Our 2021 Report on the State of the Managed Recreation Industry

A Look at What’s Happening in Recreation, Sports & Fitness Facilities

Over the now 15 years of the Industry Report, the data has reflected the ups and downs, as well as the challenges and triumphs, of the industry. We watched as the industry struggled to adapt and recover from the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009, and now we can see how the industry has felt the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic over the past two years' worth of data. Despite these major—and many more minor—challenges, the industry has shown strong growth and innovation over the past decade-and-a-half. This year's report reveals an industry that has been hit hard—just like the rest of the world—but has shown its amazing adaptability and innovation and is pulling through with new ideas, programs and facilities to meet the needs of now and the demands of the future.

In these pages, we provide a closeup look at the responses collected via our annual 50-question survey sent to professionals working for parks, recreation, sports, fitness and aquatic facilities. We provide a deeper look into how things have been going for the long term, as well as over the past year, with detailed responses on topics from operations and budgets to construction, programming, staffing and more. In addition to the broad information offered up in these first pages, you'll find a deeper dive into the specifics for aquatic facilities, parks and recreation, colleges, schools, health clubs and Ys in the following pages. And if all that data doesn't satisfy your wonkish need for numbers, set down the pages and click over to the RecManagement.com website, where you'll find more detailed breakdowns for camp facilities and rec centers.

We'll begin in this section by talking about the responses from all 1,387 respondents, looking at how their facilities are doing, what initiatives they've undertaken and more, providing more detailed data where that's illustrative. Following this section, we'll get more granular, with individual discussions of specific cohorts within the survey population. That starts on page 36, where we begin a deep dive into the answers of respondents whose facilities include aquatic elements, such as indoor and outdoor pools. After that, we'll provide detailed analyses from each of the largest groups represented in the survey population, including parks and recreation departments and districts (see page 52), colleges and universities (see page 60), schools and school districts (see page 66), fitness facilities and health clubs (see page 72), and finally, the nonprofit organizations such as Ys, JCCs and Boys & Girls Clubs (see page 78).

As always we'll break out even more data on the RecManagement.com website, with a discussion of the responses of camp facilities, as well as community and private recreation and sports centers. And as usual, we'll keep delivering a weekly dose of data in our Rec Report newsletter, highlighting a different data point each week. If there's information you're looking for, but can't find in these pages, it never hurts to ask for more! Send a message to [email protected], and we'll see if we can dig deeper into the data to answer your question.

Finally, be sure to stay tuned for the July issue of Recreation Management, where we'll be reporting further on the data gleaned from this project in our annual Salary Survey, reporting on the career and salary trends for this year's respondents.

A Closer Look at Our Respondents

We'll have much more information about our respondents and their careers in our upcoming Salary Survey Report in the July 2021 issue of Recreation Management, but for our purposes here, let's take a closer look at the demographics of our respondent base.

As usual, respondents to the Industry Report survey were dispersed through a range of roles within their organizations, with the largest number serving in higher-level roles, such as directors, and administrative management. The greatest number of respondents (38.8%) said their job title is "director." Another 19.8% serve in administrative and management positions, such as administrator, manager or superintendent. Some 14.8% work in operations and facility management, with titles including operations manager, facility manager, building manager or supervisor. More than one in 10 (10.8%) are in program and activity administration roles, such as activity or program director, manager, coordinator, specialist, coach and instructor. Another 9.4% of respondents said they are the chairman, CEO, president, vice president or owner of their organization or company. Some 1.4% are faculty or teachers, while 0.1% are in services, including planners, designers, architects and consultants. Finally, 4.9% of respondents said they hold titles other than those listed.

Given that they tend to hold higher-level positions in their organizations, it should be no surprise that respondents to the Industry Report survey are highly experienced in the field of recreation, sports and fitness. On average, respondents have been in their current jobs for 11.7 years (no change from 2020), and have an average of 22.5 years of experience in the industry, up slightly from 22.3 years in 2020.

The greatest number of respondents in 2021 were from the Midwest, with 29.3% of respondents indicating they were from Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota or Wisconsin. (See Figure 1.)

The second largest group of respondents were from the West, with 21%. This includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

Nearly one-fifth (19.9%) of survey respondents call the South Atlantic region home. This includes Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia.

Some 17.8% of respondents said they were from the Northeast, including the states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Some 11.9% of respondents said they were from the South Central region, which includes Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.

As is generally the case, the largest number of respondents in 2021 were from suburban communities. Some 44.2% of respondents said they were from the suburbs. Slightly less than one-third (32%) said they were from rural areas, and another 23.8% were from urban areas. (See Figure 2.)

On average, the facilities and organizations covered by the report serve a population of 97,450 people, down from 2020, when the average was 108,300, but still higher than 2019 (92,030). Other than 2020 and 2017, the population size for respondents has been on the rise since 2016, when it was 83,200.

Despite the increasing average population, more than two-thirds (67.9%) of respondents said their facilities reach a population of less than 50,000 people. And, more than a third (34.2%) said they reach fewer than 10,000. Another 11.2% serve a population of between 50,000 and 99,999 people, while 8.9% reach between 100,000 and 199,999, and 12% reach a population of 200,000 or more people.

Respondents from rec centers, parks and Ys reach the largest populations, with rec centers serving an average of 128,900, parks reaching 127,000 and Ys reaching 106,700. Schools and colleges reported the smallest populations served, at 14,060 and 32,110, respectively. (See Figure 3.)

Two-thirds (66.6%) of respondents said they were with public or governmental organizations. The next largest group of respondents work for private nonprofit organizations, such as Ys, Boys & Girls Clubs and other nonprofit facilities. In fact, nearly a quarter (23.4%) of respondents work with private nonprofits. Another 9% said they were with private for-profit organizations like health clubs, waterparks, resorts and others. (See Figure 4.)

The largest percentage of respondents were from parks and recreation departments, park districts and similar organizations, though it was a smaller number than in 2020. Some 42.7% of respondents said they represented parks, down from 47.1% last year. (See Figure 5.) They were followed by respondents from colleges and universities (13.6%); schools and school districts (8.3%); community or private recreation centers (8.3%); YMCAs, YWCAs, JCCs and Boys & Girls Clubs (8.2%); and campgrounds, RV parks and private or youth camps (5.3%). Smaller numbers of respondents reported from other types of facilities, including: golf facilities and country clubs (3.2%); sports, health, fitness and medical fitness facilities (2.6%); resorts and resort hotels (1.4%); homeowners associations (0.9%); waterparks, theme parks and amusement parks (0.7%); ice rinks (0.4%); racquet and tennis clubs (0.4%); stadiums, arenas and tracks (0.3%); military installations (0.2%); corporate recreation and sports centers (0.2%); and churches (0.2%). Another 3% of respondents said they work for "other" types of facilities.

When it comes to organizational structure, some types of facilities are more likely to be public or government-based organizations, while others are more likely to be nonprofit or for-profit organizations. A vast majority (99.2%) of park respondents indicated that they were with public, governmental organizations. Also highly likely to be from public organizations were respondents from schools and school districts (90.4%) and those from colleges and universities (64.9%).

Similarly, a vast majority of respondents from Ys and similar organizations said that they were with private nonprofits. Some 97.4% of Y respondents said they were private nonprofits. Nearly two thirds (63.5%) of camp respondents also said they were with private nonprofit organizations.

For-profit organizations were most common among those from sports, health, fitness and medical fitness facilities, where more than half (56.8%) said they were with for-profit organizations. Some 21.6% of camp respondents said they were for-profit.

On average, survey respondents manage 7.2 facilities, down from 8.3 in 2020 (likely because of the smaller number of park and recreation respondents among the respondents). This is driven by an increase in the number of respondents who said that they manage between one and three facilities back to numbers more similar to past survey years. In 2020, 55.2% managed between one and three facilities, compared with 59.4% in 2021 (and 59.7% in 2019). Around one-quarter (24.9%) said they manage between four and nine facilities, representing little change from 2020 (25.5%). Finally, another 15.6% said they manage 10 or more facilities, down from 19.4% in 2020. (See Figure 6.)

When it comes to community type, it comes as no surprise that urban and suburban respondents managed a larger number of facilities, on average, though those numbers fell over the past year. On average, urban respondents manage 7.96 facilities (down from 10 in 2020), suburban respondents manage 7.32 (down from 8.8), and rural respondents manage 6.47 (virtually no change from 6.5). Some 17.4% of urban respondents and 16.4% of suburban respondents said they manage 10 or more facilities, compared with 13.5% of rural respondents.

As usual, respondents from park facilities were the most likely to report that they manage a larger number of individual facilities. On average, park respondents manage 11.1 facilities (down from 12 in 2020), with 25.9% reporting that they manage 10 or more facilities (down from 30.5% in 2020). They were followed by school respondents, who manage an average of six facilities (down from 7.6 in 2020), with 12.2% reporting that they manage 10 or more (down from 17.6%). (See Figure 7.)

Respondents from health clubs and camps were the most likely to report that they manage just a single facility, with 78.4% of health club respondents and 64.9% of camp respondents indicating that they manage just a single facility.

Forming partnerships with other organizations, from government agencies and nonprofits to local businesses, is a savvy way for facility owners to broaden their offerings, in terms of amenities, programming, marketing, funding and more. A majority—87.9%—of respondents said that they form these kinds of partnerships, down slightly from 89% in 2020.

As usual, local schools hold the top spot as the most common type of partner for all facility types. Some 62.1% of survey respondents said they had partnered with local schools. (See Figure 8.) They were followed by local government (55.8%), nonprofit organizations (49.9%), colleges and universities (35.8%) and state government (35.7%).

As usual, respondents from Ys and parks were the most likely to report that they had partnered with outside organizations, while those from health clubs and camps were the least likely to do so. A vast majority of Y respondents (97.4%) said they partner with other organizations, and 94.7% of parks respondents had done so. This compares with 78.4% of health club respondents and 77% of camps. (See Figure 9.)

Given that all Y respondents report partnering with other organizations, it's no surprise that they were the most likely to partner with most of the different types of organizations covered by the survey. The only exceptions were local government, colleges and universities, and private health clubs. Ys were more likely than other respondent types to indicate that they partnered with nonprofit organizations (86.8% of Ys had partnered with other nonprofits), local schools (86%), corporations and local businesses (64.9%), health care facilities (64.9%), other Ys (51.8%), state government (46.5%), military (37.7%), and federal government (29.8%).

Park respondents were the most likely to report that they had partnered with local government (71.2% had done so), while college respondents were the most likely to report that they had partnered with other colleges and universities (65.2%), and health clubs were the most likely to report that they had partnered with other health clubs (8.1%).

Of note, over the past 10 years, the number of respondents who report that they partner with health care and medical facilities has seen growth. In 2012, 19.5% of respondents said they partnered with such organizations. That number has increased over time, and in 2021, nearly a quarter (23.7%) report that they partner with health care and medical organizations, a trend that may continue as medical professionals increasingly work to encourage their patients to seek out wellness and health activities found in gyms, rec centers and other facilities across the nation.

When it comes to the primary audience served by their facilities, respondents were most likely to report that they reach all ages. Some 40.6% of respondents said their facilities reach an audience of all ages. The next largest groups primarily reach children ages 4 to 12 (18.9%) and adults 19 to 64 (16.1%). Smaller numbers of respondents said their primary audience was made up of college students (12.1%), teens ages 13 to 18 (8.4%), seniors (3.5%), or infants and toddlers (0.5%). (See Figure 10.)

Some respondents are more likely to serve specific audiences than others, for obvious reasons. For example, you would expect college students to be the most likely audience for colleges and universities, and that is the case, with 87.7% of college respondents indicating this is the primary audience for their facilities. Respondents from Ys were the most likely to serve all ages, with 54.4% indicating they reached all ages. They were followed by parks, 53.6% of whom reach all ages, and community centers (50.4%). Children ages 4 to 12 were the most likely to be the primary audience for camps, 35.1% of whom said they primarily reach this age group. They were followed by parks (27.2%) and rec centers (20.3%). Adults from 19 to 64 were most likely to be the primary audience for respondents from sports, health and fitness clubs, 62.2% of whom said this was their primary audience. They were followed by Ys, 23.7% of whom said this was their primary audience. Teens were the predominant audience for schools and school districts (54.8%). And seniors were more likely to be the primary audience at health clubs (8.1%) than other facility types.

Revenues & Expenditures

Before 2020 arrived with the COVID-19 pandemic and its obvious effects on the bottom line, the number of respondents reporting increasing revenues year-over-year had been on the rise, growing from 39.5% in 2013 to 47.5% in 2019. Simultaneously, the number reporting decreases to their revenues year-over-year dropped, from 14.9% reporting a decrease in 2013 to 10.7% reporting a decrease in 2019.

Obviously, 2020 presented huge challenges, and nearly two-thirds (64.9%) of respondents to this year's survey indicated that their revenues in 2020 were lower than their revenues in 2019. At the same time, 21.7% reported no change, and 13.4% reported an increase. (See Figure 11.)

Looking forward, while many respondents are expecting revenues to pick back up in 2021, most don't expect a full return to normalcy until 2022. In 2021, more than one-quarter (26.5%) are still expecting their revenues to be lower than the previous year, while 36.9% expect no change to revenues and 36.7% are anticipating an increase. However, in 2022, well over half (57.7%) of respondents said they expect their revenues to increase, while 32.7% are expecting no change. Less than one in 10 (9.6%) are anticipating lower revenues in 2022 than in 2021.

After climbing fairly steadily from 2012 to 2019, operating expenditures dropped in 2020. Respondents expect their expenses to climb only slightly in 2021 before increasing again in 2022. From 2012 to 2019, the average annual operating expenditure grew 49%, from an average of $1,456,000 in 2012 to an average of $2,170,000. Operating expenses fell by 12% for the year 2020, to an average of $1,910,000. (See Figure 12.)

Looking forward, respondents expect their expenses in 2021 to be only 0.5% higher than in 2020, with an average of $1,920,000—no tremendous surprise as much of the country has continued to follow social distancing guidelines, and many states have yet to fully reopen. In 2022, respondents are expecting their operating costs to increase by 6.8% over 2021, to an average of $2,050,000, still 5.5% less than the average reported in 2019, but 12.6% higher than in 2018, representing a return to the steady climb we've seen over the past decade.

Whether in an urban center or a rural community, all respondents reported a drop to their annual operating expenditures from 2019 to 2020. The greatest drop was reported by respondents from urban communities, who saw their average operating expense fall 27.2%, from an average of $2,720,000 in 2019 to $1,980,000 in 2020. Respondents from suburban and rural communities saw their operating costs fall much less steeply, with suburban respondents reporting a drop of 7.6%, from $2,510,000 in 2019 to $2,320,000 in 2020, and rural respondents reporting a 7% decrease, from $1,430,000 in 2019 to $1,330,000 in 2020.

Looking forward, rural respondents report the greatest increase to their operating expenditures between 2020 and 2022, a trend that holds from last year's report. Rural respondents are projecting that their average annual operating expenditure will rise 13.5%, from $1,330,000 in 2020 to $1,510,000 in 2022. Urban respondents were expecting expenses to grow at less than half that rate, projecting a 6.1% increase, from $1,980,000 in 2020 to $2,100,000 in 2022. Finally, suburban respondents projected a 4.7% increase, from $2,320,000 in 2020 to $2,430,000 in 2022.

After being the only category of respondents to report a decrease to their average operating expenses in 2019, Midwestern respondents were the only region to report an increase to their average operating expenses in 2020. Respondents from the Midwest reported a 17.8% increase, from an average of $1,800,000 in 2019 to $2,120,000 in 2020. The biggest decrease was seen in the West, where respondents saw their operating expenses fall by nearly a third, dropping 33.2%, from $2,890,000 in 2019 to $1,930,000 in 2020. South Central respondents reported a 20.3% drop, from $2,270,000 to $1,810,000, while Northeastern respondents reported a 17.4% decrease, from $1,780,000 to $1,470,000. South Atlantic respondents reported the least change, with a 5.1% decrease from an average operating expense of $2,170,000 in 2019 to $2,060,000 in 2020. (See Figure 13.)

Looking forward, most regions are expecting their operating costs to grow by varying degrees over the next couple of years. The greatest increase is expected among respondents in the South Central region, reporting a 17.7% increase from 2020 to an average of $2,130,000 in 2022. They were followed by respondents in the Northeast, who expect a 12.2% increase, to $1,650,000 in 2022, and those in the West, who expect an increase of 11.9%, to $2,160,000 in 2022. Midwestern respondents projected a much slighter increase of 2.4%, to an average of $2,170,000 in 2022, while those in the South Atlantic region actually projected that their operating expenditures would fall by 0.5%, to an average of $2,050,000 in 2022.

When it comes to facility type, respondents from Ys and camps actually reported substantial increases to their operating expenses from 2019 to 2020. Camps reported a 43.5% increase, from an average of $1,080,000 in 2019 to $1,550,000 in 2020, while Ys reported a 35.3% increase, from $2,780,000 in 2019 to $3,760,000 in 2020. The greatest decreases to operating expenses in 2020 were reported by respondents from schools and colleges. School respondents reported a 31% decrease, from an average of $2,450,000 in 2019 to $1,690,000 in 2020, while colleges reported a 25.8% decrease, from $2,170,000 to $1,610,000. They were followed by parks, reporting a 19.5% decrease, from $2,310,000 in 2019 to $1,860,000 in 2020, and rec centers, with a 12.3% decrease, from $1,540,000 to $1,350,000. Health club respondents reported virtually no change, with their average operating cost falling just 0.8%, from $1,330,000 in 2019 to $1,320,000 in 2020. (See Figure 14.)

Looking forward, the greatest increase to operating expenses between 2020 and 2022 is expected among respondents from rec centers, who expect their average cost to go up 23%, to $1,660,000. They were followed by camps (up 14.8% to $1,780,000) and health clubs (up 12.9%, to $1,490,000). More modest increases were expected by respondents from colleges (up 6.2% to $1,710,000), parks (up 4.8% to $1,950,000) and Ys (up 4.3% to $3,920,000). School respondents projected virtually no change, with operating expenses expected to rise 0.6% to an average of $1,700,000 in 2022.

When it comes to operating costs vs. revenues, the percentage of costs recovered via revenue tends to depend on the type of organization represented. This is no surprise, as private, for-profit organizations aim to achieve a profit (i.e., revenues should exceed costs), while nonprofits and governmental organizations are generally subsidized via other funding, whether taxes, philanthropy, grants or some combination of all of these. On average, respondents in 2021 said they recover 52.3%, up from 51.7% in 2020 and 47.3% in 2019. Interestingly, for all organization types, there was little change in the percentage of costs recovered between the 2020 survey and the 2021 survey. For public organizations, 45.1% of costs are recovered, representing virtually no change from 45.2% in 2020. For private nonprofit organizations, 65.5% of costs are recovered in 2021, also representing virtually no change from the 2020 survey, when 65.9% of costs were recovered. The greatest change was seen among private for-profit organizations, though even this change was relatively slight, from 74.2% in the 2020 survey to 73.6% in 2021. (See Figure 15.)

Health club respondents in 2021 overtook camps as the facility type earning back the highest percentage of costs via revenues, earning back more than three-quarters (76.4%, up from 71.3% in 2020). Camps also earned back more than three-quarters of revenues, at 75.2% (up from 74.4%), and they were followed by Ys, which earned back 72.2% of their revenues, up from 71% in 2020. Respondents from colleges, parks and schools earn back the lowest percentage of their operating costs via revenues, with colleges in 2021 reporting that they earn back 42.8% (down from 46.7% in 2020), parks earning back 43.3% (down from 43.8%) and schools earning back 45.6% (up from 42.9%). (See Figure 16.)

In the 2020 Industry Report, we found that the number of respondents who had taken action to reduce their operating expenses had increased in 2019, before COVID-19's impact was felt. Some 81.2% of respondents to the 2020 survey said they had taken action in the past year to reduce their expenses, with improving efficiency (50.8%) and increasing fees (45.4%) the most common actions taken.

Not surprisingly, the pandemic led many more respondents in 2021 to report that they had taken action over the past year to reduce their expenditures. In fact, some 90.1% of respondents in 2021 said they had taken such actions. The types of action most commonly taken to reduce costs are quite different from a typical year. In most survey years, the top actions taken generally include improving energy efficiency and reducing staff. In 2021, respondents said the No. 1 action they had taken to reduce their costs was reducing staff. In fact, 56.5% said they had reduced staff (compared with 29.7% in 2020), and while it was not among the top five actions taken, hiring freezes were also common, with 29.9% of respondents indicating they had instituted a hiring freeze. More than half of respondents also said they had cut programs and services (55.6%, compared with only 17.6% in 2020) or reduced their hours of operation (52.8%, compared with 18.2%). Nearly half (48.4%) said they had closed facilities temporarily, and 2.2% had permanently closed facilities. Improving energy efficiency, consistently at the top of the list in most years, fell, though more than one-third (35.7%) said they had improved efficiency at their facilities in order to reduce their expenses (down from 50.8% in 2020). (See Figure 17.)

In 2021, respondents from Ys were, as usual, the most likely to report that they had taken action to reduce their expenditures, but unlike the norm, they were followed by rec centers and colleges—usually among the least likely to have taken such action. Some 97.4% of Y respondents said they had acted in the past year to reduce their costs, up from 90.6% in 2020. They were followed by rec centers, 95.6% of which had taken such actions, up from 79.8% in 2020, and colleges, 93.3% of which had acted to reduce their costs, up from 76.9% in 2020. Health clubs, parks and camps were also more likely to have acted to reduce their operating costs. Some 91.9% of health clubs, 91.8% of camps and 91.2% of parks had done so, up from 81.1%, 87.8% and 80.6% in 2020, respectively. Only school respondents were less likely to have taken action to reduce their costs over the past year—just 71.4% of school respondents said they had taken such action, down from 76.3% in 2020.

Respondents from Ys were the most likely to report that they had taken most of the measures covered in the survey. Some 83.3% of Y respondents had reduced staff, 82.5% had cut programs or services, 78.1% had reduced hours of operation, 49.1% had put construction plans on hold, 45.6% had improved energy efficiency, and 44.7% had instituted a hiring freeze. Parks were the most likely to report that they had temporarily closed facilities (56.9%) or shortened their season of operation (24.9%). Camps were the most likely to indicate that they had increased fees (30.1%). And health clubs were the most likely to report that they had permanently closed facilities (5.4%).

Facility Usage & Membership

As is generally the case, around six in 10 respondents said they currently charge a fee for membership or for using their facilities. Some 57% of respondents said they currently charge a fee, down from 59.4% in 2020. (See Figure 18.)

Respondents from Ys, health clubs and rec centers were the most likely to report that they charge a fee for membership or for using their facilities. Some 94.7% of Y respondents, 86.5% of health club respondents and 67% of rec center respondents said they charge a fee for membership or usage of their facilities. Conversely, schools were the least likely to charge a fee, with just 25.2% indicating they do so. They were followed by park respondents, more than half (52.5%) of whom said they charge a fee for membership or usage.

In most years, around three out of 10 respondents who charge a membership or usage fee report that they have plans to increase their fees. Of course, 2020 represented a sharp departure from the norm, and only 17.6% of respondents said they increased their fees over 2019. This compared with 32.8% who had increased fees in 2019. Nearly three-quarters (74%) said they had left their fees alone for 2020, and 8.4% indicated that they had reduced their fees—far more than usual. (See Figure 19.)

Looking forward, 2021 shows slight changes from 2020, with a quarter (25%) of respondents planning to increase fees and more than seven out of 10 (71.1%) planning to keep fees the same. In 2022, facilities are much more likely to increase their fees to make up for these years when those increases were less possible. Some 37.1% of respondents said they expected their fees to increase in 2022.

Among the facilities that charge a fee for membership or usage, those from camps and rec centers were the most likely to report that they had increased their fees in 2020. Some 35.7% of camp respondents and 20.8% of rec center respondents said they had increased their fees in 2020. Colleges and parks were the most likely to report that fees had decreased in this time frame, with 10.9% of colleges and 10.6% of parks indicating they had reduced their fees.

Camps continue to hold the top spot for the next two years, with 38.1% indicating they plan to increase fees in 2021, and 54.8% planning an increase in 2022. In 2021, they were followed by health clubs, 34.4% of which are planning to increase fees. And in 2022, they were followed by rec centers, 49.4% of which are planning to increase fees.

When it comes to the number of people using their facilities, 2020 presents a unique departure from the norm. In most years, at least half of respondents generally report that the number of people using their facilities has increased. In 2020, however, 60.5% of respondents said the number of people using their facilities decreased, while 18% reported no change. Just over a fifth (21.5%) said the number of people using their facilities increased in 2020. (See Figure 20.)

And, given that social distancing measures have continued well into 2021, it comes as no surprise that the numbers do not yet return to normal this year, though they do get closer. Some 44.6% of respondents expect the number of people using their facilities to increase in 2021, while 34% expect no change, and 21.4% expect a decrease. It is in 2022 that respondents begin to see a return to normal—and a surge in membership/usership. Some 63.4% of respondents said they expect the number of people using their facilities to increase in 2022, while 29.7% expect no change and 6.9% expect a decrease.

Respondents from Ys and health clubs were the most likely to report that usage of their facilities fell in 2020, with 91.2% of Y respondents and 75% of health club respondents indicating they had seen a decrease. Conversely, parks and camps were the most likely to report an increase in usage, though only 29.4% of parks and 20.5% of camps said they had seen a rise in users at their facilities.

In 2021, colleges are the most likely to expect decreasing usage, with 38.3% of college respondents indicating that they expect the number of people using their facilities to fall. They were followed by health clubs, at 27.8%. In this same year, camps and Ys are the most likely to expect an increase in usage, with 59.2% of camps and 50.9% of Ys indicating they expect usage to increase.

Colleges continue to be the most likely to expect declining usage for 2022, though the percentage who expect to see smaller numbers of people using their facilities that year falls to 12.9%. They were followed by schools, 11% of which expect to see a decline in usage. Ys and rec centers were the most optimistic about usage increases in 2022, with 81.6% of Ys and 74.5% of rec centers indicating that they expect the number of people using their facilities to increase in 2022.

Staffing

Considering how many respondents indicated that they had reduced staff to save operating costs, it was surprising to find that there was a slight increase in the average number of people employed at the organizations covered by the survey in 2021. In 2020, respondents employed an average of 119.5 workers, and in 2021, that number has risen slightly to 121.4. On average, survey respondents employed: 25.7 full-time employees (down from 31.1); 42.1 part-time employees (down from 45.6); 42 seasonal workers (down from 51.2); 40.4 volunteers (down from 46.4); and 10.1 "other" types of employees (down from 12).

As is usually the case, Ys employ the largest number of people, with an average of 209.3 total employees, up from 208.4 in 2020. They were followed by camp respondents, who employed an average of 138.3 employees (up from 95.5) and park respondents, with an average of 120.4 (down from 129.8). The smallest staffs were found among health club respondents, who employed an average of 67.7, up from 50.7. (See Figure 21.)

The percentage of respondents who report that they have plans to decrease staff is higher in 2021 than in previous years, but still less than one in 10—7.6%. From 2015 to 2021, the percentage of respondents who report that they plan to add staff at their facilities has remained fairly steady, just above or below one-fifth. In 2021, 21.3% of respondents said they had plans to add staff at their facilities, down just slightly from 22.2% in 2020. The majority of respondents—71.2%—said they have no plans to change staffing levels at their facilities. (See Figure 22.)

Maintaining a certification, including earning continuing education credits to keep current, is a tool used by many professions to prove competency in their field. In recreation, sports and fitness facility management, there are myriad applicable certifications, from career-specific credentials like the Certified Park and Recreation Professional (CPRP) and lifeguard certification to more broad-based certifications, as in foodservice and law enforcement. A majority of respondents (81.3%) said that they currently require certifications for at least some of their staff members, down slightly from 82.1% in 2020, and 83.2% in 2019.

More than nine of 10 respondents from Ys, health clubs and schools said they require certification for some of their employees. Some 95.6% of Y respondents said they currently require certification, down from 97.7% in 2020. They were followed by health clubs, where 94.6% of respondents require certification, up significantly from 86.5% in 2020, and schools, where 90.4% currently require certification, up from 88.3%. Respondents from parks were the least likely to require certifications, though 76.4% said they do have such a requirement. (See Figure 23.)

Of those respondents who require certification, the most common types of certification required included CPR/AED/First Aid (required by 88.9% of those who said they require some staff members to be certified), background checks (85.9%) and lifeguard certification (55.6%). More than one-quarter of respondents said they require an aquatic management or pool operations certification (34.4%), personal training or fitness certification (28.7%) or foodservice certification (25.4%). (See Figure 24.)

Respondents from facilities that include aquatic elements are obviously much more likely to require lifeguard and aquatic management or pool operations certifications for some of their staff members. While 55.6% of all respondents who require certification said they ask some staff members to achieve lifeguard certification, for those with aquatic facilities, that number jumps to 83.5%. And while 34.4% of all respondents require aquatic management and pool operations certifications, 54.3% of those with aquatic facilities do so.

Given the nature of their typical operations and programming, some facilities are far more likely to require certain types of certification than others. In addition to being the most likely to require any certifications, respondents from Ys were the most likely to report that they require CPR/AED/First Aid certification (99.1%), background checks (99.1%), lifeguard certification (85.3%), aquatic management or pool operations certification (59.6%), and childcare or early childhood education certification (62.4%). Respondents from parks were the most likely to require pesticide application certification (34.9%), playground safety certification (28%), Certified Park and Recreation Professional (CPRP) certification (20.9%), turf and grounds management certification (11.1%), and security or law enforcement certification (9.3%). Respondents from camps were the most likely to require foodservice certification (65.5%) or climbing certification (44.8%). School respondents were the most likely to require coaching certification (68.3%) or teaching certifications (55.8%). And health clubs were the most likely to require personal training or fitness certification (82.9%), while colleges were the most likely to require athletic trainer certifications (34.1%).

Facilities & Construction Plans

Since 2013, we've been tracking the age of respondents' flagship or main facilities. Since then, facilities have aged from an average of 27.5 years in 2013 to 35.6 years in 2021, up from an average of 35 in 2020.

More than a third of respondents (35.8%) said their facilities are at least 41 years old, down slightly from 36% in 2020. However, nearly half of those, and 18.2% of all respondents, said their main facility is at least 50 years old—up from 17.5% in 2020. More than one-quarter (28.6%) had a main facility between 21 and 40 years old, while 23.5% said their main facility was between 11 and 20 years old. Just 12.1% of respondents had facilities that were 10 years old or less (down from 14.6% in 2020), and half of these (6% of all respondents) said their main facility is 5 years or fewer years old.

Health clubs and colleges had the newest facilities. For health club respondents, the average age of their main facility was 27.1, up from 23.9 years, while college facilities' average age was 28.2 years, representing no change from 2020. They were followed by rec centers, with an average facility age of 31.7 years (down from 33.9), and schools, who saw their average facility age drop from 38.5 years in 2020 to 33.5 years in 2021. The oldest facilities, as usual, were found among camps, whose respondents reported an average facility age of 57.4 years, up from 51.8 in 2020. (See Figure 25.)

After climbing steadily since 2013, the number of respondents who report that they are planning construction over the next several years has fallen. From a low of 62.7% in 2013, the percentage with facility construction plans climbed to a high of 72.9% in 2020, but the impact of COVID-19, measured in an update survey taken in May 2020, meant that many put their construction plans on hold—34.3% in that survey. In 2021, 64.9% of respondents report that they have plans for new construction, additions or renovations over the next several years.

In 2021, nearly half of respondents (48.7%) said they were planning to renovate their existing facilities, down from 57.3% in 2020. Another 28.8% were planning to make additions (down from 34.6%) while 27.1% were planning new construction (down from 31.1%). These are the lowest numbers of respondents planning all types of construction since 2016. (See Figure 26.)

As usual, camps, with their very old facilities, were the most likely to report that they had plans for construction, though the percentage has fallen, Some 77% of camp respondents said they were planning construction, down from 85.3% in 2020. They were followed by parks (71.8% of whom were planning construction, down from 80.8%), Ys (66.7%, down from 74.4%), and rec centers (59.1%, down from 62.4%). Respondents from health clubs were the least likely to be planning construction, though more than half (51.4%) said they had such plans, down from 59.5% in 2020. They were followed by colleges (52.7%, up slightly from 52.4%) and schools (58.3%, down from 69.3%).

Camp and park respondents were the most likely to be planning all types of construction. Some 39.2% of camp respondents and 32.9% of park respondents were planning new construction, with 34.2% of camps and 32.9% of parks planning additions to their existing facilities. More than six in 10 camp respondents (62.2%) and more than half (55.2%) of park respondents were planning renovations.

After rising for the past couple of years, the average amount respondents were planning to spend on their construction was down 8.7% in 2021. On average, respondents in 2021 were planning to spend $5,140,000, down from $5,630,000 in 2020. (See Figure 27.)

Only health club and rec center respondents said they are planning to spend more in 2021 than their counterparts in 2020. Health club construction spending was up dramatically—188.3%—from an average of $1,110,000 in 2020 to $3,200,000 in 2021. (Note that the much smaller sample size for health club respondents makes such drastic fluctuations more likely.) Rec center respondents in 2021 were planning to spend an average of $6,450,000, up 16% from $5,560,000 in 2020.

The greatest decreases in average construction spending were found among camps and Ys, with camp respondents planning to spend 53.5% less in 2021 ($1,010,000 vs. $2,170,000 in 2020) and Ys planning to spend 33.3% less ($5,190,000 vs. $7,780,000 in 2020). College respondents were planning to spend 14.7% less ($7,690,000 vs. $9,020,000), parks were planning to spend 7.4% less ($5,160,000 vs. $5,570,000), and school respondents reported the least change, with spending plans down 3.3%, from an average of $6,990,000 in 2021 to $6,760,000 in 2020.

When it comes to regional differences, only respondents from the Midwest reported an increase to the average amount they were planning to spend on construction in 2021. Midwestern respondents' construction budgets were up 7.4% this year, from $4,300,000 in 2020 to $4,620,000 in 2021. (Interestingly, in 2020, Midwesterners were the only regional cohort reporting a decrease in construction spending.) The greatest decrease to planned construction spending was seen among respondents from the Northeast, who planned to spend 20.4% less, $2,840,000 vs. $3,570,000 in 2020. They were followed by the West, where respondents planned to spend $7,340,000 in 2021, down 14.8% from $8,620,000 in 2020. Smaller increases were reported in the South, with South Atlantic respondents' construction budgets falling 6.5% (from $5,540,000 to $5,180,000) and South Central respondents' construction spending falling 0.9% (from $5,870,000 to $5,820,000). (See Figure 28.)

The top amenities included in respondents' facilities in 2020 include: classrooms and meeting rooms (60.6% of respondents include them in their facilities); bleachers and seating (57.2%); outdoor sports courts for sports like basketball or tennis (56.1%); playgrounds (55.3%); open spaces such as natural areas and gardens (55.1%); Wi-Fi (55%); locker rooms (54.6%); natural turf sports fields (51.2%); concessions (51%); and park shelters like gazebos and picnic shelters (50.8%). (See Figure 29.)

In most years, there is not a great deal of change in the percentage of respondents whose facilities include various sorts of amenities, and 2021 is no exception. That said, the following types of features saw an increase of at least one percentage point in the past year: indoor tracks (up 2.5); synthetic turf sports fields (up 2.4); exercise studio rooms (up 1.4); fitness centers (up 1.3); and outdoor tracks (up 1).

Respondents from parks were the most likely to include: playgrounds (82.8%); park shelters (81.8%); park restroom structures (78.5%); outdoor sports courts (69.6%); community or multipurpose centers (52.9%); bike trails (46.9%); dog parks (36.6%); fitness trails and outdoor fitness equipment (36.1%); skateparks (35.1%); community gardens (34.2%); splash play (31.6%); golf courses (16.7%); ice rinks (14.9%); and bike or BMX parks (10.3%).

Camp respondents were the most likely to include: open spaces such as natural areas or gardens (76.7%); walking and hiking trails (75.3%); campgrounds (64.4%); waterfronts or marinas (57.5%); challenge courses or ropes courses (50.7%); outdoor aquatic facilities (45.2%); climbing walls (39.7%); disc golf courses (32.9%); nature centers (27.4%); and skiing or winter recreation areas (11%).

Respondents from Ys were the most likely to include: indoor sports courts (82.3%); classrooms and meeting rooms (80.5%); childcare centers (75.2%); Wi-Fi (71.7%); indoor aquatic facilities (69.9%); and waterparks (15%).

School respondents were the most likely to include bleachers (76.3%), concessions (76.3%), outdoor tracks (75.4%) and natural turf sports fields (71.1%).

College respondents were the most likely to include locker rooms (88.7%), indoor tracks (57%) and synthetic turf sports fields (50.5%).

Respondents from health clubs were the most likely to include fitness centers (91.9%) and exercise studio rooms (83.8%).

Finally, rec centers were more likely than others to include amusements such as rides and arcades (8.8%).

The number of respondents who reported that they had plans to add any of these features at their facilities over the next several years fell slightly after holding steady for several years. In 2021, 37.1% of respondents said they had such plans, down from 43.3% in 2020. That said, respondents from health clubs, Ys and rec centers were more likely in 2021 to be planning additions at their facilities. The greatest increase was seen among health club respondents. Some 21.6% of health club respondents in 2021 had plans to add features at their facilities, compared with just 13.5% in 2020. Despite a drop in the percentage planning to add features in 2021, parks were still the most likely to have such plans—46.8% of park respondents said they would be adding features at their facilities over the next several years. (See Figure 30.)

The top 10 planned features for all facility types include:

• Fitness trails and outdoor fitness equipment (21.2% of those with plans to add features were planning to add outdoor fitness)
• Splash play areas (20.4%)
• Playgrounds (16.9%)
• Park shelters (16.5%)
• Disc golf courses (15.6%)
• Walking and hiking trails (15.4%)
• Bike trails (14%)
• Synthetic turf sports fields (13.4%)
• Dog parks (13.2%)
• Park restrooms, and outdoor sports courts (11.3%)

Programming

For the most part, respondents were either as likely or slightly less likely in 2021 than in 2020 to offer most of the types of programming covered by the survey. This, in spite of the fact that more respondents overall said they provide some sort of programming at their facilities—97.6%, versus 96.9% in 2020. Only three types of programs saw growth of greater than 1%: functional fitness (up 3.5 points); personal training (up 1.8); and fitness programs (up 1.2).

The top 10 most commonly offered programs include: holiday events and other special events (provided by 65.2% of respondents); group exercise programs (58.8%); fitness programs (58.8%); educational programs (58.1%); day camps and summer camps (56.2%); youth sports teams (56%); mind-body/balance programs such as yoga and tai chi (49.7%); adult sports teams (46%); arts and crafts (45.9%); and programs for active older adults (44.8%). (See Figure 31.) Other than a few position changes, these are the same 10 programs most commonly offered in 2020.

Most respondents—97.6%—said they offer programming of some kind. A full 100% of respondents from health clubs, from Ys and from rec centers said they currently offer some type of programming at their facilities. They were followed by parks (99.1%); camps (98.6%); schools (97.3%); and colleges (96.7%).

As in every other year, Y respondents were the most likely to offer the most different kinds of programs. They were more likely than those from other types of facilities to offer: educational programs; day camps and summer camps; youth sports teams; programs for active older adults; swimming programs; individual sports activities like running or lap swimming; teen programs; aquatic exercise programs; daycare and preschool; and special needs programs.

Health club respondents followed, and were more likely than others to offer: fitness programs; group exercise programs; mind-body/balance programs like yoga and tai chi; functional fitness programs like HIIT; personal training; nutrition and diet counseling; and therapeutic programs.

Respondents from parks were more likely than others to provide: holiday and other special events; adult sports teams; sport training such as golf or tennis lessons; festivals and concerts; trips; and performing arts programs.

Camp respondents were the most likely to offer: arts and crafts; environmental education; water sports such as kayaking and canoeing; camping; and climbing programs.

Respondents from schools were more likely than others to host sports tournaments and races.

Some 36.1% of respondents in 2021 said they were planning to add additional program offerings to their facilities' lineup over the next three years, up from 35.1% in January 2020, and 31.4% in 2019.

The 10 most commonly planned program additions were:

• Group exercise programs (25.7% of those with plans to add programs, up from 22.4% in 2020)
• Fitness programs (25.5%, up from 24%)
• Teen programs (23.7%, up from 22%)
• Mind-body/balance programs (23.4%, up from 20.5%)
• Holidays and other special events (21%, up from 17.4%)
• Educational programs (20.8%, up from 16.3%)
• Adult sports teams (20.6%, up from 15%)
• Environmental education (20%, down from 21.8%)
• Programs for active older adults (19.8%, up from 18.1%)
• Special needs programs (19%, up from 17.9%)

Respondents from rec centers were again the most likely to report that they had plans to add programs at their facilities over the next few years. Some 47% of rec center respondents said they had such plans, down from 48.2% in 2020. They were followed by parks (44.8%, up from 40.8%), Ys (34.2%, down from 39.5%), health clubs (32.4%, up from 29.7%), and colleges (29.8%, no change from 2020). Respondents from schools were the least likely to be planning program additions, with 14.8% indicating they had such plans, down from 16.8% in 2020. They were followed by camps, where 21.6% of respondents had plans for program additions, down from 25.3%.

When asked about various initiatives their organizations are involved in, respondents chose the following as their top 10:

• Wellness initiatives (57.8%)
• Outreach to underserved populations (46.3%)
• Inclusion initiatives for those with physical disabilities (45.6%)
• Outreach to economically disadvantaged populations (45.4%)
• Outreach to minority populations (40.7%)
• Inclusion initiatives for those with developmental disabilities (40.5%)
• Resource conservation and green initiatives (31.5%)
• Programs to connect people with nature (31.3%)
• Initiatives to reduce hunger/improve nutrition (24.1%)
• Disaster recovery assistance (15.7%)

The greatest increases from 2020 were seen in initiatives to reduce hunger and improve nutrition, which were up 2.1 points—no tremendous surprise, knowing that many organizations adopted such a role during the pandemic. Other initiatives showing an increase included: outreach to the underserved (up 1.7); minority outreach (up 1.4); outreach to the economically disadvantaged (up 1.3); wellness initiatives (up 0.6). Initiatives showing a decrease included: inclusion initiatives for those with physical disabilities (down 3.7 points); programs to connect people with nature (down 2.3); inclusion initiatives for those with developmental disabilities (down 2.2); resource conservation and green initiatives (down 1.4); and disaster recovery assistance (down 0.7).

Challenges, COVID-19 and Beyond

While budgets and economics, and how to stretch a budget to accommodate facility needs, are always a top concern for recreation, sports and fitness facilities, we ask respondents to name the other issues that are a top concern for them, and in 2021, the findings were not quite the same as usual.

While the top five concerns remained the same as in past years (equipment and facility maintenance, staffing, marketing and increasing participation, safety and risk management, and creating new and innovative programs), some of these areas actually saw a decrease in concern. Equipment and facility maintenance was still the No. 1 concern for respondents, for example, but the percentage naming it a top concern fell from 58.4% in 2020 to 50.1% in 2021. Staffing issues also saw a decrease, from 54.5% to 47.4%. Likewise with marketing and increasing participation, down from 40.1% to 38%. These losses in the top three issues of concern were partially picked up in the other issues that round out the top five, with safety and risk management seeing a slight bump (34.4% in 2020 to 34.9% in 2021), and creating innovative programming seeing a more significant increase (up from 29.3% to 34.4%).

All that said, the challenges of the past year—most obviously the coronavirus pandemic, but also rising awareness of social justice issues—have had an obvious impact here. The number of respondents naming any kind of fitness or wellness as a top concern jumped significantly, from 36.2% in 2020 to 44.8% in 2021. This is driven by respondents naming general fitness and wellness as a top concern—up from 21.7% to 28.9%. Concern about fitness and wellness for older adults also saw an increase (15% to 20.5%), as did concern for youth fitness and wellness (up from 15.9% to 18%).

Social equity—at the bottom of the list of concerns in 2020—has also seen an increase. In 2020, 10% of respondents named social equity as a top concern, while in 2021, that number has increased to 14.9%.

Legislative issues also saw a slight increase, from 10.5% to 11.4%. (See Figure 32.)

Beyond these top issues of concern, the past year has obviously presented a unique situation for all respondents' facilities, with a patchwork of rules varying from state to state and location to location. In early May 2020, we asked survey respondents about closures, and at that point, the vast majority had closed facilities, including temporarily closing all of their facilities (69.2%), temporarily closing just some facilities (27.2%) or permanently closing facilities (1.2%).

This year, we asked respondents about their closures, as well as other adaptations of their facilities for ongoing use during the pandemic, and 62.6% of respondents said they had opened their facilities with social distancing measures in place. Well over half (57.2%) said they had closed indoor facilities, while a much smaller percentage (26.2%) had closed outdoor facilities. More than one out of 10 (10.8%) respondents said they had converted their existing facility space for health care use. (See Figure 33.)

We also asked respondents to describe some of the programs and services they had adapted or were providing in the wake of the pandemic. Some 43.3% of respondents said they had introduced new online fitness and wellness programming, while even more (49.2%) said they had added other types of online programming. More than one-third (34.3%) said they had converted indoor programming to take place outdoors instead. Nearly one-third (32.4%) said they were providing educational support for out-of-school children. More than three out of 10 respondents (30.3%) said they were involved in programs to address food insecurity in their communities. And more than one-quarter (25.8%) were providing childcare for essential workers and health care workers. And finally, 7.6% were providing outreach to out-of-school college students. (See Figure 34.)

In addition to the usual questions we send to respondents, we also asked specifically about the impact COVID has had on their facilities and business. We left the question open-ended so that respondents could give us as much (or as little) information as they pleased.

Obviously, the pandemic has been felt across the industry to one degree or another. Most facilities faced new struggles, as closures shut them completely, as they adapted to address new needs virtually, as they adopted new social distancing requirements, and as they dealt with reduced attendance as they did open. For others, the pandemic actually led to a dramatic surge in usage, as families that were denied their usual outlets for R&R turned to places like campgrounds, parks and other outdoor venues to satisfy that need.

Just as a sampling of the impact felt by respondents, the word "devastating" was used 26 times, the words "shut down" were used 51 times, and the word "loss" was used 61 times. Reductions in revenues, reductions in use and attendance, reductions in staff and a negative impact on the morale of those who remained, reductions in the ability to deliver programs—most respondents cited such challenges.

But many also cited that despite the challenges, their teams have been resilient and creative. Some emphasized how the pandemic has shined a bright light on how essential the services of parks, recreation and wellness facilities are. And we're sure that all are looking forward to settling back down to the business of engaging participants in the programs and activities they provide. RM