An urban perspective on ORRRC - ORRRCAT At 40!

Parks & Recreation, Sept, 2002 by Charles Jordan

This has been a difficult article for me to write, because I came to the outdoor movement over a difficult path. Growing up in the South, I knew that if there were parks, I wouldn't be welcomed. Fortunately, I moved to a reservation in California, where instead of parks, there were hills and open space for me to experience.

When the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission was sanctioned in 1958, I was totally unaware of parks and outdoor recreation. Still today, I see the outdoors not from the traditional state and federal agency perspective of large expansive parks and forests, but largely through an urban lens of smaller pocket areas and corridors.

In 1985, I was appointed by President Reagan to the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors (PCAO). Having served as a parks commissioner for five years, I was more aware of the status of urban parks and recreation, but my awareness level of the outdoor movement was still quite low. However, it didn't take long for my awareness to take shape as I traveled around the country and listened to Americans speak about their needs, desires and hopes for the future. However, it was the opportunity afforded by Patrick Noonan to serve on the board of The Conservation Fund that elevated my comfort level and allows me to share my opinions today.

In writing this article, I realized for the first time that my philosophy of the outdoor movement is actually a slice of my philosophy on life. My years in social services, education, public safety, elected office and as a student of the Bible have all influenced how I view this movement. However, my life as a person of color has contributed greatly to my passion to ensure that when we say "all Americans," "all" means "all."

I would like to talk to you about connections for all. I believe we need diverse recreation opportunities for our diverse citizenry to help assure connections for all to our great outdoors. We have seen the power and promise of diversity in our communities and workplaces, and now we need to further extend the power and promise of diversity to the recreation profession. I share the sentiments of my colleague, Dr. Glenn Haas, and advocate that a national goal for the parks and recreation profession should be the conservation of recreation diversity as a tool to help assure connections among peoples and places.

Thus, upon reflection on the ORRRC and PCAO reports, I wish to highlight three disconnects affecting this goal. First, neither the ORRRC nor PCAO took a close look at urban park and recreation systems. ORRRC only considered state and federal providers, and while PCAO was more inclusive in its treatment of urban areas, it did not go far enough. If both commissions devoted more study to our urban park systems and the role they play in the lives of urban dwellers, a higher level of appreciation for the importance and connection of the urban park systems in the outdoor movement would now exist.

Second, both ORRRC and PCAO recognized the imbalance between the location of recreation opportunities relative to the location of the populace seeking outdoor recreation opportunities. Both commissions recognized the recreation injustice between the haves and have-nots, and the need to redistribute opportunities to provide connections for all.

   "... outdoor opportunities are most urgently needed near metropolitan
   areas. Three-quarters of these people will live in these areas by the turn
   of the century. They will have the greatest need for outdoor recreation,
   and their needs will be the most difficult to satisfy as urban centers have
   the fewest facilities (per capita) and the sharpest competition for land
   use ..." (ORRRC 1962) "Increasingly, outdoor recreation occurs close to
   home, in or near towns and cities where 80 percent of us soon will live.
   So, more and more, the solutions must be found close to home." (PCAO 1985)

Third, and perhaps most important, each commission makes a strong case for a collaborative connection among the local, state and federal park and recreation providers, as well as private and nonprofit partners. Both reports recommended a national system of park and recreation resources, and for an oversight entity to ensure the effective functioning of a comprehensive system.

The ORRRC resulted in a formal interagency connection through the creation of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR). Within 20 years, this model of connectivity no longer existed (for reasons beyond the scope of this article). The ORRRC also stimulated the passage of Public Law 88-99 on May 28,1963, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate and develop effective programs relating to outdoor recreation. Yet, while Public Law 88-29 has largely followed the BOR into the historical archives, it differs in that it is a congressional directive, and the law of the land can't be administratively dismissed.

There is nothing in that act that isn't relevant. We need a reintroduction, revitalization and full implementation of Public Law 88-29, with one added feature. I like the recommendation of the PCAO that calls for a "new institution for leadership." The purpose of the institution would be to stimulate leadership, encourage innovation and reward excellence in recreation delivery across the nation. It would help build partnerships and stimulate investment in the outdoors. It could be a decentralized and flexible organization, perhaps best operating at a regional scale, so that communities, agencies and the private sector could collaboratively connect.