Social marketing or social justice: a dialogue on access to recreation for the unemployed.

In the spring of 1991, we collected data regarding recreational opportunities for the unemployed from a representative nationwide sample of 335 parks and recreation departments serving major metropolitan areas in the United States. Two hundred eighty agencies responded. This dialogue summarizes our interaction as we processed the information collected in the survey.

HAVITZ: Clarence, what do you see as the most disturbing finding of this study?

SPIGNER: Clearly, the unemployed are over-represented by racial minorities. African Americans, Hispanic/Latino Americans, Asian/Pacific Americans, and Native Americans now make up almost 25 percent of the U.S. population. Most are over-represented among the unemployed. Like infant mortality, the unemployment rate for African Americans has remained twice that of whites for the past decade. And one-third of African Americans now live below the poverty level compared to only ten percent of white Americans. African Americans outrank whites in almost all categories of morbidity and mortality indicators-from heart disease to accidents, followed by Hispanics and Native Americans. In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services now uses a statistical procedure called "excess deaths," which explains the number of deaths of blacks and other minorities calculated beyond the death rates of whites, using whites as the standard.

Additionally, our research found that the unemployed were less likely to be targeted than were all other groups included in the survey, by a significant margin. For example, more than 85 percent offer price discounts to senior citizens and children, but only 39 percent offer discounts to the unemployed. Lack of access to recreational services can't help but exacerbate their negative health situations. It's interesting that our study found recreation agencies were more likely to provide price concessions to senior citizens than to other population groups. Given the shorter life expectancy of African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans in comparison to white and Asian Americans, you could even make a case that the former groups benefit less from recreation agencies' reduced fee policies for senior citizens!

HAVITZ: I understand those are major problems and your last point is especially thought provoking, though neither of us would advocate wholesale abandonment of senior citizen discounts. But minority populations aren't the only ones disaffected by lack of access. The economic recession, plant closings, the shift from manufacturing to service-based economies and economic competition from overseas makes unemployment and its systemic relationship to health a somewhat color blind issue. Nevertheless, you make a very important point: That different groups have different needs. As obvious as that sounds, it remains a dilemma, especially if you work for a public sector agency.

So from my perspective as a recreation marketing professor, the most disturbing finding was that many recreation agencies continue to do a poor job of identifying target markets. For example, as you just noted, our analysis showed that the unemployed were rarely singled out as a target market. That didn't surprise me, but it did surprise me that agencies in communities with consistently high unemployment were less likely than agencies in communities with consistently low unemployment to modify their pricing and programming policies to reach unemployed constituents. A second example was that our research showed most agencies made virtually no distinction in pricing policies based on activity type. That is, agencies tend to use blanket policies ("yes, we give discounts" or "no, we don't give discounts") for all types of activities. There was little evidence that agencies were specifically discounting or promoting fitness programs, stress-reducing activities, adult education and job retraining that could be especially beneficial to unemployed individuals. Nor was there any evidence of specialized programming efforts such as the football leagues and fitness classes for the unemployed that are relatively common in other countries like the United Kingdom. Only one percent of responding agencies offer programming specifically for unemployed people.

SPIGNER: Yes, it is disturbing that recreation agencies tended not to adjust their access policies to address the employment status of the communities they serve. But it seems to me that something else might be operating here, Mark. Is it simply a matter of poverty, regional unemployment and economic recession, or are we still confined to an outdated health and recreation service paradigm that relies too much on a market-oriented approach? Are we not taking adequate accounting for the social or demographic transformations sweeping the country and effecting constituencies within our respective disciplines? There are presently over 37 million Americans without access to health care, yet Americans spend more than two billion dollars a day--over 800 billion annually---on health care. This is currently over 13 percent of the gross national product. Still, many members of the public we serve in our respective disciplines are being locked out due to economic barriers, and joblessness only makes it worse.

You've mentioned research by Dennis Howard and John Crompton which showed how many publicsector recreation agencies tend to gear their services primarily to middle-class constituencies. Is this because even public agencies have become so market-driven that they consciously exclude those segments of the populace who have no money? Poverty, perceptions and attitudes about the poor, discrimination, and now massive unemployment pushes minorities still further away from the very services they need in these critical times.

People without money, by definition, do not function well in a market-driven economy, and that is the major problem with the fee-for-service approach of health and recreation facilities. From my view, the racial factor in combination with the unemployment factor exacerbates issues of access. Political economy espoused by Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, Robert Merton and others provide theoretical contexts to support my concerns. Moreover, I don't recall many studies where the combined dichotomous components of recreation and health, unemployment and health, and recreation and unemployment were interwoven in an overarching theoretical framework. However, leisure scholars including Donald Reid in Canada, Lisa Pesavento Raymond in the United States and Sue Glyptis in the United Kingdom have pointed out how the unemployed are likely to be more at risk for emotional and physical ill-health. Demolishing bartiers to health and recreation services is what public health is about, and America's market orientation is anathema to that social justice approach.

HAVITZ: I agree that a traditional "pure" marketing approach is probably not appropriate for dealing with this issue. Using a pure marketing approach, an agency would identify a specific group or groups (usually those who are most responsive) and endeavor to provide exactly the services that they demand. Most recreation marketing experts argue that a "societal" marketing approach is needed. This philosophy realizes that public park and recreation agencies can't operate in the same manner as commercial businesses like Anheuser Busch or McDonalds. A societal marketer attempts to meet the needs of a specific market(s), but in the more complex context of long-term community interest. Professional judgment and concern for unresponsive markets are important components of this philosophy. This is not to say that the same tools used by Madison Avenue can't be used to reach disaffected population groups; many of them can. But the key is to identify those groups and their specific needs and constraints.

The recreation program, the site where it takes place, the time of day or week that it's offered, the price (or lack thereof) and the promotional strategy must be manipulated specifically for that target group. Failure to adequately address any of those issues will lead to the eventual demise of the marketing campaign. It's ironic that cigarettes (such as R.J. Reynolds' short-lived Uptown brand) and alcohol (such as Power Malt Liquor) were developed and marketed for urban African Americans in a much more sophisticated manner than we market most recreational programs. If nothing else, these efforts showed that minority markets can be successfully accessed. Uptown was pulled due to public outcry, not because of poor marketing.

R.J. Reynolds' experience serves notice that private businesses must address societal marketing issues to some extent. For example, beer companies have been pressured to address drinking and driving problems, and fast food restaurants have begun to modify both their packaging to make it environmentally friendly, and their menus to lower fat content. However, I agree with John Schultz, Leo McAvoy and Dan Dustin's admonition that recreation professionals should be out in front regarding social issues, not back in the pack dragging our feet. The problem from my perspective is that we have had a very difficult time accessing and serving disaffected people (such as the unemployed) even when facilities and services are offered free of charge. I think that a primary reason is that programs are hardly ever specifically targeted. Many agencies cling to the unrealistic, but politically expedient expectation of serving everybody and they most often try to accomplish that by targeting the average person.

SPIGNER: You raise an interesting point with the Uptown cigarettes example. R.J. Reynolds has a lot more money to spend on marketing than does your average recreation or health professional. Issues of funding are significant here; from market research, to promotion, to program evaluation. In these days of taxpayer revolts, seeking out federal dollars to help supplement user-fees for a disaffected group may not be easy. But as you pointed out, unemployment affects everyone, and we agree that some are more affected than others. Why don't we advocate for more federal dollars to recreation agencies in areas hit hard by unemployment? Now that the cold war is over (though the national debt remains) we should advocate for diverting some of those defense dollars to serve the social infrastructure. Also, we can more actively recruit state and local government, public and private voluntary organizations, churches, schools and community groups. Our survey showed that cooperation between recreation agencies and many of those organizations, with the exception of schools, was minimal. For example, only 22 percent of responding recreation agencies reported regular cooperation with other social welfare agencies and only 11 percent worked with unemployment agencies.

Maybe this is the time to explore New Deal type programs similar to the Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps. Recreation agencies could hire the unemployed with the reds footing a percentage of their salaries. Of course matching individuals' skills with job descriptions remains a challenge in that regard. Local colleges are another underutilized resource. Student interns might be required to design programs with the specific objective of reaching various disaffected population groups, from those recently laid off to the hard-core unemployed. Interdisciplinary efforts involving students from leisure studies, community health, sociology and psychology could be very effective, especially if they function on an ongoing basis. Universities are also a source of people with the skills to conduct needs assessments and develop evaluations to measure program effectiveness. Health agencies can be part of the package too if they are brought in to actively prescribe recreation (organized or free form) for their unemployed patients. And the same corporations which laid people off, be they auto, airlines, or timber companies, can be encouraged to provide some subsistence to recreation agencies to encourage access for their ex-employees. One example of inter- agency cooperation in our survey was provided by Tallahassee, Florida, where they "recycle" abandoned bicycles. The police department collects them, the Jaycees fix them, and the department of parks and recreation distributes them to disadvantaged children and teaches them bike safety.

HAVITZ: I can't disagree with you that funding is problematic. Funding problems will undermine the efforts of recreation and health professionals for some lime to come. The comprehensive outlook you suggested is appropriate. A couple of months ago I would have argued that some of your suggestions are too obvious, but as you noted, our survey showed that many cooperative opportunities are being wasted. For example, recreation agencies shouldn't have to invest precious dollars into researching how many unemployed people live in the community and where they are located if another agency is already doing that. Instead, a starting point may be to distribute discount passes and program information through existing channels such as those other agencies. Direct personal communication is likely to be most effective with many segments of the unemployed market anyway, especially those with poor reading and writing skills. The usual brochures and flyers just won't cut it, even though they work reasonably well for more responsive markets. And we've got to consider distribution issues too. Programs don't necessarily have to occur on our turf. Certain programs may be operated at the plants and union halls of laid-off workers. This type of cooperation would be a relatively low cost investment for a financially strapped company, but it would allow them to do something positive. And it would allow people to participate in settings where most of them would be both familiar and comfortable.

I think that another thing we need to do is become more realistic in our expectations. This is probably sacrilege to many professionals, but we can't be all things to all people. Everyone in our field admires the turn-of-the-century reformers such as Joseph Lee, Jane Addams and Luther Gulick, whose efforts helped initiate public sector recreation programming in the United States. Nevertheless, I think we often misinterpret their efforts. Sure they believed in recreation for all; and they advocated reform to that end through organizations such as the Playground Association of America and the National Recreation Association. But they didn't necessarily try to provide services for everyone in the direct provider sense. First they relied on research. Joseph Lee conducted a ten-year longitudinal study of child delinquency in Boston, beginning in 1889. How many agencies can point to that type of research commitment today, even given advances in research methodology and computer technology? Plus, the reformers targeted their programs. They looked around and saw that many people already had access to leisure opportunities.

The reformers didn't focus their efforts on those people. Instead they often targeted the urban poor. Even more specifically, some focused on children, some focused on immigrants and so forth. We've enlarged our expectations over the past 100 years. Public agencies have a mandate to reach everyone. Sure yuppies need recreation too. I know because I probably am one, God forbid. But we don't necessarily need heavily subsidized or free programs. And public agencies need not always take a direct provider role. As aspiring professionals, we learn about various providers in Recreation 101: The commercial sector, the private non-profit sector, and so forth. Why do most of us forget about them as soon as we graduate? Leon Younger, the director of parks and recreation in Indianapolis, is a master at forging cooperative agreements with public, non-profit and commercial agencies. We can learn a lot from those types of efforts and often save ourselves money in the process. One last point: A couple of colleagues and I recently conducted a survey of fitness participants at six local non-profit agencies, commercial clubs and public community centers. Out of six sites surveyed, two of the three most affluent groups of participants were at public community centers. Are public funds really justified for providing subsidized fitness services for that particular market? Maybe, but probably not. What impressed you most about the survey responses, Clarence?

SPIGNER: The fact that many professionals from many recreation agencies recognized the depth and breadth of obligations to meet the service needs of demographically diverse populations. Some comments by the park and recreation professionals are particularly revealing. For example: "Our fastest growing low-income population is Hispanic. Language and communication barriers make it more difficult for their needs to be presented and understood." "I believe we have a responsibility to provide for all and we have yet to meet that responsibility. The problem in our community is determining what is fair and appropriate."

Comments such as these suggest some understanding of the racial/ethnic component in this complex problem of access to services. Still, our study revealed a prevailing sentiment of "rugged individualism" which, to me, does not give adequate accounting to the often unbearable psychological dilemma endured by people who are short-term or long-term unemployed; those who have been traditionally low-income wage earners; or those who have been victimized by a history of racism and discrimination. The following comments are indicative:

"The idea of special programs for the unemployed bothers me. I think people receiving unemployment payments and/or welfare should work for the money (i.e., dean up in parks) unless they are physically unable to, or have child-care responsibilities."

"The answer to unemployment and low income is to help people help themselves, not make them thrilled with their present circumstances."

"I find it difficult to spend tax dollars for only special groups--to include them in regularly scheduled programs and offer reduced or no fees is acceptable, but not specialization."

"I believe the low-income and unemployed target groups should be mainstreamed into all regular activities without any stigma attached to their involvement in the program."

Such comments, though given within the context of our survey's questions, still fall within the market-oriented values of the recreation agencies. In addition, at least from my view, the ascribed status of race further exacerbates those situations of unemployment, low income status, and society's obligation to provide for those who, for whatever reason, cannot do for themselves.

HAVITZ: I agree to a point. For example, it seems that the first two statements in that last group are representative of what you termed "rugged individualism" and what syndicated columnist George Will calls "the Victorian distinction between the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor." This viewpoint carries with it some degree of pragmatic appeal that may be appropriate under limited circumstances, a point that was made in the first quotation. The idea deserves full public discussion, although I agree with you that it's not an appropriate blanket policy for most communities given our call for increased access. I don't believe that there is much research to support the second quote. As you noted earlier, most studies have shown that unemployment carries with it some very damaging psychological baggage and economic constraints that overrides any sense of freedom gained from not working. This reality frustrates many leisure visionaries, such as John Neulinger, who argued that modern society continues to over-emphasize the importance of work as a worthy end in itself.

I would disagree with the assertion that the latter two quotes represent a marketing orientation. The third quote especially represents the dominant paradigm in the recreation field--the expectation that it is possible to serve everyone if resources are distributed equally. This traditional "equal opportunity" equity model sounds appealing on the surface, but it ignores individual differences in circumstance that both you and I agree exist. This type of model would rarely be chosen by a "marketing" oriented professional for that very reason--it ignores the fundamental step of identifying distinct target markets. I'm not really qualified to speak to the maim streaming issue (the fourth quote) given my derth of therapeutic recreation training. However, I expect that this is a situationally dependent issue. At times, stigmatization and cost issues would be best solved by mainstreaming and at times they probably wouldn't be solved. I would caution that mainstreaming simply for the sake of saving up-front effort and money is not a sound strategy because it ignores the output side of the equation. Nevertheless, several respondents suggested that specialized programming for the unemployed may be unrealistic if it is presented as an add-on to already stressed budgets and overworked professionals. For example:

"At a time when there is pressure for agencies to raise revenue, it is difficult to offer free or reduced-cost programs. The direction of all agencies is to become more serf-sufficient and less reliant on general fund dollars. The need is still there to offer programs to segments of the society that cannot pay fees."

"We have just had an announcement that our largest manufacturing plant will close in the next year (1,350 jobs). The unemployed group in our city is going to grow. It is something we haven't [yet addressed], but [it is an issue] we need to address."

With these comments in mind, solutions have to be pragmatic and realistic if they are to be implemented on a widespread basis.

SPIGNER: So the bottom line question seems to be: How can we better serve the unemployed market(s) without breaking the budget? The table at left summarizes some of the issues and provides a framework that includes appropriate questions we must ask and possible courses of action. Ideas presented in the table are not all original, in fact few represent our own ideas. However, they do represent an attempt to synthesize the various viewpoints raised in this dialogue. The table should not be seen as a simplistic solution to a very complex problem, but rather as a starting point for positive action.

Editor's Note: References to accompany this article are available from the authors at Department of Anthropology/Ethnic Studies Program, Condon Hall, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403.