Local Parks Master Planning FAQs

Having an approved, current master plan and a park board that complies with State Statute (usually Indiana Code 36-10-3 or 36-10-4) makes you specifically eligible to apply for Land and Water Conservation Fund grants. IDNR offers a number of other grants agency-wide (not just in State Parks, Community Grants and Trails) that you may apply for. For more information about some of the various grant programs available, see the “Community Grants” website: https://www.in.gov/dnr/state-parks/recreation/grants/, you may also contact the Division of State Parks, Community Grants and Trails grants section manager at 317-232-4075.

NOTE: Not all grants are funded in any given year, so please call our grants staff at the phone number above for details of grant availability.

No, not for the purposes of this plan. IDNR does not require it; this is a federal requirement for local governments under Title II of the ADA and is enforced by the U.S. Department of Justice. We recognize the difficulties in conducting this kind of evaluation in-house without specialized and possibly expensive outside experts. There is much helpful guidance and information at: http://www.adagreatlakes.org/ada/ .

IDNR does require a concise commentary or table illustrating some examples of currently accessible facilities, currently inaccessible facilities, and a suggested timeline for improvements, estimated costs, the person(s) responsible, and potential funding sources.

NOTE: Title II of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act does require that state and local government entities perform an accessibility self-evaluation and create a transition plan for themselves. Please see http://www.ada.gov/ for information. This is purely for local use and is not required by IDNR for these park plans.

There are no stated figures in the Planning Guidelines document for the minimum number of citizens that should be heard from during the public participation process. For the consistency of plan reviews, we try to follow all previous standards set within the Planning Guidelines document. We look at each plan on a case-by-case basis, as the situation for each community is unique and requires unique examination.

Here is an inside look at how we try to determine if a plan’s public participation section is thorough and complete:

• Keep in mind the “Law of Large Numbers”. As the size of a population sample increases (the number of people heard from during all your public participation methods), so does the chance that it really speaks for the entire community. In other words, if a park system from a community of 100,000 only gathers feedback from 50 people, those 50 people do not represent the other 99,950 people’s needs, opinions, and ideas accurately or completely. It is always best to try to get the biggest sample that you can afford and accomplish practically.
• How large is the community/township/county? We try to take into account the population size of the community; larger populations would generally require larger numbers of survey participants/interviewees for a representative sample.
• The Planning Guidelines state: “You may consider using statistical equations to help you select the type and size of sample you use based on the total population of your planning area.” There are free sources of online information on this kind of statistic; two of them are: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm and http://www.greatbrook.com/survey_statistical_confidence.htm.

NOTE: IDNR does not make any judgment of or support any product or service associated with or sold by these or any related websites.

• The Planning Guidelines suggest that “Your goal should be 50 to 70% of the questionnaires returned in a usable form.” and “If you get fewer than 35% of the surveys back, it will be risky to attempt to draw conclusions that apply to the entire population in the planning area. This does not, however, mean that the information is useless. Your survey can still give insight into recreation issues.”
• Was there a great deal of variance in the responses gathered? If the responses from several methods tended to agree or seem similar, then you may be more confident that you may not have to keep trying other methods. However, if you get totally different responses from each public participation method, and within each method (for example, all your survey respondents provide totally different answers on each question), then adding another participation method is probably a good idea. Wide variation in responses indicates a larger sample is needed.
• How many methods must be tried? Since the Guidelines specify at least two methods, that’s our bare minimum. We prefer to see more methods being used if one or more of the first methods had very small response from the public (such as a public plan review meeting that was only attended by the park board and park staff) or had huge variations in the responses. Consider using an “outreach” method of gathering public feedback (such as going out into your community and interviewing user groups or stakeholders) if your surveys or meetings had small responses.
• Have all the various methods used been documented in the plan? We consider all methods that we see reported and documented in the plan, whether they were successful or not, so long as there was indication of good faith effort on the part of the planner. An example of a good faith effort would be to advertise a public meeting using several newspaper ads or articles, fliers posted at strategic locations in the city/county, and invitations to stakeholder groups. If no one showed up at that meeting, and the effort was documented in the plan, we give credit for a method tried in good faith. A “who, what, when, where, why, how many were there, and what did they say” approach is a good way to document each of your public participation/input methods.