Local Walking Advocacy Organization 2014 Survey Report

Photo Courtesy :Rewa Marathe

LOCAL WALKING ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS

IN THE UNITED STATES

2014 SURVEY REPORT

WALKING ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS

SURVEY REPORT

2014

Funding for this report was provided by

the Every Body Walk Campaign

America Walks

(503)757-8342

PO Box 10581, Portland, Oregon 97296

ŚƩƉ͗ͬͬĂŵĞƌŝĐĂǁĂůŬƐ͘ŽƌŐͬ

Acknowledgements

America Walks and EveryBody Walk Campaign

1.INTRODUCTION 1

2.METHODS 2

Survey 3

3.RESULTS 4

Who we Are? 5

What we Do? 6

What we Need? 7

4.SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 8

Appendix -1 Participating Organizations 9

Appendix -2 Survey Questionaire 10

Appendix -3 Tables and Charts 11

Appendix -4 Webinar Presentation 12

CONTENTS

admin

admin

Collaborative

Walking Advocacy Survey Report 4

AMERICA WALKS AND EBWCAMERICA WALKS�ŎsǋÞO��ɟ�ĶĨǣ�Þǣ��ˤ˟ˠʹOʺˢ�ŘŸŘƼǋŸʩǼ�Ÿǋ¶�ŘÞʊ�ǼÞŸŘ�ǼÌ�Ǽ�Ķs�_ǣ��Ř�ǼÞŸŘ�Ķ�OŸ�ĶÞǼÞŸŘ�Ÿ¯�ĶŸO�Ķ��_ɚŸO�Oɴ�groups dedicated to promoting walkable communities. Our members are autonomous grassroots Ÿǋ¶�ŘÞʊ�ǼÞŸŘǣ�¯ǋŸŎ��OǋŸǣǣ�ǼÌs�OŸȖŘǼǋɴʰ�s�OÌ�ɠŸǋĨÞŘ¶�ǼŸ�ÞŎƼǋŸɚs�OŸŘ_ÞǼÞŸŘǣ�¯Ÿǋ�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶�ÞŘ�ǼÌsÞǋ��ǋs�ʳǻÌs�ŎÞǣǣÞŸŘ�Ÿ¯��ŎsǋÞO��ɟ�ĶĨǣ�Þǣ�ǼŸ�Ŏ�Ĩs��ŎsǋÞO��¶ǋs�Ǽ�ƼĶ�Os�¯Ÿǋ�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶�Eɴ�ɠŸǋĨÞŘ¶�OŸĶĶ�EŸǋ�ǼÞɚsĶɴ�ǼŸ�ǣÌ�ǋs�ĨŘŸɠĶs_¶sʰ��_ɚ�ŘOs�ƼŸĶÞOÞsǣ��Ř_�ÞŎƼĶsŎsŘǼ�s¯¯sOǼÞɚs�O�ŎƼ�Þ¶Řǣ�ǼŸ�ƼǋŸŎŸǼs�ǣ�¯sʰ�OŸŘɚs-ŘÞsŘǼ��Ř_��OOsǣǣÞEĶs�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶�OŸŘ_ÞǼÞŸŘǣ�¯Ÿǋ��ĶĶʳǻŸ�O�ǋǋɴ�ŸȖǼ�ŸȖǋ�ŎÞǣǣÞŸŘʰ�ɠs�ƼǋŸɚÞ_s��ɠsE˚E�ǣs_ʰ�ŸŘĶÞŘs�ǣȖƼƼŸǋǼ�ŘsǼɠŸǋĨ�¯Ÿǋ�ĶŸO�Ķ�Ƽs_sǣǼǋÞ�Ř��_ɚŸ-O�Oɴ�¶ǋŸȖƼǣʳ�ɟs�Ÿ¯¯sǋ��_ɚÞOs��EŸȖǼ�ÌŸɠ�ǼŸ�¶sǼ�ǣǼ�ǋǼs_��Ř_�ÌŸɠ�ǼŸ�Es�s¯¯sOǼÞɚs�ɠÞǼÌ�ƼȖEĶÞO�Ÿ¯ʩOÞ�Ķǣ��Ř_�sŘ¶ÞŘssǋÞŘ¶��Ř_�_sǣÞ¶Ř�ƼǋŸ¯sǣǣÞŸŘ�Ķǣʳ®Ÿǋ�_sO�_sǣʰ�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶�Ì�ǣ�EssŘ�ǼÌs�¯Ÿǋ¶ŸǼǼsŘ�ŎŸ_s�Ÿ¯�Ǽǋ�ŘǣƼŸǋǼ�ǼÞŸŘʳ�ɳsǼ�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶�Þǣ��OǋÞǼÞO�Ķ�OŸŎƼŸ-ŘsŘǼ�Ÿ¯�ŸȖǋ�ȖǋE�Ř�Ǽǋ�ŘǣƼŸǋǼ�ǼÞŸŘ�ǣɴǣǼsŎ��Ř_��Ƽǋ�OǼÞO�Ķ�Ǽǋ�ŘǣƼŸǋǼ�ǼÞŸŘ�OÌŸÞOs�ɠÞǼÌ�ƼŸɠsǋ¯ȖĶ�EsŘsʩǼǣ�¯Ÿǋ�EŸǼÌ�ÞŘ_ÞɚÞ_Ȗ�Ķǣ��Ř_�ǼÌsÞǋ�OŸŎŎȖŘÞǼÞsǣʳ��Ř_�ǼÌs�ƼŸǼsŘǼÞ�Ķ�¯Ÿǋ�ÞŘOǋs�ǣs_�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶�Þǣ�sŘŸǋŎŸȖǣʲ�ŸŘs�ǇȖ�ǋǼsǋ�Ÿ¯��ĶĶ�ǼǋÞƼǣ�ÞŘ�ǼÌs�ȕŘÞǼs_�ǢǼ�Ǽsǣ��ǋs�Ķsǣǣ�ǼÌ�Ř�ŸŘs�ŎÞĶs�ÞŘ�ĶsŘ¶ǼÌʰ�EȖǼ�ŸŘĶɴ��ǇȖ�ǋǼsǋ�Ÿ¯�ǼÌsǣs��ǋs�made by walking.�ŎsǋÞO��ɟ�ĶĨǣ�ɠ�ǣ�¯ŸȖŘ_s_�ÞŘ�ˠ˨˨˥�Eɴ�¯ŸȖǋ�ĶŸO�Ķ�¶ǋŸȖƼǣ�ɠÌŸ�EsĶÞsɚs_�ǼÌ�Ǽ�ĶŸO�Ķ�¶ǋ�ǣǣǋŸŸǼǣ��_ɚŸO�Oɴ�Þǣ�ŘsOsǣǣ�ǋɴ�ǼŸ�ÌsĶƼ�Ǽǋ�Řǣ¯ŸǋŎ�ŸȖǋ�OŸȖŘǼǋɴ˅ǣ�Ǽǋ�ŘǣƼŸǋǼ�ǼÞŸŘ�ǣɴǣǼsŎʰ��Ř_�ǼÌ�Ǽ��Ř�ǼÞŸŘ�Ķ�OŸ�ĶÞǼÞŸŘ�OŸȖĶ_�ÌsĶƼ�ĶŸO�Ķ�¶ǋŸȖƼǣ�¶ǋŸɠ��Ř_�Es�ŎŸǋs�s¯¯sOǼÞɚsʳ�Ǽ�ǼÌs�Ř�ǼÞŸŘ�Ķ�ĶsɚsĶʰ��ŎsǋÞO��ɟ�ĶĨǣ�ɠŸǋĨǣ�ǼŸ�ÞŘOǋs�ǣs�¯ȖŘ_ÞŘ¶�¯Ÿǋ�Ƽs_sǣǼǋÞ�Ř�Ǽǋ�ŘǣƼŸǋǼ�ǼÞŸŘ��Ř_�ƼǋŸ-moting public policies that support walking.EVERY BODY WALK! COLLABORATIVE MISSIONǻÌs�rɚsǋɴ�DŸ_ɴ�ɟ�ĶĨʵ�NŸĶĶ�EŸǋ�ǼÞɚs�Þǣ��Ƽ�ǋǼŘsǋǣÌÞƼ�Ÿ¯�Ř�ǼÞŸŘ�Ķʰ�ǣǼ�Ǽs��Ř_�ĶŸO�Ķ�Ÿǋ¶�ŘÞʊ�ǼÞŸŘǣʰ�¯s_sǋ�Ķ��¶sŘOÞsǣʰ�EȖǣÞŘsǣǣsǣʰ��Ř_�ƼǋŸ¯sǣǣÞŸŘ�Ķ��ǣǣŸOÞ�ǼÞŸŘǣ�ǼÌ�Ǽ��ǋs�OŸŎŎÞǼǼs_�ǼŸ�_sɚsĶŸƼÞŘ¶��Ř_�ÞŎƼĶsŎsŘǼ-ÞŘ¶�OŸĶĶsOǼÞɚs��ƼƼǋŸ�OÌsǣ�ǼÌ�Ǽ�O�Ř�ǋsǼȖǋŘ�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶�ǼŸ��ɚ�ĶȖs_ʰ�OȖĶǼȖǋ�Ķ�ŘŸǋŎ�¯Ÿǋ��ĶĶ��ŎsǋÞO�Řǣʳ�ǻÌs�EBW! Collaborative is striving to create environments where more people walking in more walkable places.ǻŸ��OOŸŎƼĶÞǣÌ�ǼÌÞǣʰ�rDɟʵ�NŸĶĶ�EŸǋ�ǼÞɚs�Ƽ�ǋǼŘsǋǣ��ǋs�ɠŸǋĨÞŘ¶�ǼŸ�Ŏ�Ĩs�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶��Ř_�ɠ�ĶĨ�EĶs�ƼĶ�Osǣ�more visible and more desirable to all Americans. We are working together to bring about the behav-ÞŸǋ�Ķ��Ř_�OȖĶǼȖǋ�Ķ�OÌ�Ř¶sǣ�Řss_s_�ǼŸ�Ŏ�Ĩs�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶�ǼÌs�Řsɠ�ŘŸǋŎ�Ķʳ�NŸĶĶsOǼÞɚsĶɴʰ�ǼÌsɴ��ǋs�ƼǋŸŎŸǼÞŘ¶�ĶŸO�Ķ�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶�ƼǋŸ¶ǋ�Ŏǣʰ�ǣÌŸɠO�ǣÞŘ¶�ǣȖOOsǣǣ¯ȖĶ�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶�OÌ�ŎƼÞŸŘǣ��Ř_�ƼȖǣÌÞŘ¶�¯Ÿǋ��OǼÞŸŘǣ�ǼÌ�Ǽ�ɠÞĶĶ�ǋsǣȖĶǼ�ÞŘ�ÞŘOǋs�ǣÞŘ¶�ǼÌs�ŘȖŎEsǋ�Ÿ¯�ǣ�¯sʰ�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶�sŘɚÞǋŸŘŎsŘǼǣʳŷȖǋ�ɠŸǋĨ�¯ŸOȖǣsǣ�ŸŘ�ǼɠŸ�Ķs¶ǣ��ÞŎs_�ǼŸ�EȖÞĶ_��Ř�ǼÞŸŘ�Ķ�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶�ŎŸɚsŎsŘǼ�˛�ÞŘOǋs�ǣs�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶��Ř_�ÞŎƼǋŸɚs�ɠ�ĶĨ�EÞĶÞǼɴʳ�ŷȖǋ�ˡ˟ˡ˟�ɚÞǣÞŸŘ�Þǣʲ�ĶĶ��ŎsǋÞO�Řǣ�ɠÞĶĶ�ɠ�ĶĨ�sŘŸȖ¶Ì�ǼŸ�¶sǼ��Ìs�ĶǼÌ�EsŘsʩǼʳAll Americans citizens demand walkable environments.�ĶĶ�ˤ˟�ǢǼ�Ǽsǣ�Ì�ɚs�s¯¯sOǼÞɚs��Ř_�ɚÞǣÞEĶs�OÌ�ŎƼÞŸŘǣ��Ř_�Ÿǋ¶�ŘÞʊ�ǼÞŸŘǣ�ǼÌ�Ǽ�ƼǋŸŎŸǼs�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶��Ř_��_ɚŸ-O�Ǽs�¯Ÿǋ�ɠ�ĶĨ�EĶs�sŘɚÞǋŸŘŎsŘǼǣʰ�OŸŎƼǋÞǣÞŘ¶��ƼŸɠsǋ¯ȖĶ�Ř�ǼÞŸŘ�Ķ�ŘsǼɠŸǋĨʳrɚsǋɴ�ǼŸɠŘʰ�OÞǼɴ��Ř_�OŸŎŎȖŘÞǼɴ�ǼɴƼs�ÞŘ�ǼÌs�Ř�ǼÞŸŘ�Ÿ¯¯sǋǣ�sŘɚÞǋŸŘŎsŘǼǣ�ɠÌsǋs�ɠ�ĶĨÞŘ¶�Þǣ�ǣ�¯sʰ�s�ǣɴ�and routine.


INTRODUCTION

LOCAL WALKING ADVOCACY: A GOOD NEWS BAD NEWS STORY

INTRODUCTIONWalking is so common, we often take for granted the conditions needed to make it safe, convenient and pleasant. Meanwhile, across the country, organizations are working every day to make sure that communities are designed and connected so that walking can be routine, safe and a valued activity for all.To better understand these organizations and to know how to best support them, the Every-Body Walk! Collaborative (EBWC) conducted an internet survey in February, 2014. The sur-vey focused on identifying the organizational capacities, including the staff, volunteers and ÀQDQFLDO�UHVRXUFHV��DYDLODEOH�WR�ZRUN�RQ�ZDONLQJ�DQG�WKH�W\SHV�RI�DFWLYLWLHV�UHODWHG�WR�ZDON-ing and walkability most frequently implemented. 6SHFLÀF�VWXG\�TXHVWLRQV�LQFOXGHG�• What are the characteristics of organizations that focus on walking advocacy?• What type of resources –staff, time, funding – do walking advocacy organizations have?• What type of activities –walking and walkability – do walking advocacy organizations

focus on?• What type of accomplishments do they identify?• How can a national collaborative best support local walking advocacy efforts?

INTRODUCTION


METHODSA 17 question survey was developed and administered online. Survey questions included checklists, rating scales and open-ended questions. Participants were asked to report on activities for calendar year 2013. A link to an online survey was emailed to the mailing list of several EBWC local action part-ners. These included America Walks, Safe Routes to School National Partnership, The Alli-ance, Rails to Trails Conservancy, WALC, Easter Seals and WalkBoston. While we are sure others forwarded the link, we do not have documentation. Most partners sent the survey an-nouncement once. America Walks sent out three announcements and featured the survey on their website for 4 months.

SURVEY TIMELINE

A total of 532 respondents completed the survey.Four hundred and eighty (480) completed it during the initial month of release, the remaining responses were gathered during the fol-low on months.

METHODS

January 2014 Draft Survey Prepared

February 2014

August 2014

September 2014

October 2014

Survey Published

Responses Collected

Results Analysis

Survey Report Prepared

admin

For Biking and Walking


RESULTS: WHO WE ARE?Walking advocacy organizations can be found in all 50 States, plus Guam and the District of Columbia. California reports the highest number with 63 unique organizations or 12% of all reporting walking advocacy organizations.This is followed by Kentucky with 23 organizations , New York and Oregon with 22 organizations and Washington with 21 organizations.The states with the fewest walking advocacy organizations were Alabama, Arkansas, Dela-ware, Louisiana, Missisipi, North Dakota, South Dakota and Utah with only two organizations each reporting from these states.From Guam and Rhode Island only one organization each took the survey.

Over 2/3rds (64%) of the reporting organizations focus their work in a single location or coun-W\��ZKLOH��ZRUN�ZLWKLQ�UHJLRQV�RU�6WDWHV��&RQÀUPLQJ�WKDW�ZRUNLQJ�RQ�ZDONLQJ�LV�D�SODFH�based enterprise. When asked to identify the top reason the organization was interested in promoting walking and walkability, 65% said it was to improve physical health, followed by 20% interested in the safety of the community. Economics, environment and access were important to less than 10% of the responding organizations (7%,4% and 3%, respectively). The secondary reason for IRFXVLQJ�RQ�ZDONLQJ��LGHQWLÀHG�E\��RI�RUJDQL]DWLRQV��LV�LPSURYLQJ�DFFHVV�DQG�PRELOLW\�IRU�all residents.

RESULTS


While walking advocacy is wide spread, the resources available are limited. Thirty-six per-cent of the organizations have no paid staff. Almost 60% of the organizations have fewer than 1.5 FTEs (21% report between .5 and 1.5 FTEs). Financial resources are even more lim-ited with the median annual budget reported at $7000. Over 70% of the organizations report volunteers working with them during 2013, with an average of 15 volunteers per organization. &RQYHUVHO\��RI�WKH�RUJDQL]DWLRQV�UHSRUW�QR�GXHV�SD\LQJ�RU�LQGLYLGXDO�ÀQDQFLDO�FRQWULEX-tions for 2013.Despite the number of organizations engaged in walking advocacy, the actual time de-voted is very limited. Only 12% (N=58) of the organizations indicate that they spend 90% to 100% of their time on walking. Seventy-six percent of the organizations (n=357) spend less than 50% of their time on walking advocacy, with almost a third of those (21%) spending 10% or less of their time working on walking. These percentages are likely related to the fact that much of walking advocacy work is embedded within organization with complimentary mis-sions.


RESULTS : WHAT WE DO?6DIH�5RXWHV�3URMHFWV�DUH�WKH�PRVW�SRSXODU�DQG�IUHTXHQWO\�LGHQWLÀHG�ZDONLQJ�DFWLYLW\�IRU�WKH�local advocacy organizations. Forty-two percent are frequently engaged in safe routes, meaning they implement walk to school days, walking school buses and other events. Other community education activities (37%) and walking groups or clubs (25%) are reported as frequent activities by a third to a quarter of walking advocacy organizations. Walking meet-ings, incentive programs and walking prescriptions are not widely practiced. It could be argued that these are activities that are more effective at creating long-term cultural shifts, and could provide an opportunity for improving walking advocacy effectiveness. When asked about activities related to walkability, 70% of organization report frequently pro-moting pedestrian infrastructure, including building sidewalks, trails and improving crosswalks. Fifty-six percent report frequently working on funding for active transportation. Complete Streets policies and connectivity projects were reported by over 50% of the organizations (58%, 55% respectively) as a frequent activity, followed closely by zoning reforms activities in 48% of the organizations. 7KHVH�DFWLYLWLHV�ZHUH�DOVR�LGHQWLÀHG�LQ�WKH�RSHQ�HQGHG�TXHVWLRQV�FRQFHUQLQJ�DGYRFDF\�DF-complishments. Complete streets policies and advisory groups, Safe Routes programming, sidewalk inventories and regulations and crosswalk improvements were the most frequently mentioned organizational accomplishments of the walking advocacy organizations.

RESULTS: WHAT WE NEED?When asks how these national organizations could assist with their local work, respondents top two activities focused on funding (62%) and information about funding opportuni-ties (59%). Assistance with proposal development, and other fund raising activity, was not YLHZHG�DV�QHFHVVDU\�ZKLOH�ÀQGLQJ�ZD\V�WR�H[SDQG�WKH�ORFDO�ZDONLQJ�DGYRFDF\�IXQGLQJ�SRRO�ZDV�LGHQWLÀHG�DV�HVVHQWLDO��&RPPXQLFDWLRQV�DQG�SXEOLF�DZDUHQHVV�DVVLVWDQFH�ZDV�LGHQWLÀHG�DV�WKH�QH[W�FDWHJRU\�IRU�local assistance, with over 50% wanting tools for increasing public awareness and almost 40% wanting examples of successful community campaigns. Over a quarter of the respondents wanted connections to other successful community proj-ects or assistance in organizing community supports. This was further supported in the open-ended responses where assistance with networking, partnering and development of State and regional coalitions were frequently mentioned. Roughly 20% wanted advocacy training or assistance setting policy priorities. Other open-HQGHG�UHVSRQVHV�UHTXHVWHG�DVVLVWDQFH�ZLWK�VSHFLÀF�WHFKQLFDO�LQIRUPDWLRQ�LQ�DUHDV�VXFK�DV�


ZD\ÀQGLQJ��VLGHZDON�LQVWDOODWLRQ��WU\�LW�\RX·OO�OLNH�LW�FDPSDLJQV��DQG�ODZ�HQIRUFHPHQW�HQJDJH-ment.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONSThe good news, these data indicate a wide-spread, grassroots volunteer effort is advocating for walking and walkability. They engage in a diverse set of activities and are primarily fo-FXVHG�RQ�VSHFLÀF�SODFHV��7KH�HIIRUWV�DUH�JXLGHG�E\�D�GHVLUH�WR�LPSURYH�KHDOWK�DQG�DUH�RIWHQ�HPEHGGHG�ZLWKLQ�RWKHU�RUJDQL]DWLRQV�ZLWK�FRPSOLPHQWDU\�PLVVLRQV��7KH�EDG�QHZ��VWDIÀQJ��IXQGLQJ�DQG�WLPH�OLPLWDWLRQV�SUHVHQW�D�VLJQLÀFDQW�FRQVWUDLQW�WR�RQJRLQJ�DGYRFDF\�ZRUN��DQG�must be factored into national efforts to assist.The good news, walking advocacy organizations report engaging in a range of activities to promote walking and push for policy changes,, with over 50% report working on Safe Routes SURMHFWV�DQG�FRPSOHWH�VWUHHWV��5HVSRQVHV�IXUWKHU�FRQÀUPHG�E\�TXDOLWDWLYH�GDWD��7KLV�LV�SHU-haps not surprising given the federal efforts in these areas. It might be a lesson in how fed-eral attention and funding can shape local responses. The bad news, potentially high impact activities, such as walking prescriptions, are not widely practiced or promoted by local walking advocacy organizations. This presents an opportu-nity for improving effectiveness.The good news, local walking advocacy organizations are clear about what they need from national partners. Funding, public awareness messages and platforms for sharing ideas and experiences are all priorities and good direction for how EveryBody Walk Collaborative and $PHULFD�:DONV�FDQ�EHVW�VHUYH�WKH�ZDONLQJ�DGYRFDF\�ÀHOG�The bad news, like all surveys, this one has limitations. It was a convenience sample con-ducted at a particular point in time. Participants had to be motivated enough to complete the survey suggesting possible selection bias. The questionnaire was not standardized and some of the checklist responses may not have been complete and mutually exclusive. That VDLG��WKH�JRRG�QHZV�LV�WKDW�ZH�IHHO�FRQÀGHQW�ZH�DUH�EHJLQQLQJ�WR�XQGHUVWDQG�KRZ�WR�EHVW�support and promote walking advocacy.

admin


APPENDIX-1Table 1.1: Survey Respondents from Different States A

Table 1.2: Survey Respondents from Different States B

State RespondentsN�ĶÞ¯ŸǋŘÞ� 63Kentucky 23New York 22Oregon 22Washington 21Virginia 19Massachusetts 18North Carolina 17Michigan 16Texas 16Montana 15New Jersey 15Ohio 15Pennsylvania 15Minnesota 14Colorado 13Florida 13Illinois 12Missouri 12South Carolina 11Arizona 9Connecticut 9Georgia 9Idaho 9Wisconsin 9^ÞǣǼǋÞOǼ�Ÿ¯�NŸĶȖŎEÞ� 8

State RespondentsIndiana 8Maryland 8Maine 8Tennessee 8Iowa 6Vermont 6West Virginia 6New Mexico 5Oklahoma 5New Hampshire 4Nevada 4Wyoming 4Alaska 3Hawaii 3Kansas 3Nebraska 3Alabama 2Arkansas 2Delaware 2Louisiana 2Mississippi 2North Dakota 2South Dakota 2Utah 2Guam 1Rhode Island 1


Table 2 : Survey Respondents Role in the Organization

Table 3 : Dues Paying Members of the Orga-nizationsThese organizations have very small or no bud-¶sǼǣ��Ř_�ÞŘ�Ÿǋ_sǋ�ǼŸ�¯ȖŘOǼÞŸŘ�ǼÌsɴ�ǋsĶɴ�ŸŘ�_Ȗsǣ�paying and contributing members.The respond-ing organizations had dues paying members ǋ�Ř¶ÞŘ¶�¯ǋŸŎ�˟�ǼŸ�ŎŸǋs�ǼÌ�Ř�ˠ˟˟˟˟ʳ

Table 4: Number of Volunteers in the Organi-zations in 2013ÝŘ��ĶĶ�ˤ˟ˣ�ǋsǣƼŸŘ_sŘǼǣ�ŘŸǼÞʩs_�ŘȖŎEsǋ�Ÿ¯�ɚŸĶȖŘ-teers in their organizations .

Table 5 : number of Full Time Employees in the Organizations

Role Respon-dents

Percentage

ƻ�Þ_�ǢǼ�¯¯ 279 52.7%Executive Director or President

84 15.9%

Board Member 42 7.9%Volunteer 61 11.5%Other 63 11.9%TOTAL 529 100.0%

Range Respon-dents

Percentage

0-50 383 73.4%50-100 47 9.0%100-500 18 3.4%500-1000 39 7.5%1000-1500 8 1.5%1500-2000 4 0.8%2000-3000 2 0.4%3000-5000 5 1.0%5000-10000 5 1.0%10000 3 0.6%10000 or more 8 1.5%TOTAL 522 100.0%

Range Respon-dents

Percentage

0-10 143 28.4%10-50 87 17.3%50-100 167 33.1%100-500 36 7.1%500-1000 48 9.5%1000-1500 12 2.4%1500-2000 0 0.0%2000-3000 1 0.2%3000-5000 2 0.4%5000-10000 2 0.4%10000 1 0.2%10000 or more 5 1.0%TOTAL 504 100.0%

Paid Staff Respon-dents

Percentage

0 174 33.9%2 185 36.1%4 69 13.5%6 34 6.6%8 8 1.6%10 13 2.5%12 6 1.2%16 5 1.0%20 3 0.6%40 5 1.0%60 4 0.8%100 1 0.2%140 1 0.2%200 1 0.2%200 or more 4 0.8%TOTAL 513 100.0%

APPENDIX-1


Table 6 : Budget of Organizations 512 survey respondents indicated their budget.ǻÌs�Ŏs_Þ�Ř�EȖ_¶sǼ�Ÿ¯�ǼÌsǣs�Ÿǋ¶�ŘÞʊ�ǼÞŸŘǣ�Þǣ�$7000 and mode being $0.ˣˠ̇�Ÿ¯�ǼÌs�ĶŸO�Ķ��_ɚŸO�Oɴ�Ÿǋ¶�ŘÞʊ�ǼÞŸŘǣ�_Þ_�ŘŸǼ�have any budget allocated .

Table 7: Geographics Focus of Organiza-tions

Category Respon-dents

Percent-age

Single Neighbour-hood

38 7.3%

City-wide or Munici-pality

200 38.2%

Country-wide 99 18.9%Regional 79 15.1%State-wide 54 10.3%National 20 3.8%Other 34 6.5%TOTAL 524 100.0%

Table 8 : Time Spent on Walking and Walk-ability

Category Frequency Percent-age

0% 28 5.5%10% 105 20.5%20% 84 16.4%30% 60 11.7%40% 32 6.3%50% 76 14.9%60% 21 4.1%70% 23 4.5%80% 16 3.1%90% 25 4.9%100% 41 8.0%TOTAL 511 100.0%

Table 9: Time Spent on Biking and Bike Friendly Infrastructure

Category Frequency Percent-age

0% 90 17.9%10% 118 23.5%20% 58 11.5%30% 54 10.7%40% 28 5.6%50% 77 15.3%60% 25 5.0%70% 24 4.8%80% 15 3.0%90% 11 2.2%100% 3 0.6%TOTAL 503 100.0%

v

Budget($) Respon-dents

Percentage

0 210 41.0%5000 43 8.4% 15000 18 3.5%30000 19 3.7%50000 16 3.1%100000 22 4.3%1000000 84 16.4%10000000 66 12.9%100000000 21 4.1%1000000000 8 1.6%2000000000 1 0.2%More 4 0.8%TOTAL 512 100.0%

APPENDIX-1


Table 10: Reason 1 for Promoting Walking and Walkability


Percent-age

Improve the physical Ìs�ĶǼÌ�Ÿ¯�ǼÌs�ƼŸƼȖĶ�-ǼÞŸŘʰ�ÞŘOĶȖ_ÞŘ¶�sŎŸ-tional health

320 65.3%

Improve the environ-ŎsŘǼ�Ķ�Ìs�ĶǼÌ�Ÿ¯�ǼÌs�planet

23 4.7%

Improve the econom-ÞOǣ�Ÿ¯�ǼÌs�OŸŎŎȖŘÞǼɴ

34 6.9%

ÝŎƼǋŸɚs�ǼÌs�ǣ�¯sǼɴ�Ÿ¯�the community

95 19.4%

Improve access and ŎŸEÞĶÞǼɴ�¯Ÿǋ�ŸȖǋ�ǋsǣÞ-dents

15 3.1%

Improve the social capital/civic engage-ŎsŘǼ�Ÿ¯�ǼÌs�OŸŎŎȖ-nity

1 0.2%

Improve the academ-ics or learning capac-ÞǼɴ�Ÿ¯�ǼÌs�OŸŎŎȖŘÞǼɴ

2 0.4%

Other 0 0.0%More than two selec-tions

0 0.0%

TOTAL 490 100.0%

Table 11: Reason 2 for Promoting Walking and Walkability


Percent-age

Improve the physical Ìs�ĶǼÌ�Ÿ¯�ǼÌs�ƼŸƼȖĶ�-ǼÞŸŘʰ�ÞŘOĶȖ_ÞŘ¶�sŎŸ-tional health

0 0.0%

Improve the environ-ŎsŘǼ�Ķ�Ìs�ĶǼÌ�Ÿ¯�ǼÌs�planet

36 7.5%

Improve the econom-ÞOǣ�Ÿ¯�ǼÌs�OŸŎŎȖŘÞǼɴ

34 7.1%

ÝŎƼǋŸɚs�ǼÌs�ǣ�¯sǼɴ�Ÿ¯�the community

75 15.6%

Improve access and ŎŸEÞĶÞǼɴ�¯Ÿǋ�ŸȖǋ�ǋsǣÞ-dents

230 47.7%

Improve the social capital/civic engage-ŎsŘǼ�Ÿ¯�ǼÌs�OŸŎŎȖ-nity

60 12.4%

Improve the academ-ics or learning capac-ÞǼɴ�Ÿ¯�ǼÌs�OŸŎŎȖŘÞǼɴ

8 1.7%

Other 15 3.1%More than two selec-tions

24 5.0%

TOTAL 482 100.0%

APPENDIX-1


Table 12: Activities for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Walking Groups or Clubs

Table 13: Activities for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Incentives and rewards, such as walker discounts, walking challeng-es and special recognition

Category Respondents PercentageNever 198 40.0%Rarely 92 18.6%Sometimes 116 23.4%®�ÞǋĶɴ�ŷ¯ǼsŘ 33 6.7%əsǋɴ�ŷ¯ǼsŘ 20 4.0%Always 21 4.2%^ŸŘ˅Ǽ�ħŘŸɠ 15 3.0%TOTAL 495 100.0%

Table 14: Activities for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Events and Promotions, such as open streets, play streets, ciclovias, walkathonsCategory Respondents PercentageNever 150 29.7%Rarely 80 15.8%Sometimes 158 31.3%®�ÞǋĶɴ�ŷ¯ǼsŘ 53 10.5%əsǋɴ�ŷ¯ǼsŘ 29 5.7%Always 20 4.0%^ŸŘ˅Ǽ�ħŘŸɠ 15 3.0%TOTAL 505 100.0%

Table 15: Activities for Promoting Walk-ing and Walkability -Events and Promotions, such as open streets, play streets, ciclovias, walkathons


Table 16: Activities for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Walking Prescriptions

Table 17: Activities for Promoting Walk-ing and Walkability -Merchandise(Support materials, such as pedometers, apps, t-shirts and water bottles)

APPENDIX-1





Table 18: Activities for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Organizing and implement-ing Safe Routes projects

Table 19: Activities for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Promote organizational practices, such as walking meetings


Table 20: Reasons and Policies for Promoting Walking and Walkability -ÝŘ¯ǋ�ǣǼǋȖOǼȖǋs�ǣȖOÌ��ǣ�ǣÞ_sɠ�ĶĨǣʰǼǋ�ÞĶǣʰƼ�ǼÌɠ�ɴǣʰǣ�¯s�OǋŸǣǣɠ�ĶĨǣ�sǼOʳ

Table 21: Reasons and Policies for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Non Motorized Ac-tive Transportation Funding

Table 22: Reasons and Policies for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Aesthetic Projects

Table 23: Reasons and Policies for Promot-ing Walking and Walkability -Ǣ�¯sǼɴ�ƻǋŸĠsOǼǣ�ǻÌǋŸȖ¶Ì�Nƻǻr^�ʰrŘɚÞǋŸŘŎsŘǼ�Ķ�ƻĶ�ŘŘÞŘ¶�ʰ�ǻǋ�¯ʩO�Calming etc.

APPENDIX-1







Table 24: Reasons and Policies for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Implement Walking Connectivity

Table 25: Reasons and Policies for Promoting Walking and Walkability -Complete Streets Policies

Table 26: Assistance Required From America Walks Reasn 1

APPENDIX-1



Reason 1 Respondents PercentageAssistance with Organizing Com-munity Support

147 29.5%

Advocacy Train-ing

56 11.2%

Tools to increase public awareness

145 29.1%

ÝŘ¯ŸǋŎ�ǼÞŸŘ��EŸȖǼ�¯ȖŘ_ÞŘ¶�opportunities

108 21.7%

Assistance with proposal devel-opment

5 1.0%

µǋ�ŘǼǣ�Ÿǋ�¯ȖŘ_-ÞŘ¶�¯Ÿǋ�ǣŎ�ĶĶ�ĶŸO�Ķ�projects

13 2.6%

rɮ�ŎƼĶsǣ�Ÿ¯�ǣȖOOsǣǣ¯ȖĶ�O�Ŏ-paigns in other communities

16 3.2%

Connections to communities with ǣȖOOsǣǣ¯ȖĶ�ƼǋŸĠ-ects to share

4 0.8%

Assistance in prioritizing policy targets

2 0.4%

Individual consul-tation on devel-oping walking campaigns

2 0.4%

TOTAL 498 100.0%




APPENDIX-1


0 0.0%

Advocacy Train-ing

49 10.5%


81 17.4%


117 25.2%


41 8.8%


116 24.9%


40 8.6%


13 2.8%


6 1.3%


2 0.4%

TOTAL 498 100.0%


1 0.2%

Advocacy Train-ing

0 0.0%


37 9.1%


48 11.9%


16 4.0%


130 32.1%


64 15.8%


42 10.4%


35 8.6%


32 7.9%

TOTAL 498 100.0%

PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONSBike Walk RoseburgBike & Walk MontclairBike/Walk Alliance Of Missoula (BWAM)Bike/Walk MidlandBikehoustonBikenetBikepghBike-Walk Alliance Of New HampshireBikewalk NCBikewalkKCBoulder Valley School DistrictBuilding Active GlendiveBurt Lake TrailCA SRTS Technical Assistance Resource Cen-terCalifornia WALKSCaltransCampbellsville FRYSCCarrboro Bicycle CoalitionCarson City Parks And Recreation Muscle PoweredCarson City Parks And Recreation, Open Space DivisCatawba Service Unit-Indian Health ServiceCCAYMCA Of VinelandCCMPOCDCChampaign County BikesChampaign County Regional Planning Com-missionChampaign-Urbana Mass Transit DistrictCharity MilesChattanooga Regional Planning Agency/TPOChattanooga-Hamilton County/North Geor-gia TPOChautauqua County Health NetworkChelsea-Area Wellness FoundationCheyenne Metropolitan Planning Organiza-tionChicago County Public Health&,1&+�&DVSHU·V�,QLWLDWLYH�7R�1XUWXUH�&RPPX-nity HeaCincinnati Public School Safe Routes To SchoolCirculate San Diego Aka WalksandiegoCity Heights Community Development Corp

Abilene Metropolitan Planning OrganizationAbilities In MotionAccessible Design For The BlindActive Living By DesignActive Living Ramsey CommunitiesActive Transportation AllianceAdair County W.A.T.C.H. CoalitionAdvanced WellnessAirport Corridor Transportation AssociationAlabama Trails CommissionAlamogordo Safe Routes To SchoolAllen County Bike And Pedestrian Task ForceAlliance For AgingAmerican Heart AssociationAmerican Volkssport AssociationAnderson County Planning & Community DevelopmentAppalachian Mountain ClubCity of Bellingham, Washington State Trans-portation CommissionArizona Department of TransportationArlington County Department Of Environ-mental ServicesArlington Pedestrian Advisory CommitteeAshton Heights Civic Association, Arlington VAAustin+SocialgoodAVA - Clay-Platte Trackers Of Kansas CityBarnes ON THE MOVE PartnershipBarren River District Health DepartmentBatavia Business Improvement District (BID)Bedford Youth & Family ServicesBerkeley Path Wanderers AssociationBicycle & Pedestrian Advisory CommissionBicycle Coalition Of MaineBicycle Transportation AllianceBike And Pedestrian Alliance Of ClintonBike DelawareBike EasyBike The Bend, Inc.Bike VirginiaBike Walk Alliance For MissoulaBike Walk Knoxville / TennesseeBike Walk Lincoln ParkBike Walk MontanaBike Walk Nampa

City Of Alexandria Virginia Commission On AgingCity Of AnkenyCity Of Austin Planning And Development Review DepCity Of Bartlesville, OKCity Of Blue Springs Community Develop-ment Dept.City Of BoiseCity Of CasperCity Of Charlottesville, VACity Of Colorado Springs ColoradoCity Of Eugene, OR, Public Works Depart-mentCity Of Fayetteville Planning Dept.&LW\�2I�)LWFKEXUJ�3ROLFH�7UDIÀF�%XUHDXCity Of FountainCity Of Fresno PARCSCity Of Graham, NCCity Of GulfportCity Of Holtville, CaliforniaCity Of IrvineCity Of Key WestCity Of KissimmeeCity Of LovelandCity Of Moss Point Parks And Recreation De-partmentCity Of Myrtle BeachCity Of Norfolk Parks And Recreation DeptCity Of Norwalk Department Of HealthCity Of Oak HarborCity Of PiquaCity Of PittsburghCity Of RoyaltonCity Of Saco, MaineCity Of San Jose, Active Transportation Pro-gramCity Of Tulsa Engineering ServicesCity Of WarsawClark County Health DepartmentClay County Public Health CenterClub Kokomo Roadrunners & WalkersCoalition For Sustainable TransportationCoastal Healthy Communities CoalitionColumbia/Boone Co. Public Health & Human ServicesColumbus Public HealthCommunity Action Partnership OCCommunity Health Improvement Partners

Commute OptionsCongress For The New UrbanismConnecticut State Department Of LaborCounty Of Sussex NJCT Forest And Park Association Walkct Pro-gramC-U SRTS ProjectCycle Chatham-KentDC Govt Deputy Mayor For Health And Hu-man ServicesDelaware Department Of TransportationDelaware Valley Regional Planning Commis-sionDetroit Greenways CoalitionDobbs Ferry Energy Task ForceCNU New YorkDOHMHDoor County YMCADouglas County Public HealthEAGLE College Prep ElementaryEaster Seals Project ACTIONEastern Shore Healthy CommunitiesEat Smart Move More Colleton CountyEat Smart, Move More SCEatontown RecreationEl Cajon Resident Leaders In Action (ECRLA)El Paso Metropolitan Planning OrganizationElizabeth City State University(ON�*URYH�8QLÀHG�6FKRRO�'LVWULFWElkhart Environmental Center, Elkhart, INElkin Valley Trails AssociationFairhaven Bikeway CommitteeFayette County Healthy Lifestyles Task ForceFederal Highway AdministrationFeet FirstFeet First PhillyFinger Lakes Health Systems Agency (FLHSA)First StepsFitness For Life Around Grant County (FFLAG)Florida Department Of Health In Collier CountyFlorida Department Of TransportationForevergreen TrailsFreshwater Land TrustFriends Of Green River Lake, KentuckyFriends Of El Dorado TrailsFriends Of Northampton Trails And Green-ways

Indee-Go HealthyIndian Nations Council Of Governments (IN-COG)Indiana Dept Of Health, Nutrition And PAInland Northwest Trails CoalitionIowa Department Of Public HealthITRE - NC State UniversityJOAG Walking Initiative Workgroup (USPHS)Kentucky Cancer ConsortiumKentucky Transportation CabinetKnoxville Reg. Transportation Planning Orga-nizatioK-State Extension - Sedgwick Co.KTRSKY Deptarment For Public HealthLa Familia Medical CenterLa Plata MD, Dept Of Planning & Community DevLake Cumberland District Health DepartmentLake Pend Oreille School DistrictLand Of Sky Regional CouncilLane Coalition For Healthy Active YouthLawrence-Douglas County Health Depart-mentLewis & Clark Health Dept/Bikewalk Helena/SRTS/CTGLexington Hamline Community CouncilLive Well Sioux FallsLive54218Livewell Colorado SpringsLiving Streets AllianceLombard Park District, Lombard, ILLompoc Valley Community Healthcare Or-ganizationLos Altos Bicycle & Ped CommissionLos Angeles Stair-Street AdvocatesLos Angeles WalksLouisville Metro Public Health And WellnessLoveland Safe Routes To SchoolMadison Area Bus AdvocatesMaine School Administrative District #370DQVÀHOG�2QWDULR�5LFKODQG�&RXQW\�+HDOWK�Dept.Maricopa County Department Of Public HealthMartin County CRAMartin County Wellness Project TeamMass In Motion New Bedford

Friends Of The Bruce Freeman Rail TrailFriends Of The Northern Rail Trail-Merrimack CountFriends Of The Weiser River TrailFun Zone Walking ClubGarrett Park Sidewalk Advisory CommitteeGateway District Health DepartmentGenesee Transportation CouncilGermanna Volkssport AssociationGet Fit Gloucester!Get Fit ItascaGet Fit KauaiGirdwood Trails CommitteeGlendive Recreation DepartmentGo Bike BuffaloGrand Valley Trails AllianceGrants ManagementGreat Parks Of Hamilton CountyGreat Streets Mountain ViewGreen Committee, City Of Hazelwood, MOGreen UmbrellaGreenbrae Boardwalk Community*UHHQÀHOG�&RPPXQLW\�$VVRFLDWLRQGreenwood City/County Planning Dept*XDP�2IÀFH�2I�+LJKZD\�6DIHW\Harahan Bridge ProjectHarford County Department Of Planning And ZoningHART TMAHawaii Department Of HealthHazelwood Green TeamHealth Style ServicesHealthy Central FloridaHealthy ClayHealthy Monadnock 2020Healthy Roads For Community HealthHealthy SavannahHealthy ShastaHeights Bicycle CoalitionHendricks County Health Dept IndianaHillsborough School DistrictHOCTS MPOHolyoke Food And Fitness Policy CouncilHomeword, Inc.Humboldt County Assoc Of GovernmentsIdaho Falls Community PathwaysIdaho Pedestrian & Bicycle AllianceImagine Grinnell

Metcalfe County KY Cooperative Extension ServiceMetropolitan Planning OrganizationMichigan Fitness FoundationMichigan Horse CouncilMidlothian Park DistrictMinneapolis Pedestrian Advisory CommitteeMinnesota Department Of HealthMinnesota Department Of TransportationMississippi Department Of TransportationMissoula In MotionMode Shift OmahaMonmouth County Health DepartmentMontana Nutrition & Physical Activity Pro-gramMorgan Co. Diabetes CoalitionMorgantown Pedestrian Safety BoardMorristown Elementary SchoolMoses Lake Parks And RecreationMOTU, City Of PhiladelphiaMoving Matters Project, Sawtooth Mountain ClinicMunicipality Of AnchorageMywalkingcoach.Com1DSD�&RXQW\�2IÀFH�2I�(GXFDWLRQNaples Pathways CoalitionNational Association Of Chronic Disease Di-rectorsNational Kidney Foundation Of Michigan-FlintNC Active Routes To School Project - Region 4New Jersey Bike & Walk CoalitionNewport Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Com-missionNewton Safe Routes To SchoolNewton Transportation Advisory GroupNiles Charter Township Park CommissionNILHAC At The American Heart Assn ILNinjas For HealthNMDOTNorth Carolina Rail-TrailsNorth Country Healthy Heart NetworkNorth Reading Pedestrian GroupNortheast Iowa Area Agency On AgingNorthern Berkshire Community Coalitionmass-inmotionNorthern Kentucky Health DepartmentNorthern Shenandoah Valley Regional Com-mission

Novi Trail NetworkOhio DOTOld Glebe Civic AssociationOntario California WalksOrangeburg-Calhoun Ways 2 Wellness Comm. AdvocacyOregon DOTOregon WalksPA Dept. Of HealthPace Setters Volkssport Club Local Club Of AVAPacoima BeautifulParks & Trails New YorkPartners For Active LivingPartnership 4 HealthPatch Of Taylor County, WVPEACPedestrians Educating Drivers On Safety (PEDS)PEDSPennington Biomedical Research CenterPeoria City County Health DepartmentPima County Natural Resources Parks And RecreationPioneer Valley Planning CommissionPoint2point At Lane Transit DistrictPoughkeepsie-Dutchess County Transporta-tion CounciProactive Transportation And PlanningProquestPublic Health And WellnessPueblo Active Community Environments (P.A.C.E.)Putnam County Department Of HealthQueen Anne GreenwaysRacewalkers NorthwestRaise Driving Age In OregonRaleigh WalkersRecovery Center Of Hamilton CountyRecreation Authority Of Roseville & East-pointeRegion XII Council Of GovernmentsRestoration Exchange OmahaRice & Steele 911 CenterRichland Moves!Richland Parks And RecreationRide America For Safe RoutesRiley Hospital For Children At IU HealthRiver Coalition PHNP

Skagit Healthy Communities/Bikewalk Mount VernonSmart Growth AmericaSmithville Safe Routes To SchoolSnohomish Health DistrictSouth Jersey Transportation Planning Organi-zationSouth Orange / Maplewood Bike WalkSouth Windsor Walk And Wheel Ways (CT)Southern Georgia Regional CommissionSpencer Park & Recreation6SULQJÀHOG�6DIH�5RXWHV�7R�6FKRROSRF ConsultingSt Lukes ClinicSt. Louis County Health Dept MinnesotaSt. Mary;S HospitalSt. Paul WalksStroger Cook County HospitalStroll & Roll Advisory Committee/FREED Advo-cacySurfside Beach Business AllianceSustain CharlotteTahoe Metropolitan Planning OrganizationTampa Downtown PartnershipTART TrailsTaylor County Collaborative FRNTBD (New Walk/Bike Group In Ithaca, NY)Texas Tech Hsc El PasoThe Gateway Family YMCAThe Green Hills Action PartnersThe Maine Safe Routes To School ProgramThe Villages Recreation DepartmentThomas County CoalitionThoreau FoodsThree Rivers Health DistrictThurston Regional Planning CouncilToiyabe Indian Health Project, Inc.TORCH Of Hartwell -- Railroad Street Park ProjectTown Of Coventry Parks & RecreationTown Of DavidsonTown Of GreenburghTown Of New Canaan Department Of Public WorksTown Of Plattsburgh Parks & Recreation De-partmentTown Of SpartaTransportation Advisory Group, Newton, MATransportation Alternatives

River COGRiverstone HealthRoad Runners Club Of AmericaRobert C. MchughRockaway Beach Police DeptRogers County Health DepartmentRutland Area Physical Activity CoalitionRye Shared RoadwaysSacramento Regional Transit DistrictSafe Kids Thurston CountySafe Kids Toombs & Surrounding CountiesSafe Routes To SchoolSafe Routes To School National Partnership - OhioSafe Routes To Schools Alameda CountySafe Transportation Research And Education CenterSalem Neighborhood Pedestrian CommitteeSalt Lake County Health Dept.Injury Preven-tionSan Angelo Metropolitan Planning Organiza-tionSan Carlos Baelmont Group Of The Sierra ClubSan Diego Air Pollution Control DistrictSan Diego Co. HHSA Public Health NursingSan Francisco Department Of Public Health6DQ�0DWHR�&RXQW\�2IÀFH�2I�(GXFDWLRQSan Rafael California BPACSanta Clara County Public Health Depart-mentSarasota/Manatee Metropolitan Planning OrgSDSU/UCSDSeattle Neighborhood GreenwaysSee Your Place By WalkingSemcogSentara RMH Medical Center, Community Health DeptShasta County Public HealthShasta Living StreetsShenandoah Valley Bicycle CoalitionSierra And LWVSimsbury Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Com-mitteeSioux Falls Health DepartmentSkagit Council Of Gov/ Active Community Taskforce

Transylvania UniversityTri-County Regional Planning Commission-Lansing MITrimetTroop 1450 Boy Scouts Of America, Rockville MDTruckee Meadows TomorrowTualatin Hills Park & Rec.- Elsie Stuhr CenterUniversity City, MO Bike Walk Task ForceUniversity Of Idaho MV SC 486 Student GroupUniversity Of MarylandUniversity Of Tennessee ChattanoogaUpstate ForeverUrban Health PartnershipsUrban Land InstituteUS Fish And Wildlife ServiceUS Forest ServiceUSPHS JOAG/COA Saguaro BranchUtah Transit AuthorityValley Transportation ServicesVermont Department Of Health Barre VTWaimanalo Ahupuaa CoalitionWalk And Bike MedocinoWalk And Roll ButteWalk Oakland Bike OaklandWalk San FranciscoWalk Sitka (Http://Walksitka.Wordpress.Com/)Walk With A Doc Hosted By Sky Lakes Medi-cal CenterWalk/Bike Burien (WABI Burien)Walk2ConnectWalkabout InternationalWalkarlingtonWalkaustinWalkbike WorcesterWalkbostonWalkdenverWalking As Transportation For Daily ErrandsWalking Conway, Bike And Ped. Advisory BoardWalksacramentoWalkways In Lower Macungie TownshipWallace Consulting & Training, Inc.Washingtion University In St. LouisWashington Bikes (Bicycle Alliance Of Wash-ington)Washington County Health DepartmentWashington County Wellness Initiative-PHP Sub-Comm

Waterford Parks & RecreationWaterville Main StreetWellness Institiue Of Greater Buffalo (NY)Wesley Community Center/Amigos CenterWest Allis Health DepartmentWest Central InitiativeWest Virginia On The MoveWest Virginia University Extension ServiceWest Windsor Pedestrian And Bicycle Alli-anceWestern Washington UniversityWichita Falls-Wichita County Public Hlth Dis-trictWindsor PartnershipWisconsin Bike FedWisconsin Rapids Safe Routes To SchoolWomenheart: The National Coalition For Women WithWood Cty Health Dept: Healthy People Wood CountyWorcester County Health DepartmentWSHS Steps At StevensYantacaw WalksYavapai County Community Health ServicesYavapai Trails AssociationYolo County Health DepartmentYork Road Initiative - Loyola U. Maryland

PRESENTED BY :Dr. Katherine Kraft & Ruchi Shrivastava

LOCAL WALKING ADVOCACY

SURVEY 2014

A Good News Bad News Story

AMERICA WALKS & EveryBody Walk!

Collaborative

Photo Courtesy : Rewa Marathe

Outline

3

• What We did

• What We Learned

• What Does It Mean for our

Future Work

Study Questions

4

• What are the characteristics of organizations that focus on walking

advocacy?

• What type of resources –staff, time, funding – do walking advocacy

organizations have?

• What type of activities –walking and walkability – do walking

advocacy organizations focus on?

• What type of accomplishments do they identify?

• How can a national collaborative best support local walking

advocacy efforts?

Study Methods• Internet Survey

• Survey instrument developed by EBWC Local Action

Workgroup

• Included checklist, rating scales and open-ended questions

• Convenience Sample

5

Survey Methods Online survey link emailed to :

EBWC local action partners including :

America Walks (sent out 3 times)

Safe Routes to School National Partnership

The Alliance

Rails to Trails Conservancy

Walkable and Livable Communities Institute(WALC)

Easter Seals

WalkBoston

Survey on America Walks Website for 4 months

6

Data Collection and Responses 17 questions in the survey

Questionnaire divided into :

Organizational Variables

Activities Variables

Needs Variables

Open ended questions on Accomplishments

532 Survey Respondents

8

DEMOGRAPHICSLOCATION

Demographics :Who we are? Participants from 50 states plus Guam and DC

California - 63 unique organizations or 12% of all

walking organizations

63

23 22 22 2119 18 17 16 16 15 15 15 15 14 13 13 12 12 11

9 9 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 86 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1

Calif

orni

a

Kent

ucky

New

Yor

k

Ore

gon

Was

hing

ton

Virg

inia

Mas

sach

uset

ts

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Mic

higa

n

Texa

s

Mon

tana

New

Jers

ey

Ohi

o

Penn

sylv

ania

Min

neso

ta

Colo

rado

Flor

ida

Illin

ois

Miss

ouri

Sout

h Ca

rolin

a

Arizo

na

Conn

ectic

ut

Geor

gia

Idah

o

Wisc

onsin

Dist

rict o

f Col

umbi

a

Indi

ana

Mar

ylan

d

Mai

ne

Tenn

esse

e

Iow

a

Verm

ont

Wes

t Virg

inia

New

Mex

ico

Okl

ahom

a

New

Ham

pshi

re

Nev

ada

Wyo

min

g

Alas

ka

Haw

aii

Kans

as

Neb

rask

a

Alab

ama

Arka

nsas

Dela

war

e

Loui

siana

Miss

issip

pi

Nor

th D

akot

a

Sout

h Da

kota

Uta

h

Guam

Rhod

e Is

land

Organizations by StatesCalifornia – 63 organizations reporting

Kentucky, New York, Oregon and Washington State report 20+ walking advocacy organizations

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Rhode Island and Guam – 2 or fewer walking advocacy organizations

10

11

BASED ON ZIP CODES LOCATION OF SURVEY PARTICPANTS

State Boundaries

County Boundaries

!( Survey Participants =529

12

Demographics :Who we are? The 64.4% (N=337) focus their work in a single location or county

7.3%

38.2%

18.9%

15.1%

10.3%

3.8%6.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

SingleNeighborhood

City-wide orMunicipality

wide

County-wide Regional State-wide National Other

13

Demographics :Who we are? Over one-third (36%=188)) of the local

organizations working on walking report

zero paid staff.

21% (N=107)report between .5 to 1.5

paid staff.

14

Budget Median Annual Budget of Organizations is ~$7000

41% of the organizations had zero budget for 2013

Organizations with large budgets like DOTs and MPO’s

also participated in the survey.

41.34

114.75 3.15 4.33 3.35 3.15 2.56

7

16

05

1015202530354045

Budget

%

15

Time Spent on Walking

% Time Spent N %0% 28 5.5%

10% 105 20.5%20% 84 16.4%30% 60 11.7%40% 32 6.3%50% 76 14.9%60% 21 4.1%70% 23 4.5%80% 16 3.1%90% 25 4.9%

100% 41 8.0%Total 511 100.00%

13% (N=66) organizations spend 90% -100% of their time on walking.

75% (385) spend less than 50% of time on Walking

16

73% of organization report no dues

or individual financial contributions

Volunteers and Members

72% of organizations report

volunteers on average 15 per

organization

17

Reason 1

65% said it was to improve physical

health

20% interested in the safety of the

community

Physical Health

65%

Reasons for Promoting

Walking

Physical Health Environment

Economics Safety

Access & Mobility

Civic Engagement

18

Reasons for Promoting WalkingReason 2

47% of respondents, is improving access and mobility for all residents.

Access & Mobility 47.7%

19

Walking Programming Activities reported as often or always

engaged in Safe Routes Projects are the most popular with 42% organizations frequently

engaged in themWalking Programming

Activities N=509 %

Safe Routes 214 42.0%

Educational Events 193 37.9%

Walking Groups or Clubs 122 24.0%

Events and Promotions 102 20.0%Merchandise and support materials 94 18.5%Organizational Practices 92 18.1%

Incentives and rewards 74 14.5%

Walking prescriptions 33 6.5%

20

Walking Programming Activities reported as often or always

engaged in 70.2% organizations engaged in improving pedestrian infrastructure.

Walking Programming Activities N=520 %

Promoting pedestrian infrastructure 365 70.2%

Complete Streets policies 296 56.9%

Active transportation funding 292 56.2%

Walking connectivity 280 53.8%

Zoning and ordinances 244 46.9%

Aesthetics projects 167 32.1%

Safetyprojects, such as CPTED 159 30.6%

Organizational Accomplishments (N=409) Complete Streets policies and advisory groups

SRTS, walk to school day, walking school buses

Sideway inventories, plans, regulations, repairs, construction

Crosswalks and signals

Trail and greenway plans and completed sections

Connectivity – completion of pathways and trails to destinations

Pedestrian Plans and Advisory Councils

Accomplishments (con’t)Livability and walkability language in plans

Slower speeds and vision zero goals

Active Transportation planning and multi-modal plans

Pedestrian Strategy Plans

Walking Groups

Mapping walking routes and signage

Public awareness activities

Stopped Freeway Expansion

23

National Assistance EBWC and America Walks can Provide

Support Needed N %Funding Information

273 51.3%Public awareness and communication support 263 49.4%Grants for small projects

259 48.7%Platform for peer to peer sharing

179 33.6%Training & technical assistance

210 39.5%Specific assistance with organizing

184 34.6%

24

Limitations

Convenience Sample – not sure how representative it is

Selection bias – only the most interested would fill out survey

Providing a snap shot in time as this is a rapidly growing area of

advocacy

Checklist options might need to be expanded

25

Key observations

It is a good news bad news story

Wide-spread, grassroots volunteer efforts

Organizations have limited staff, funding and time to devote to

walking advocacy

Activities include Safe Routes to School, educational session,

pedestrian infrastructure, Complete Streets Policies and funding for

active transportation

Diverse accomplishments include complete streets policies and

advisory groups, sidewalk regulations and funding and improved

crosswalks

Need funding and communication’s assistance

26

Questions??

27

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

New York

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

28

Kentucky

29

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

California

30

Washington

!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

31

Oregon

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

Local Walking Advocacy Organization 2014 Survey Report

Documents

Transcript of Local Walking Advocacy Organization 2014 Survey Report