder one step at a time and one child at a time 2 Slide down in a sitting position, feet forward 3 No straddling slide going down backwards, or on side 4. Bottom should remain on slide at all times. 5 Metal slides should be check to assure a safe surface temperature during hot weather -215-

PAGE 217

Geodesic Domes 1 Use should be restricted to fourth grade and higher 2 Games such as "chase", "tag ," and "train" should not be permitted 3 Children should not play on the surface under the dome 4 You should have at least three body parts in contact with the dome at all times, such as two arms and one leg -216-

PAGE 218

Bats and Balls 1. Volleyballs and basketballs are not to be kicked. 2 Bat handles are to be taped Bats must be checked for cracked or worn places 3. Bats are not to be swung except in approved areas 4 Bats are not to be thrown (Show students the proper way to drop the bat before running the bases ) 5 Persons catching or umpiring behind the batter should wear masks -217-

PAGE 219

Swings 1 Children must maintain a sitting position while the swing is in motion No jumping from swing while it is in motion 2 There should be only one child per swing 3 Motion of the swing should only be forward or backward. No twisting or twirling. 4 Peers should not play near swings when they are in motion. -2 18-

PAGE 220

1. Children must maintain a sitting position while the swing is in motion No jumping from swing while it is in motion 2 There should be only one child per swing 3 Peers should not play near swings when they are in motion 4 Report defects to Maintenance immediately Suggestions for Playground Supervisors 1. Everyone connected with the school (teachers, aides visitors recreation leaders etc ) should follow the same safety rules 2 Assemblies on safety are extremely beneficial. These should be scheduled on a periodic bas i s to review any new playground equipment and any new playground guidelines that are to be implemented 3 Walk the class through a safety course on the playground the first day of the school year 4 Remember; the best safety policy is good supervision and instruction as well as constant review of playground guidelines and rules 2 19-

PAGE 221

Changes or Additions to Playgrounds Schools do not have the authority to independently perform alterations mod i fications upgrades or maintenance to their playground equipment without first coordinating with Risk Management. Additional playground equipment must be acquired from an approved vendor with Risk Management approval. Safety Concerns or Issues The Kenai Peninsula Borough School District strives to maintain safe playgrounds for the students. If you have safety concerns that cannot be addressed through the facility administrator, please call Risk Management at (907) 262-8612 -220-

PAGE 222

Wind Chill Factor ... Wind Chill refers to the evaporation of moisture from exposed skin Wind Chill Factor is a measure of the cooling effect of wind In cold weather a person loses more heat when the wind is blowing than when it is calm I I Equi'ilalentWin<;i Chill Temperature Cheyrt ' -.... Jerilii;,raturif!Dieorees IIIIIIIDIEI IIIEIEIIfiiiiEI ........... 11111111111!11!111111 IIII!IEIIIEIIIEI llllilmiiiiiiiiiDI IIEIIIIIIIIIIIDIEI lllllmiEIIIIEI EIIIBIDIIIIEI EIEIIIIEIEIIEI Equivalent Wind Chill Temperatures* To determine wind chill find the outside air temperature on the top line, then read down the column to the measured wind speed (MPH-Miles Per Hour ) For example: \Nhen the outside air temperature is 0 degrees F, and the wind speed is 20 MPH the rate of heat loss is equivalent to minus 39 degrees F when there is no wind (zero up to 4 mph ) The area shown in corresponds to Little Danger The area shown in yellow corresponds to Increasing Danger where flesh may freeze within 1 minute The area show in corresponds to great danger where flesh may freeze within 30 seconds National Weather Service The following information reflects current guidelines for the Kenai Peninsula Borough School District and restates a 1991 discussion concerning cold weather recess : Periods of prolonged outdoor time for students should not occur when the temperature is -1 0 degrees Fahrenheit or below This figure should include a wind chill factor. Prolonged outdoor activities are recess, PE, class walks etc. \Nhen applying this guideline please take into consideration the medical needs of children with special conditions or who are recuperating from illness -221-

PAGE 223

Helpful telephone numbers for temperature information on the Kenai Peninsula are 262-6500 and 235-6101. Examples: 28 degrees Conditions comfortable when properly dressed 18 degrees Conditions no longer pleasant for outdoor activities on overcast days 9 degrees Conditions no longer pleasant for outdoor activities on sunny days 1 degree Freezing of exposed skin begins for most people depending on the degree of activity and the amount of sunshine -31 degrees-Conditions for outdoor travel, such as walking, become dangerous. Exposed areas freeze in less than one minute for the average person. -50 degrees Exposed flesh freezes within a half minute on the average Produced by Planning and Operations Kenai Peninsula Borough School District \Nith the cooperation of: Risk Management Department Denver Public Schools Playgrounds Regulated By Kenai Peninsula Borough 144 N Binkley Street Soldotna AK 99669 Risk Manager Gary Lamb (907) 262-8612 -222-

PAGE 224

7.5 APPENDIX E LEARNING LANDSCAPE INITIATIVE DATA The following documents are kept on file in the University of Colorado at Denver Health Sciences Center's Architecture and Planning Department's Children, Youth and Environments Center for Research and Development's Learning Landscape Initiative office 7 5 1 History of Learning Landscape Playgrounds Something extraordinary has happened in Denver Community members in some of Denver's most disadvantaged neighborhoods have united forces with public, private, and non-profit entities to reinvent their local elementary school playgrounds. To date, over $10 million has been raised through grants and donations resulting in the reconstruction of 28 civic-centered schoolyards. VVhat began as a personal project for community members and Associate Professor Lois Brink at Bromwell Elementary School has since become an urban initiative, evoking social change and physical transformation of public grounds. Learning Landscapes, initially developed to strengthen Denver s public elementary schools and their surrounding neighborhoods, are community-based multi-dimensional school playgrounds that also offer profound elements of a public park and a social gathering place. VVhile the main objective of the project is to reconnect communities with their public schools, a Learning Landscape playground also creates innovative avenues for participatory learning, increases recreational -223-

PAGE 225

opportunities, and provides a much needed green space in otherwise heavily urban neighborhoods These playgrounds encourage discovery, civic engagement, and fun In addition, each school serves as a landmark and civic center celebrating the cultural and historic character of each distinct neighborhood. The Learning Landscape Initiative officially began in 1999 when the University of Colorado at Denver (UCD) Landscape Architecture Program entered into a formal agreement to plan, design, and build Denver Public Elementary School playgrounds throughout the district. The 22 playgrounds constructed from 2000-2003 were chosen as part of Denver's Focus Neighborhood Initiative. University of Colorado graduate students through a trilogy of courses serve as a think tank for new design concepts as they work in concert with a specific school and its community The collective ideas that emerge are born out of the rich cultural diversity of the neighborhood, the multi-generational aspect of communal space, the gender and age appropriate needs of young children today, and the exploration of non traditional design and materials The success of the Learning Landscape project is founded on a healthy enthusiasm for aesthetic issues, as well as a pragmatic approach to maintenance, safety and recreational issues. The principal value of a learning landscape is its multiplicity In an era of limited resources and -224-

PAGE 226

increasing urban social ills single minded urban renewal projects that are forced on communities are neither viable nor sustainable solutions By bringing together diverse groups working in concert a civic processnot a project-is created Graduate students learn design and the value of civic responsibility while providing a much needed design service to local communities. The landscape architecture program at the University of Colorado advances the discipline by creating a new urban hybrid that provides valuable primary research into the machinations of modem community life. School grounds serve as parks, and antiquated school grounds are restored to their civic place in the community while enhancing education through participatory hands-on learning. In support of public amenities and community-based initiatives, Mayor John Hickenlooper recently stated "As a community, we receive so many benefits from ensuring that children receive a strong well-rounded education ... Learning landscapes is a perfect model of what can be accomplished when the private sector public sector and the nonprofit community are engaged and invested in a common goal. "8 In the fall of 2003 voters overwhelmingly elected to support a $310 million bond proposal for Denver Public Schools According to public school officials, the community-based Learning Landscapes Initiative was a key concern for voters Approximately $1 0 million of the bond is -225-

PAGE 227

being spent to complete partially constructed Learning Landscape playgrounds that lacked sufficient fund i ng initially and to create an additional 1 2 new Learning Landscapes because of public demand Additional i nformation about the Learning Landscape Initiative can be found online at the Children, Youth and Environments Center for Research and Design at http : //thunder1.cudenver edu/cye/ and a published field report is available at http : //www colorado edu/journals/cye/14 1/fi e ldreports/field3 pdf 7. 5 2 UCD-DPS Master Plans Master plans are liv ing documents created by UCD Architecture and Planning students working with DPS personnel, students, parents, and other community members These documents provide the framework for design documents 7 5. 3 UCD-DPS Design Documents Design documents are also living documents created by UCD Architecture and Planning students working with DPS personnel students parents and other community members These documents provide the framework for professional construction documents. 7. 5. 4 UCD-DPS Construction Documents Construct ion documents are typically created by design professionals The professionals selected to design and build Learning Landscape playgrounds must be approved by DPS and are required to adhere to community wishes and student documents. Occasionally construction documents are created by -226-

PAGE 228

UCD design build students These tend to be at smaller scale and scope and include things like planting plans bench details irrigation as built drawings etc. 7 5. 5 UCD DPS As-Built Documents Typically as-built documents are provided by DPS facilities management department the construction contractor or the design professionals who created the construction documents Occasionally as-built documents are provided by UCD students 7 5 6 UCD-DPS Maintenance Documents Maintenance documents consist of projected maintenance budgets timelines for expected repairs or general maintenance needs unexpected issues unresolved problems resulting from site conditions beyond the scope of Learning Landscape playgrounds graffiti and vandalism reports, maintenance schedules volunteer clean up days e-mail correspondence and more 7 5 7 UCD-DPS Baseline Data Baseline data exists in various forms for each Learning Landscape site Most schools have substantial baseline information found in master plans, design documents, and construction documents. This data includes demographic information CSAP scores, school satisfaction reports historic and ne i ghborhood information preliminary budgets photosurvey results from students school personnel parents and community vision statements and goals photographs site plans site acreage, and more In addition qualitative and quantitative baseline data has been gathered and documented for nine Learning Landscape sites in the Center of Research 227-

PAGE 229

Strategies (CRS) Evaluation of Learning Landscape Project Report (CRS, 2003) Also, in the spring of 2005, UCD and DPS began collecting baseline data for all DPS elementary schools See DPS baseline survey for sample questionnaire in following section -228-

PAGE 230

7 5 8 UCD-DPS 2005 District-Wide Playground Survey Distributed in January 2005 DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS 900 Grant Street, Denver CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 764-3706 To : Principals From: Mike Langley, Executive Director Facility Management Allen Balczarek Research Planning and Special Programs Dates: Subject: Playground Survey and Data Collection August9,2005 Denver Public Schools is very pleased about the passage of the General Obligation Bond. We are in the process of documenting the existing conditions on all of the playgrounds at all Denver Public Elementary Schools. As part of our self-evaluation we are asking that DPS employees 3-51 h grade students community members and parents participate in this study. This initial playground study is an effort to quantify the existing information on outdoor curriculum, student behavior playground injuries vandalism community participation and involvement and educational impact. This data will be used to help inform future playground construction and maintenance and possibly curriculum development. -229-

PAGE 231

A second faculty only" survey focused specifically on outdoor education and the use of school grounds for learning opportunities will follow this spring We are requesting your assistance in formalizing the procedure for collecting initial baseline information through surveys developed for all elementary schools and to begin the task of collecting on-going data Thank you for your time and assistance Cc : Dr. Lois Brink Tom Kaesemeyer Charles Burdo Troy Gamer Rusty Deane -230

PAGE 232

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS SURVEY SCHOOL NAME: i DATE: How long have you lived or worked i n thi s neighborhood or o less than 1 year school? 0 1-2 y ears 0 3-5 years 0 5-1 0 years 0 over 1 0 vears Have you used the playground at the school? 0 Yes 0 No Please indicate your connect ion with the school: 0 Parent I G uardian 0 Community Member o Local B u s i n e s s 0 OPSAdm i n 0 DPS Facilities 0 DPS Services 0 Student _ 3 4 5 j __________ --Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements by circling the number between 1 and 5 that best represents your opinion. NJA PERCEPTIONS OF'THE:PLA 'tA>. '-''' "'. ;' .. -'if : ' 'l-# .. .J, ,. ,.-.J, .J, i._. "'"" -'*: .. .J ,., !:l'f..:.!>i,: ;,.., .. ..... -.-::,. :; I like the way the playground looks. (There are many activities on the playground Most students are active on the playground. !Vandalism and tagging on school property are a !problem. People spend a lot of time taking care of the !playground The playground is safe Students learn on the playground Students get teased in a mean way on the playground. 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 -2313 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6

PAGE 233

Students get along with each other on the playground 1 2 3 4 5 6 Students get pushed shoved slapped or kicked on the playground. 1 2 3 4 5 6 There are very few accidents on the playground 1 2 3 4 5 6 Students use the playground during their physical education classes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Teachers use the playground to teach their lessons 1 2 3 4 5 6 Students pay more attent ion in class after recess or after being outside for a class. 1 2 3 4 5 6 INVOLVEMENT WITH-THE PLAYGROUND -'': -. -t.. Veryir_ ", I'IP Nofatall :. -;: . >;; .. .,,. 7 ,-t .r3', .. ,. ,, .. \ hwoiWd : <. Somewhaflnvolved d nvolved '' NIA -: ,'_ P;_; '": ;i' \-' '" -. __ ,. :'-., . ''"-.. '' I help(ed) plan, raise money and/or build the school and/or playground 1 2 3 4 5 6 I help(ed) with the Master Plan for this school !playground. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ' ,-,, i:J -' - .. 5-7 days a 1. 2 times 2 4 or more ".;,.... .. -... .... """ ,.,, .. week ptirweek permonthtlmesayear Never 'N/A ..-; ;. . .. . ""' "' .. :"' ""' ""' ""' : j-; -:. ; .... -"'' ,. '
PAGE 234

7 5 9 UCD-DPS Baseline Incident Log Data As a result of the Center of Research Strategies 2003 Learning Landscape Project Evaluation a baseline incident log was created for all Learning Landscape playgrounds in an effort to better track the number of injuries and incidents of bully ing. Below is an example of this inc i dent log. Data is being collected by each of the schools and submitted to the DPS Risk Management Department and to the Learning Landscape Initiative The number of injuries and bullying reported has decreased substantially from numbers reported prior to the new Learning Landscape playgrounds (Brink 2004) DPS-LLA Baseline Incident Log School Fall 2005 Summary Incident Injuries on Reason/Cause of Injury Discipline on playground Discipline on playground Date playground (no office referrral) (office referrral) -233-

PAGE 235

7. 5 10 UCD-DPS Before and After Photographs of Playgrounds Photographs of all Learning Landscape playgrounds can be found in the UCD Architecture and Planning Department's Children Youth and Environments Center for Research and Design Learning Landscape office. Some of these photos are available in digital form only, others in printed form only The following images and others are available on the Learning Landscape website at http : //thunder1 cudenver edu/cyellla/accomplishments html and the Learning Landscape video is available onl i ne at http : //video cudenver. edu/users/byost/111. wmv Before After Bromwell Elementary -234-

PAGE 236

7 5.11 UCD-DPS Schoolyard Consortium Educational Programs 1 AUDUBON SOCIETY OF GREATER DENVER Laura Steigers Program Instructor 303-973-9981 lsteigers@denveraudubon org 2 GEORGE BRINKMANN George Brinkmann, Horticulturalist 303-671-9161 gcbrinkmann@yahoo com 3 BUTTERFLY HOPE Julie Dale Carr, Director 303-455 0684 bfhope@qwest.net 4 THE DANDELION PROJECT Julie Chrzanowski, Director Dandelion Project Rocky Mountain Children s Law Center 303-692-1165 jchrzanowski@mail.law du edu 5 DENVER BOTANIC GARDENS Lisa Davis, Children s Progam Manager 720-865 3613 davisl@botanicgardens org Steve Rozic, Horticulturalist 303-370-8042 rozics@botanicgardens org 6 DENVER PARKS AND RECREATION Tiffiany Moehring Volunteer Coordinator/Hands on Denver 303-964-1 045 tiffiany moehring@ci denver co us Delores Moreno Supervisor Community Recreation 303-839-4815 delores moreno@ci denver co.us Curt Garrett Coordinator Community Recreation After-School Program 303-839-4804 community rec@ci.denver.co us 6 DENVER PARKS AND RECREATION (continued) Susan Baird, Senior Landscape Architect LongRange Plann i ng 720-913-0617 susan baird@ci denver co us Bruce Klein, Assoc. Landscape Architect 720-913-0622 bruce klein@ci.denver co us 9 FRONTRANGE EARTH FORCE Lisa Bardwell, Director 303-433-0016 www earthforce org 1 0 GROUNDS FOR LEARNING Susan Bardwell 303-399-1155 sbardwell@att net 11 GROUNDVVORK DENVER Harry Ford, Executive Directo r 303-433-2956 www groundworkusa org harry.ford@attbi com 12 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (H&NDS) Monica Perales Senior Community Relations Specialist 720-913-1569 monica perales@ci denver co us Jodi Adkins Neighborhood Development Specialist 720-913-1529 jodi adkins@ci denver .co. us 13 INTERPRET THIS Karin Hostetter, Educator 720-234-5074 interpret_this@hotmail.com 14 LEARNING LANDSCAPES Lois Brink, UCD Professor 720-939-5190 cell l brink @carbon .cud enver.edu Bambi Yost, UCD Research Assistant 720-217-2871 cell B ambi L Yost@v a hoo com 15 NATIONAL \NILDLIFE FEDERATION Julie McGarvey Senior Educator mcgarvey@nwf.org 303-786-8001 -235-

PAGE 237

7 DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS Don Moon Supervising Foreman Grounds Dept. 303-423-4082 Donald_Moon@dpsk12 org Charles Burdo, Project Manager for Learning Landscapes 303-423-4180 Charles_Burdo@dpsk12 org 8 DENVER URBAN GARDENS Michael Buchenau and David Rieseck Co-Executive Directors Judy Elliott, Education and Community Empowerment 303-292-9900 www dug org dirt@dug org ext 12 Tahlia Bear Educator Tribal Lands Program tbear@nwf.org 303 786-8001 16 SLOW FOOD DENVER Matthew Jones, Co-Leader 720-331-3331 matt@slowfooddenver .com Susan Mamich 303-322-2166 alivestyle@aol com 17 WIN-WIN COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP PROJECT Amy Bahrenburg CLP Specialist 303-376-4893 clpspecialist@denverzoo org 236

PAGE 238

7.6 APPENDIX F POTENTIAL SURVEY TOOLS The following ideas have been derived from multiple research articles and experiments The majority of the research conducted on perceptions of risk has used focus groups, questionnaires or surveys video or photosurveys to establish baseline perceptions of risk 7 6 1 Potential Survey Questions for Focus Groups Focus group prompts (Green and Hart, 1998) Can anyone tell me what they think an accident is? Has anyone had an accident recently? Seen one? What happened? How did it happen? Could anything have stopped it? Was it anyone's fault? How do accidents happen? How do you know if something has happened by accident? How can we stop accidents happening? What kind of advice do adults give you about avoiding accidents? Is it good advice? Do you always follow it? Do some children have more accidents than others? -237-

PAGE 239

7 6 2 Potential Domain-specific Risk-attitude Scale By integrating a risk-attitude scale like the one proposed below, quantitative results may be achieved This scale would need to be modified for children and retested but the basic framework provides a solid analysis addressing gender and personality differences In particular Appendix D of this study h i ghlights measures benefits in relation to risks and offers a way of establishing values to be applied to a cost effectiveness study. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making J Behav Dec Making 15 : 263-290 (2002) Published onl i ne in Wiley lnterScience 1 August 2002 (www interscience wiley com) DOl: 10 1002/bdm.414 A Domain-specific Risk-attitude Scale : Measuring Risk Perceptions and Risk Behaviors ELKE U. WEBER,1* ANN-RENE E BLAIS2 and NANCY E. BETZ3 1ColumbiaUniversity USA 2Center for lnteruniversityResearch andAnalysis onOrganizations Montreal Quebec Canada 3The Ohio StateUniversity USA ABSTRACT: We present a psychometric scale that assesses risk taking in five content domains: financial decisions (separately for investing versus gambling), health/safety recreational, ethical, and social decisions Respondents rate the likelihood that they would engage in domain-specific risky activities (Part 1). An opt i onal Part II assesses respondents' perceptions of the magnitude of the risks and expected benefits of the activities judged in Part I. The scale s construct validity and consistency is evaluated for a sample of American undergraduate students As expected respondents degree of risk taking was highly domain-specific i.e. not consistently risk averse or consistently riskseeking across all content domains Women appeared to be more risk-averse in all domains except social risk. A regression of risk taking (likelihood of engaging in the risky activity) on expected benefits and perceived risks suggests that gender and content -238-

PAGE 240

:tin differences in apparent risk taking are associated with differences in of the activities benefits and risk rather than with differences itude towards perceived risk Copyright# 2002 John Wiley & Sons Ltd ach of the following statements please indicate the likelihood of ging in each activity Provide a 1 to 5 using the following scale : 2 3 4 5 mely unlikely Not sure Extremely likely ___ Admitting that your tastes are different from those of your is. (S) Arguing with a friend who has a very different opinion on an : (S) ___ Asking your boss for a raise (S) ___ Betting a day s income at the horse races. (F) ___ Buying an illegal drug for your own use (E) ___ Chasing a tornado by car to take photos that you can sell to the ; (R) ___ Cheating a fair amount on your income tax (E) ___ Cheating on an exam. (E) ___ Co-signing a new car loan for a friend (F) ___ Dating someone that you are working with. (S) -:-:-:--Deciding to share an apartment with someone you don't know (S) ___ Disagreeing with your father on a major issue (S) ___ Driving home after you had three drinks in the last two hours. (E) ___ Eating expired' food products that still look okay'. (H) ___ Exploring an unknown city or section of town (R) ___ Forging somebody s signature (E) ___ Frequent binge drinking (H) ___ Going camping in the wild (R) ___ Going down a ski run that is too hard or closed (R) ___ Go ing on a safari in Kenya (R) ___ Go ing on a two-week vacation in a foreign country without ing accommodations ahead (R) ___ Going whitewater rafting at high water in the spring. (R) ___ Ignoring some persistent physical pain by not going to the 1r. (H) -239-

PAGE 241

24. ___ Illegally copying a piece of software. (E) 25. Taking a medical drug that has a high likelihood of negative side (H) 26. ___ Traveling on a commercial airplane (R) 27. Plagiarizing a term paper (E) 28. Engaging in unprotected sex (H) 29. Investing 10% of your annual income in a blue chip stock. (F) Investing 10% of your annual income in a very speculative stock :F) 1 Investing 10% of your annual income in government bonds : treasury bills). (F) Investing in a business that has a good chance of failing (F) Lending a friend an amount of money equivalent to one month's ncome (F) W ___ Moving to a new city (S) Never using sunscreen when you sunbathe (H) Never wearing a seatbelt. (H) Not having a smoke alarm in or outside of your bedroom. (H) Openly disagreeing with your boss in front of your coworkers :s> Periodically engaging in a dangerous sport (e .g. mountain or sky diving).(R) m. Regularly riding your bicycle without a helmet. (H) J1. Shoplifting a small item (e g. a lipstick or a pen). (E) J2. Smok i ng a pack of cigarettes per day. (H) J3. Speaking your mind about an unpopular issue at a social >ccasion (S) M Spending money impulsively without thinking about the (F) J5. Stealing an additional TV cable connection (E) J6. Taking a day s income to play the slot-machines at a casino (F) J7. Taking a job where you get paid exclusively on a commission >asis. (F) J8. Try i ng bungee jumping. (R) J9. Using office supplies for your personal business (E) 50. Wearing unconventional clothes (S) IJote: EY..ethi cal FY..financial HY..health/safety RY..recreational and SY..social terns -240-

PAGE 242

APPENDIX B: SCALES USED TO ESTABLISH CONVERGENT AND DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY OF THE RISK-BEHAVIOR SCALE (1) The Choice Dilemma Questionnaire (Kogan andWallach 1964) is a 12 item measure of risk attitude A sample item of this scale is: 'Mr B a 45-year old accountant, has recently been informed by his physician that he has developed a severe heart ailment. The disease would be sufficiently serious to force Mr B to change many of h i s strongest life habits-reducing his work load, drastically changing his diet, giving up favorite leisure-time pursuits. The physician suggests that a delicate medical operation could be attempted which if successful would completely relieve the heart condition. But its success could not be assured and in fact, the operation might prove fatal' After reading this scenario, the participants are asked to check the lowest probability that they would consider acceptable to make it worthwhile for Mr B to undergo the operation from 'The chances are 1 in 10 that the operation will be successful' to 'The chances are 9 in 1 0 that the operation will be successful' (with 3 in 10 5 in 10, and 7 in 1 0). The participants can also indicate they believe that, no matter what the probabilities, Mr B should not undergo the operation (chances of 10 in 10). A score is computed by adding the number correspond i ng to the odds selected with overall scores between 12 and 120 Kogan and Wallach (1964) reported internal consistencies (Cronbach's alpha) of respectively 0 53 (n%114) and 0.62 (n%103) for men and women. In our sample the coefficient alpha was 0.69 overall. (2) The Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale (Budner, 1962) is a 16-item scale (eight positive and eight negative). Example of an item would be, for item 5,' VVhat we are used to is always preferable to what is unfamiliar'. There are six response categories for each item from 'Strong agreement (scored as 7) to Strong disagreement (scored as 1) An overall score is computed by adding responses across all items (with reverse scoring for the negative items}, with a range of 16 to 112 Budner (1962) reported internal consistencies (Cronbach s alpha) of 0.39 to 0 62 with various samples, and an mean test-retest correlation of 0 85 (N%80), for different time intervals. In our sample the coefficient alpha was 0 68 24 1

PAGE 243

(3) The Sensation-seeking Scale version V (Zuckerman 1994) is composed of 40 forced-choice items, divided in four subscales (10 items per subscale): thrill and adventure seeking (TAS), experience seeking (ES), disinhibition (Dis ) and boredom susceptibility (BS) For each i tem two options are presented and the respondent chooses the one that best describes what he o r she likes or the way he or she feels An example of a disinhibition i tem is (a) I like wild uninhibited parties. or (b) I prefer quiet parties with good conversation' One point is given for each choice that is thought to represent the four subscales In the example presented above, one point would be g i ven in the Dis. subscale, to (a) Hence, the scores for the subscales can range from 0 to 10 Zuckerman (1994) reported reliabilities of 0.83-0.86 for the total score, 0 .77-0. 82 for TAS, 0 .61-0.67 for ES, 0.74-0.78 for Dis and 0.56-0. 65 for BS We computed the coefficient alphas in our sample and found the following values : 0 76 for the total score 0 73 (TAS), 0 .61 (ES), 0 70 (Dis ) and 0 54 (BS), which are close to the values reported by Zuckeman (1994) (4) A measure of social desirability (SDR) the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) Vers i on 6 (Paulhus, 1984) was included to investigate discriminant validity. The BIDR measures self-deceptive positivity (SDE) i.e the tendency to give honest but positively biased answers and impression management (IM) i.e deliberate self-presentation (Paulhus, 1991 ) Respondents rate their agreement with the 40 statements of the scale on a continuum from 1 (not true) to 7 (very true) with 20 statements measuring SDE and 20 statements IM. I don't care to know what other people really think of me' is an item measuring SDE and 'I never cover up my mistakes measures IM. Scores are computed by giving one point to each extreme response (6 or 7) (revers ing the negative items), with a range of scores, on both scales, of 0 to 20. All40 items can also be summed to give an overall measure of social desirability. Paulhus (1991) reported internal consistency coefficients (for various samples) (Cronbach s alpha) from 0 68 to 0 80 for SDE from 0.75 to 0 86 for IM, and of 0.83 for SDR. He also found test-retest correlations of 0 69 for SDE and 0 65 for IM, over a 5-week period. In our sample, the alphas were the following : 0 76 for SDE 0.81 for IM, and 0 84 for SDR, and these values are quite close to the ones reported by Paulhus (1991 ) APPENDIXC -242-

PAGE 244

For each of the following statements please indicate your likelihood of engaging in each activity or behavior Provide a rating from 1 to 5 using the following scale : 1 2 3 4 5 Very unlikely Unlikely Not sure Likely Very likely 1. Admitting that your tastes are different from those of your friends. (S) 2. Going camping in the wilderness, beyond the civilization of a campground (R) __ 3 Betting a day s income at the horse races (G) __ 4 Buying an illegal drug for your own use. (H) __ 5 Cheating on an exam (E) __ 6. Chasing a tornado or hurricane by car to take dramatic photos. (R) 7. Investing 10% of your annual income in a moderate growth mutual fund (I) 8 Consuming five or more servings of alcohol in a single evening. (H) 9 Cheating by a significant amount on your income tax return (E) __ 10. Disagreeing with your father on a major issue (S) ---:--:--1 1. Betting a day s income at a high stake poker game. (G) __ 12 Having an affair with a married man or woman (E) __ 13. Forging somebody's signature (E) __ 14 Passing off somebody else's work as your own (E) __ 15. Going on a vacation in a third-world country without prearranged travel and hotel accommodations. (R) __ 16 Arguing with a friend about an issue on which he or she has a very different opinion (S) __ 17 Going down a ski run that i s beyond your ability or closed. (R) __ 18 Investing 5% of your annual income in a very speculative stock (I) 19 Approaching your boss to ask for a raise (S) __ 20 Illegally copying a piece of software (E) __ 21. Going whitewater rafting during rapid water flows in the spring (R) 22. Bett ing a day s income on the outcome of a sporting event (e g baseball soccer or football) (G) __ 23 Telling a fr i end if his or her significant other has made a pass at you (S) -243-

PAGE 245

24. Investing 5% of your annual income in a conservative stock (I) __ 25. Shoplifting a small item (e.g a lipstick or a pen) (E) __ 26. Wearing provocative or unconventional clothes on occasion (S) __ 27. Engaging in unprotected sex (H) __ 28 Stealing an additional TV cable connection off the one you pay for. (E) 29. Not wearing a seatbelt when being a passenger in the front seat. (H) 30 Investing 10% of your annual income in government bonds (treasury bills). (I) __ 31. Periodically engaging in a dangerous sport (e.g mountain climbing or sky diving) (R) __ 32 Not wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle (H) __ 33 Gambling a week s income at a casino. (G) __ 34. Taking a job that you enjoy over one that is prestigious but less enjoyable. (S) __ 35. Defending an unpopular issue that you believe in at a social occasion. (S) 36 Exposing yourself to the sun without using sunscreen. (H) __ 37 Trying out bungee jumping at least once. (R) __ 38. Piloting your own small plane, if you could (R) ---::---39 Walking home alone at night in a somewhat unsafe area of town. (H) 40. Regularly eating high cholesterol foods. (H) __ Note: and items. APPENDIX D Instructions and scales for risk perceptions scale People often see some risk in situations that contain uncertainty about what the outcome or consequences will be and for which there is the possibility of bad' consequences. However, riskiness is a very personal and intuitive notion, and we are interested in your gut level assessment of how risky each situation is For each of the following statements, please indicate how risky you perceive each situation. Provide a rating from 1 to 5 using the following scale: 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Moderately Extremely risky -244-

PAGE 246

risky risky Instructions and scales for expected benefits scale For each of the following statements please indicate the benefits you would obtain from each situation Provide a rating from 1 to 5, using the following scale: 1 2 3 4 5 No benefits Moderate Great benefits at all benefits -245-

PAGE 247

7 6 3 Potential Photo Survey Images The following images represent a few examples of potential visuals to be used as prompts for participant photo board surveys discussions, and focus groups. Figure 22 A girl testing her limits Risky or not?9 Hanging upside down Risky or safe behavi -246-

PAGE 248

Figure 25 Inappropriate use of equipment lead to potential injury or g i rls just wanting to have fun?1 247-

PAGE 249

Figure 26 Boy playing in a puddle. Risk of drowning or harmless play?13 Figure 27 Little boys playing on rocks. Dangerous or challenging or both? 14 -248

PAGE 250

Figure 28 Boys on top of large boulder at least a ten foot fall Risky or not? What if they were girls? Figure 29 Once a common piece of play equipment now a liability and safety concern Where have all the geodesic domes gone and why? -249-

PAGE 251

Figure 30 Manmade dimbing boulder to accomodate different skill levels This is a DPS approved piece of play equipment as of 2005.15 -250-

PAGE 252

7 7 APPENDIX G PROPOSED TIMELINE Task Date Complete research literature review for May 2005 July 2005 perceptions of risk studies risk management pol i cy studies, and playground related injury and accident research studies Establish costs associated with risks lawsuits July 2005 -August 2005 and i njuries Code data, set up database, data entry July_ 2005 September 2006 Map playground activity areas for all 3 sites July 2005October 2005 Gather risk management {insurance policy August 2005 March 2006 injury records etc} related data Organize children and school personnel focus August 2005 -November groups at 3 sites and facilitate perceptions of 2005 risk discussions Rev i se database as needed, data entry September 2005 -May 2006 Add cognitive mappings & qua1ity index for all November 2005 January 3 sites to existing maps 2006 Ma_p data from risk management November 2005 -May 2006 Review mappings and qualitative findings with February 2006 March 2006 focus groups & add data as needed Data analysis March 2006May 2006 Map playground high-med-low perception of April 2006 June 2006 risk areaslekmlents for 3 sites Review mappings and findings with focus June 2006 July 2006 groups & risk management department, add data as needed Cost effectiveness analysis February March 2007 Write papers and reports based on results of April -May 2007 entire study ; disseminate results 251

PAGE 253

8 REFERENCES Ackennan, D. (1999). Deep play New York Random House American Psychological Association (2001 ) Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. Washington DC, American Psychological Association Aries, P. (1962). Centuries of childhood: a social history of family life. New York Vintage Books Babbie, E. R. (2004). The practice of social research Belmont CA, ThomsonJVVadsworth Baker, E.A. Brennan, l.K, Brownson, R., and Houseman R.A. (2000) Measuring the Detenninants of Physical Activity in the Community : Current and Future Directions." Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 71, 146158. Baranowski, T. (1989) "Reciprocal Detenninism at the Stages of Behavior Change : An Integration of Community Personal, and Behavioral Perspectives." International Quarterly of Community Health Education. 10,297-327 Baranowski, T., K W Cullen et al (2003) "Are Current Health Behavioral Change Models Helpful in Guiding Prevention of Weight Gain Efforts?" Obesity Research 11(90001): 238-43 -252-

PAGE 254

Bardwell, L. V. and M T Tudor. (1994). Problem solving through a cognitive lens (Chapter 1) in Environmental Problem Solving : Theory Practice and Possibilities in Environmental Education Bardwell L. V., Monroe M. C and M T. Tudor (Eds) North American Association for Environmental Education, Troy OH Bauman, A., Sallis J.F. and Owen, N Environmental and policy measurement in physical activity research In G J Welk (Ed.), Physical activity assessments for health-related research Champaign ll: Human Kinetics Beck, U (1992). Risk society : towards a new modernity london; Newbury Park, Calif Sage Publications. Benard B (2004) Resiliency : what we have learned San Francisco CA, WestEd Boulton, M J (1999) 'Concurrent and longitudinal relations between children s playground behavior and social preference victimization and bullying', in Child Development 70(4) 944-954. Brink, L. (2004) Denver's Learning Landscape Alliance : Restoring the American Schoolyard Paper presented at Open Space : People Space : An International Conference on Inclusive Environments Edinburgh, Scotland held Octobe r 27-29 2004. -253

PAGE 255

Brink L. and B. Yost (2004) "Transforming lnner..City School Grounds : Lessons from Learning Landscapes." Children, Youth and Environments 14(1) : 208-232 Bronfenbrenner, U The Ecology of Human Development Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979 Brownson, RC., Hoehner, C M., Brennan, LK., Cook, RA, Elliot, M .S., and McMullen, K.M .. Reliability of 2 Instruments for Auditing the Environment for Physical Activity Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 2004 ; 1 : 191-208. Butcher, J (1993). "Socialization of children's playground skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills. Dec 1993 v77 n3 p 731(8). Campbell, D & J. Stanley. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs. Chicago: Rand McNally Center for Disease Control (CDC). (1993) "Chapter 7 : Educational and Community-based Programs." Tracking Healthy People 2010, part of the Healthy People 2010. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; United States Deparbnent of Health and Human Services : Rockville, MD. Retrieved by Bambi Yost on May 13,2005 from http : // www healthypeople gov/Document/html/tracking / OD07 htm#schoolsetting Center of Research Strategies (2003) Evaluation of the Learning Landscape Project. The Learning Landscape Alliance and The Gates Family Foundation 254-

PAGE 256

Chawla, L., Unesco et al. (2002) Growing up in an urbanizing world London, Earthscan Children's Safety Network at Education Development Center Inc. (1997). Injuries in the School Environment A Resource Guide (Second Edition}. Newton, MA: Education Development Center, Inc City and County of Denver (2004) "Focus Neighborhoods Initiative Report 2003." Housing and Neighborhood Development Servicesa DMsion of Community Planning and Development An in-house government publication retrieved January 2004 from http:/ldenveroov.orq!Focus Neighborhoods/defaultasp Clark, W (2003) "The Dangers of Safe Play." Recreation. vol 62 no.3 (Apr) pp14-17. Clements, R. L. and L. Fiorentino (2004). The child's right to play: a global approach Westport, Conn Praeger. Cohen, S and Trostle, S. (1990) 'Young children's preferences for school related physical environmental setting characteristics', in Environment and Behavior, 22 753-66. Cole-Hamilton 1., Harrop A, andStreet C (2001) The Value of Play and Play Provision in England : A Systematic Review of the Uterature." New Policy Institute. As part of the Children's Play Council's wor1< for the DCMS. -255-

PAGE 257

Retrieved on 13 2005 from http://www npi.orq uk/reports/play%201iterature.pdf Cook J T and Martin K. S ( 1995) Differences i n Nutrient Adequacy Among Poor and Non-Poor Children Tufts University School of Nutrition Center on Hunger Poverty and Nutrition Policy. Corsaro, W A (2003) 'We're friends. right?" inside kids' culture Washington D C Joseph Henry Press Corsaro W A (2005) The sociology of childhood Thousand Oaks Pine Forge Press. Creswell, J W (2003). Research design: qualitative. quantitative. and mixed method approaches Thousand Oaks Calif. Sage Publications Croner CM, Sper1ing J, Broome FR (1996) Geographic information systems (GIS) : New perspectives in understanding human health and environmental relationships. Statistics in Medicine; 15 : 1961-1977. Davis P J and Hersh R (1998) The Mathematical Exoerience Boston : First Mariner Books Denver Public Schools (DPS). (2005) Multiple sources, including risk management, design guidelines, PE education design standards and more have been pulled from the DPS website at http : //www dpsk12 org -256-

PAGE 258

Echeverria S .E., Diez-Roux, A.V. Link B G (2004) Reliability of Self Reported Neighborhood Characteristics. Journal of Urban Health, 81(4), 682701. Emery J, Crump C Bors P. Reliability and Validity of Two Instruments Designed to Assess the Walking and Bicycling Suitability of Sidewalks and Roads. Am J of Health Promot. 2003; 18:38-46 Frank, L. (2002) Measuring relationships between urban form, physical activity levels, and public health, in Srinivasam S O'Fallon l., and Dearry A (eds). Built Environment-Healthy Communities Healthy Homes, Healthy People. Final Report from conference. Frost, J. L. and B L. Klein (1979). Children's play and playgrounds. Boston, Allyn and Bacon Frank, l. (2002). "Measuring relationships between urban form, physical activity levels, and public health, in Srinivasam S O'Fallon L., and Dearry A (eds) Built Environment-Healthy Communities, Healthy Homes, Healthy People. Final Report from conference. Gabarino, J (1992) Children in Danger CA: Jassey-Bass Publishers GOr1itz, D J. F. Wohlwill, et al. (1987) Curiosity, imagination. and play: on the development of spontaneous cognitive and motivational processes Hillsdale NJ, l. Ertbaum Associates 257

PAGE 259

Gordon-Larsen P., L. S Adair et al. (2002) "Ethnic Differences in Phys i ca l Activity and Inactivity Patterns and Overweight Status Obes Res 10(3) : 141 149. Gordon-Larsen P., L. S Adair, et al. (2003). ''The Relationship of Ethnicity Socioeconomic Factors, and Overweight in U S Adolescents Obes Res 11(1): 121-129 Gordon-Larsen P R. G. McMurray et al. {2000) "Determinants of Adolescent Physical Activity and Inactivity Patterns. Pediatrics 105{6) : e83. Green J (1997). "Risk and the Construction of Social Identity : Children s Talk about Accidents. Sociology of Health & Illness September 1997 vol. 19, no. 4 pp. 457 479(23). Green J. and L Hart {1998). "Children s views of accident risks and prevention: a qualitative study." lnj Prev-4(1) : 14-21 Grembowski D (2001) The practice ofheatth program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications. Handy C. B (1990) The age of unreason Boston Mass., Harvard Business School Press Hart C H (1993) Children on playgrounds : research perspectives and applications Albany, State University of New York Press -258-

PAGE 260

Hasluck Land Karen Malone (1999) "Location Leisure and Lifestyle : Young People's Retreat to Home Environments. In Shehan C., ed. Through the Eyes of the Child Connecticut Jai Press. Hellison, D R. (2000) Youth development and physical activity : linking universities and communities Champaign IL Human Kinetics Heywood, C (2001 } A history of childhood : children and childhood in the West from medieval to modem times cambridge, UK; Malden Mass Polity Press Holloway, S Land G Valentine (2000). Children's geographies: playing l i ving, learning London ; New York Routledge Howard P K (2001} The lost art of drawing the line : how fairness went too far. New York Random House Howard P. K. (1995) The death of common sense : how law is suffocating America Thorndike Me. G.K. Hall Hungertord, H R., and T.L Volk {1990) Changing Leamer Behavior through Environmental Education : Journal of Environmental Education 21(3) : 8-21 Huttenmoser M (1995} 'Children and their living surroundings : Empirical investigations into the sig-nificance for the everyday life and development of children in Children s Environments, 12(4) 403-13 2 5 9

PAGE 261

Jambor, T. (1990) "Playground Needs of Children, and Safety : An Issue in Conflict." Jambor T (1996). "Dimensions of Play: Reflections and Directions. 9. James, A (1997). Theorizing childhood New York Teachers College Press James, A. and A. Prout (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood London; Washington D C., Falmer Press Jans, M. (2004). nChildren as Citizens: Towards a Contemporary Notion of Child Participation." Childhood 11(1) : 27-44. Jarrett, 0., Maxwell, D., Dickerson, C. Hoge, P., Davies, G. and Yetley, A. (1998). "Impact of Recess on Classroom Behavior: Group Effects and Individual Differences. The Journal of Educational Research, Nov 1998 v92 i2 p121(1). Jensen, E. (1998) Teaching with the brain in mind Alexandria, Va., Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Jensen, E. (2000) learning with the body in mind : the scientific basis for energizers. movement, play. games. and physical education. San Diego, CA, Brain Store -260-

PAGE 262

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation J R. Sanders et al. (1994). The program evaluation standards : how to assess evaluations of educational programs Thousand Oaks [Calif.], Sage Publications Kettner, P.M. R. Moroney, et al. (1999). Designing and managing programs : an effectiveness-based approach. Thousand Oaks, Calif Sage Publications Kottak, C P and K A. Kozaitis (2003) On being different diversity and mwticulturalism in the North American mainstream. Boston, McGraw-Hill Korte G .B. "The GIS Book: Understanding the Value and Implementation of Geographic Information Systems Sante Fe, NM: Onword Press, 1997 Krathwohl, D R. (1997). Methods of educational and social science research: an integrated approach New York, Longman. Malone, Karen and Paul Tranter (2003) Children's Environmental learning and the Use, Design and Management of Schoolgrounds . Children Youth and Environments 13(2) 2003 Retrieved from http://cye.colorado.edu McKenzie, J. F., B l. Neiger, et al. (2005) Planning, implementing, and evaluating heahh promotion programs : a primer San Francisco Pearson/Benjamin Cummings McKenzie T.l., Sallis J.F & Nader, P .R. (1991) SOFIT : System for observing fitness instruction time Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 11' 195-205 -261-

PAGE 263

McKenzie T.L., Marshall, S .J., Sallis, J F., & Conway, T.L. (2000). Leisure time physical activity in school environments: An observational study using SOPLAY. Preventive Medicine, 30, 70-77. Mead, Margaret (2001 ). Continuities in CUltural Education. rev ed. Piscataway, NJ : Transaction Publishers and Rutgers University Mental Health Foundation Department of Health (1999a) Effective Care Coordination in Mental Health Services Modernising the Care Programme Approach. London: Department of Health. Mental Health Foundation-Department of Health (1999b) National Service Framework for Mental Health Modern standards and service models London: Department of Health Meyer, K. (1998) Developing a schoolyard pedagogy: The Boston schoolyard initiative', in The Ur-ban Ecologist, 2(8), 18. Michelson, W M S. V Levine, et aL (1979) The Child in the city. Toronto ; Buffalo, University of Toronto Press Milat, A, Stubbs J., Engelhard, S., Weston P., Giles-Corti, B., Fitzgerald, S. Measuring physical activity in public open space an electronic device versus direct observation Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2002: 26(1 ) : 50-1 -262-

PAGE 264

Miller S (1997). "Online A Brief History An overview created for Online Math 124 class: Math for Liberal Arts, A Practical Course Copyright 1997 by Suzanne Miller Diablo Valley College, Pleasant Hill, California 94523 Phone(510) 685-1230 latest update 1.7 98. Retrieved on May 10, 2005 from http://www.metamath com/math124/probab/prohisthtrn M. (2003). Homegirls in the public sphere. Austin, University of Texas Press. Mitchell, J (2001) Business improvement districts and the 'new' revitalization of downtown', in Eco-nomic Development Quarterly, 15,124-131 Moore DA, Carpenter TE. Spatial analytic methods and geographic infonnation systems : use in health research and epidemiology. Epidemiology Reviews. 1999, 21:143-161 Moore, R. (1974) 'Anarchy zone: Kids' needs and school yards', in School Review, 82, 621-45 Moore, R.C (1986) Childhood's Domain: Play and Place in Child Development. Dover, NH: Croom Helm, Ltd. Moore, R. (2003) Design for Healthy Childhoods A lecture presented at the University of Cotorado at Boulder, October 30, 2003. 263

PAGE 265

Moore R. C. S M Goltsman, et al. (1992) Play for all guidelines : planning. desiQn. and management of outdoor play settings for all children Berkeley, CA. MIG Communications Moore, R. C and H. H Wong (1997). Natural learning: the life history of an environmental schoolyard Berkeley Calif., MIG Communications Mullahy J and B Woffe (2002). Health Policies for the Nonelder1y Poor. Understanding Poverty Edited by S Danziger and R. Haveman Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press Nabhan, G P and S Trimble (1994) The geography of childhood ; why children need wild places Boston, Beacon Press. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2002) CDC Injury Research Agenda Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Children s Bureau {2003) Child Data Abstracts London England Tel: 020 7843 6008 www. ncb org.uk Retrieved on May 13, 2005 from http://www ncb.org uklresources/childdataabs .pdf Or1eans, C T Kraft M .K, Marx, J F., McGinnis J M 'Nhy Are Some Neighborhoods Active and Others Not? Charting a New Course for Research on Policy and Environmental Determinants of Physical Activity Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2003 25, 75-79 -264-

PAGE 266

Park P (1993) Voices of change : participatory research in the United States and canada. Westport, Conn., Bergin & Garvey. Prout A (2000) "Children s Participation: Control and Self-realisation in British late Modernity." Children & Society. v. 14 pp. 304-315 Pufall P B. and R. P. Unsworth (2004). Rethinking childhood New Brunswick, N J., Rutgers University Press Pyramid Communications (2003). "Healthy School for Healthy Kids Princeton, NJ, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Radelet, M. A, S. M Lephart, et al. (2002) "Survey of the Injury Rate for Children in Community Sports." Pediatrics 110(3): e28. Raphael, D (1999) Health effects of inequality. Canadian Review of Social Policy, 44, 25-40 Raphael, D. (2000) "Health inequalities in Canada: Current discourses and implications for public health action." Critical Public Health, 10, 193-216 Raphael, D. (2001). "From increasing poverty to societal disintegration: How economic inequality affects the health of individuals and communities In H Armstrong, P Armstrong, & D. Coburn (eds .), The political economy of health and care in Canada. Toronto : Oxford University Press -265-

PAGE 267

Raphael D. (2000) "Health inequities in the United States : prospects and solutions." Journal of Public Healttl Policy, 21(4), 392-425. Reilly, M (1974). Play as exploratory learning: studies ofcuriositv behavior Bever1y Hills [Galif.], Sage Publications. Roemmich, J N., C. M. Gurgol, et al. (2003) "Influence of an Interpersonal Laboratory Stressor on Youths' Choice to Be Physically Active." Obes Res 11(9): 108()..1087 Rose, G A (1992) The strategy of preventive medicine Oxford [England]; New York, Oxford University Press. Rossi, P. H., M W. Lipsey, et al. (2004). Evaluation : a systematic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Rouard, M and J Simon (1977). Children's play spaces; from sandbox to adventure playground. Woodstock N.Y., Overtook Press. Sallis, J. F. and N. Owen (1999). Physical activity & behavioral medicine Thousand Oaks, Galif., Sage Publications. Sanchez, J. K (2005). *Probability and the History of Mathematics". Albuquerque, New Mexico Retrieved on May 10, 2005 from http://www unm edu /-abqte ach /math200 2/02 -02-08 htm -266-

PAGE 268

Schoenfelder, S and Axhausen K. Activity spaces: measures of social exclusion? Transport Policy. 2003; 10; 273-286. Senda, M (1992) Design of children's play environments. New York, McGraw-Hill. Small, M. F (2001) Kids: how biology and culture shape the way we raise our children. New York, Doubleday Stahl, B Lichtenstein, Y. & Mangan, A (2003). "The Limits of Risk Management -A social construction approach." Communications of the International Information Management Association, Volume 3 Issue 3. Sternberg, E. M (2000). The balance within : the science connecting health and emotions. New York, W H. Freeman. Stine, S. (1997). Landscapes for learning: creating outdoor environments for children and youth. New York, J. VViley & Sons. Stokols, D (1977). Perspectives on environment and behavior: theory, research. and applications. New York, Plenum Press. Trost, S. G J F Sallis, et al (2003). "Evaluating a model of parental influence on youth physical activity." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 25(4) : 277. -267-

PAGE 269

United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (U .S. CPSC) (2001}. Home Playground Equipment-Related Deaths and Injuries Washington DC Warner, M (1994) Managing monsters: six myths of our time : the 1994 Reith Lectures London Vintage Washington State Department of Health (1998). Washington State Elementary School Disability Prevention Pilot Project Community Environmental Health Programs Environmental Health Division Maternal and Child Health Division Weinstein, C S and T. G. David (1987) Spaces for children : the built environment and child development New Y ark, Plenum Press Weinstejn C and Pinciotti, P (1998) Changing a schoolyard : Intentions design decisions and behavioral outcomes ', in Environment and Behavior, 20(3) 345-71 Wefk G (2002). Physical activitv assessments for health-related resear Champaign IL, Human Kinetics Wells, N M (2000) 'At home with nature : Effects of greenness" 1 cognitive functioning in Environment and Behavior 32(6) 77!' Wilkinson P F (1980). Innovation in ptav environments t-' Martin's Press -268-

PAGE 270

London, Croom Helm. Williams L. v. (1986) Teaching for the two-sided mind: a guide to right brain/left brain education New York Simon & Schuster. Worthen, B R., J R. Sanders, et al. (2004). Program evaluation : alternative approaches and practical guideUnes. Boston, Altyn and Bacon.

PAGE 271

United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (U.S. CPSC) (2001). Home Playground Equipment-Related Deaths and Injuries Washington DC Warner, M (1994). Managing monsters: six myths of our time : the 1994 Reith Lectures. London, Vintage Washington State Department of Health (1998) Washington State Elementary School Disability Prevention Pilot Project Community Environmental Health Programs. Environmental Health Division Maternal and Child Health Division Weinstein, C. S and T. G. David (1987). Spaces for children: the built environment and child development New York, Plenum Press Weinstein, C and Pinciotti, P. (1998) 'Changing a schoolyard: Intentions, design decisions, and behavioral outcomes', in Environment and Behavior, 20(3), 345-71. Welk, G (2002) Physical activity assessmen1s for health-related research. Champaign, IL, Human Kinetics Wells, N.M. (2000) 'At home with nature: Effects of greenness on children's cognitive functioning', in Environment and Behavior 32(6), 775-795 Wilkinson, P. F (1980). Innovation in play environments New York, St. Martin's Press 268

PAGE 272

Wilkinson, P F. and International Playground Association. (1980). In celebration of play: an integrated approach to play and child development. London Croom Helm. Williams L. V. (1986). Teaching for the two-sided mind: a guide to right brain/left brain education New York, Simon & Schuster. Worthen, B. R., J R. Sanders, et al. (2004) Program evaluation : alternative approaches and practical guidefjnes Boston, Allyn and Bacon Zab inski, M F., B. E. Saelens, et at (2003) "Overweight Children's Barriers to and Support for Physical Activity Obes Res 11(2) : 238-246 Zomado, J L. (2001). Inventing the child : culture ideology. and the story of childhood New York, Garland Pub Zhu, Weimo. Assessing Physical Activity Spaces : I ssues and Challenges 2003 Daegu Universiade Conference Measurement and Evaluation of P E.. Proceedings II. 601-608 269-

PAGE 273

9 AUTHOR'S BRIEF BIOGRAPHY Bambi Yost To be awarded SU 2005 : Master of Landscape Architecture & Master of Urban and Regional Planning Currently enrolled : Ph D Program in Design and Planning University of Colorado at Denver and the Health Sciences Center Bambi Yost is currently a Ph .D. student in the Design and Planning program at the University of Colorado at Denver with a background in Landscape Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning She is the AmeriCorps UCAN Colorado Campus Compact Coordinator overseeing architecture and planning students in service-teaming projects. For the past four years, she has planned organized, and led community-based design-build Learning Landscape playground projeds with Denver Public Elementary Schools For more information see the Learning Landscape Initiative website at http : //thunder1 cudenver.edu/cye/lla/home.html. Prior to graduate school, she was an educator and program manager for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation where she designed and led multi-disciplinary hands-on service-teaming, environmental education programs. She is currently conducting studies to evaluate the Learning Landscapes Program with an emphasis in public health, children and environments and outdoor education Keywords for Bambi Yost: school grounds, playgrounds teaming landscapes community based action research and outreach participatory planning and design curriculum development and evaluation service learning children youth behavior and physical and social environments Contact lnfonnation: Bambi Yost University of Colorado at Denver Children Youth and Environments Center for Research and Design Learning Landscape Initiative PO Box 173364, Campus Box 126 Denver, CO. 80217-3364, USA Cell 720-217-2871 E-mail Bambi L Yost@yahoo.com or Bambi.Yost@cudenver.edu -270-

PAGE 274

ENDNOTES 1 Image retrieved by Bambi Yost in May 2005 from os/Usizelshoes_girts_high j>g 2 Image retrieved from http:/lwww nisgaa bc.ca/images/ playgromd.jpg 3 Personal fllenriew with DPS risk management director S6ephen Fney in March 2004. <4 ReiJiewd on Feb2, 2004 t"om http:J/ riskmanagementdpsk12.0tg/ 5 Rebiewd on May 13 2005 t"om http : //riskmanagementdpsk12 .or g/ 6 This statistical average is admittedly higher than real numbers in an effort to capture llose quries that go unreported as playgn:uld retated when children are admitted to hospitals_ Also, data has not been collected for Denver P\dc Schools or learning landscapes to establish actual nunbefs for OPS pAaygromds; however, gillen that 1he Oi&tict has won national satety -arns for the last six years it is logical to assume that quries and risks are actually lower than what is presented here 7 This method was taught by Professor Thomas Clartt in the University of Colorado at DerNer's Urban and regional Plaming Methods II class. H is similar to the health program evaluation cost effectiveness model descmed in Ketlnef's book published in 1998. 8 Interview with DerNer Mayor John Hickenlooper for 1he L..earrjng Landscape A1liaoce video, conduded by Utile Voice Productions November 2003. 9 Image retrieved by Bambi Yost in May 2005 t"om http : /lpic.piczo com/irnglf738593 o_ <49069. jpg 10 Image re4rieved by Bambi Yost in May 2005 from http :/""-. cwti orglimageslpage 11 Image retrieved by Bambi Yost in May 2005 t"om http:J""-. streetplay com/photo slirnaigeslfenc.jlg 12 Image retrieved by Bambi Yost in May 2005 from hllp:JialnlaJg .comlarchivelgwh 51prescott/Swin.JPG 13 Image retriewd by Bambi Yost in May 2005 from 271 -y/puddles11680 kids%20playing %20in%20puddle%20after"A.20r ain jpg 141mage retrieved by Bambi Yost in May 2005 from hllp:llpholos1.blogger.comlimgJ5 3/1021/32M.itlle%20kids"A,20pla ying%20on%.20rM!r%20rock.jp g 151mage retrieved by Bambi Yost in May 2005 from http : /lwww millersaukprairie com limageslplay.bot.*ler3 jpg