Posts Tagged ‘Playground Safety Issues’

New ASTM F1487-11 Standard released November 2011

Saturday, January 7th, 2012

New ASTM F1487-11 Standard released November 2011
By Kenneth S Kutska, CPSI
Executive Director, International Playground Safety Institute, LLC
Chair of ASTM F15.29 Subcommittee responsible for the ASTM F1487 Standard
November 18, 2011

As Chair of the American Society for Testing and Materials Subcommittee responsible for ASTM F1487 Standard for performance requirements for public playground equipment I am pleased to announce the latest revision of this standard. This revision is over four years in the making and there are several significant additions. You can order this standard online through the ASTM web site (www.astm.org). I might suggest you look into the cost of joining the ASTM and compare the cost of membership to the cost of purchasing this one standard. As a member of the ASTM you are entitled to one volume of the ASTM standards in either a paper or CD version at no charge. The playground standards are located in one of two volumes. The standard would be in either F15.07 or F15.11. Check with ASTM membership services or do a ASTM web site search for ASTM F1487-11 Standard or any other playground related standards to determine which volume is most important to address your needs.

Major Swings Section Revisions

There is a new definition for a swing that should be of particular interest to all of us. A swing is now defined as an element or seat suspended from an elevated support structure, allowing users to move freely in one or more planes, possessing a pivot point greater than 24 in. (610 mm) when measured vertically from the top of the suspended element to the pivot point. This clarifies when a suspended element should comply with all the other performance requirements of swings based on a hazard based analysis. When we think of swings, we envision traditional to-fro belt or bench type swings or a tire swing. We have seen many new products from around the world attempt to enter the market place. While they may be compliant to another international standard, they did not meet the ASTM Standard. Now however, there is some hope. Up until now, we could not clearly and totally evaluate these new swinging products by using the ASTM F1487 Standard. The ASTM F15.29 Subcommittee Working Group responsible for swings took an in-depth look at what the real hazards were regarding swinging components. The new performance requirements are based upon the analysis of injury data related to swinging components. They concluded that swing related hazards were attributable to; falls to the surface, impact with stationary structural components, and impact with the suspended swinging components. Our goal is to eliminate known hazards with the understanding we cannot control how the users may attempt to interact with the play equipment in unintended ways. The Standard now identifies three possible types of swing configurations. They are; single axis (to-fro), multiple axis (rotating), or swings with multiple motions consisting of a combination of single axis and multiple axis (combination swings). Fall related injuries are already addressed in the F1487 Standard by requiring compliance to the ASTM F1292 Standard from the highest pivot point. The next major impact type injury regardless the swing type is from suspended components impacting the user. The new standard addresses this impact hazard through a new “Dynamic Impact Test” procedure that measures impact forces created by the swinging component. This test is intended to be administered by a commercial laboratory. The application of existing clearance zones requirements to any suspended swinging component reduces the likelihood of impact injuries sustained when the user and swinging component comes in contact with the structural members or the adjacent to-fro swing. More on this test method later.

Another concern was the CPSC’s recommendation that multiple occupancy swings not be used on public playgrounds. This recommendation has been around for more than 20 years. There were legitimate concerns based on the injury data gathered over the years but times have changed and the marketplace has introduced many new products. Some argue for multi-occupancy swing seats based on new products introduced in other countries. There does not appear to be any recorded impact injury history from these new products. The dilemma is that the ASTM Standard and the CPSC Handbook allow for multi-axis swings such, as tire swings, and not a multi-occupancy to-fro swing? These multi-occupancy multi-axis swing components (tire swing) move in all directions unlike the predictable to-fro action of traditional single occupancy to-fro swings. Why one and not the other? The explanation might be the fact the swinging component was a tire and somewhat flexible and impact attenuating. The CPSC Handbook even limited the swinging component weight to 35 pounds. This happened to be the average weight of an automobile tire. The real hazard and injury in question is Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) through impact to the child’s head or body. But what really causes the injury and at what point does Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) occur? During the October 2011 ASTM F8.63 Subcommittee meeting in Tampa Florida, Rolf Huber, Canadian Playground Advisory Group reported the results of a ten year injury analysis conducted by the NHTSA. The study showed a 10% reduction in TBI and death after a implementing a reduction in automobile industry impact thresholds. This study demonstrates real injury reduction related to a measureable reduction in industry impact threshold used to design automobiles. This study supports our new threshold for the “Dynamic Impact Test” on swinging components and therefore addresses the impact injury to the head and for the most part other body parts. The primary cause of serious impact injuries has always been heavy solid swinging components such as; metal animal swings, bench swings, and the two person glider swings. By implementing the new “Dynamic Impact Test” for suspended swinging components, we can mitigate the impact hazard for any swing component. The logic of this recommendation was of major concern to our group. Head impact injuries resulting from falls to a hard surface should have been addressed through compliance with ASTM F1292 thresholds for impact attenuation of less than 200g and 1000 HIC. These thresholds were not intended to address fractures, but the risk of death from serious head injury. It was unknown at what impact threshold we can achieve a significant reduction in broken bones. Based on the new research related to Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) we are seeing significant reduction in TBI in automobile accidents. The new swing impact test thresholds more closely follow the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) automobile safety standards as related to our scope of intended users, especially the pre-school age group, and the results of studies of concussed NFL players during the late 1990s. The standard requires test compliance of all swing seats and swing components located less than 84 inches from the surface during its full range of motion. The test method requires the suspended elements be brought back to a point, 60 degrees from its position at rest, and released to strike an instrumented head form imparting a force less 100 g and 500 HIC.. Mr. Huber’s research of studies on the subject of TBI and bone fractures supports this conclusion for a significant reduction in these types of playground injuries when these new impact thresholds are not exceeded.

The same impact performance requirements for clearance and use zones apply to a traditional single user to-fro single-axis swing-set, with no more than two swings per bay, however multi-occupancy and multi-axis swings have some different performance requirements. Both multi-occupancy and multi-axis swings are limited to one swinging component per bay and have specific clearance requirements related to their designed path of travel. These requirements eliminate impact by adjacent swing elements and their structural components.

The combination swing is a new type of product being introduced around the world. It represents a combination of to-fro and multi-axis swings and is used by more than one person. Taking the same hazard based approach; the Working Group came up with some similar, yet quite different, performance requirements. The clearance and use zone requirements combine the side and overhead clearance zones and use zone requirements for each type of moving (swinging) component. These requirements are too difficult to address in this article without including many illustrations. I suggest that you acquire the new ASTM F1487-11 standard and study that section in detail.

Signs and Labels

The Subcommittee also dedicated a significant amount of time on signs and labels section of the standard based upon recent injury data and requirements for warnings found within the 2010 U. S. CPSC Public Playground Safety Handbook.

The Sign and Label Section of the new standard entails significant changes that should be read very carefully. The new standard states the owner/operator of the play equipment shall be responsible for the content and location of all signs. What does this mean? The information regarding the intended ages of the users shall be provided by the manufacturer, designer, or consultant. The final location of these signs and warnings shall be placed where the manufacturer, designer, or consultant states, however, for lack of any guidance on location for posting these signs, the owner/operator shall place them so they are readily visible to the intended viewer and alert the viewer to the potential hazard in time to take appropriate action. The message may be put on either a sign or a label and be located on the equipment or be freestanding. Freestanding signs must be located outside the use zone. The question for all of us is, “Where do we locate the warnings so the viewer has time to act prior to coming in contact with the hazard?” Currently there is no specific wording for many of the warnings now required. Information communicated on the sign or label, or both, shall address, but not be limited to, the following messages:
• Information message communicating age appropriateness as determined by the manufacturer/designer.
• Information message communicating, at a minimum, supervision recommendation.
• Warning message communicating the removal of helmets, drawstrings or accessories around the neck which are all known to create head entrapment or entanglement hazards.
• Warning message communicating hot play surfaces and/or ground level protective surfacing, when applicable. These surfaces are known to reach temperatures high enough to cause serious burns to children generally less than four years of age but because of the many variables effecting how and when a surface becomes a safety concern it was not possible to find a one size fits all approach that the subcommittee could agree upon.
• Warning message communicating the hazard of play equipment located over hard surfaces, when applicable. This warning message is no longer required to be plastered on each and every piece of free standing equipment.

Specification for all warning signs or labels, or both, should conform to ANSI Z535.1 and either ANSI Z535.2 or ANSI Z535.4 in the following areas: legibility, type of lettering, clarity of message and symbol, color specifications, and word message and visibility. The labels or signs should be durable and conform to UL 969. It has been and continues to be the responsibility of the owner/operator to replace signs or labels, or both, should they become illegible, destroyed, or removed.

The Subcommittee has agreed to continue to work on the Sign and Label Section to seek better solutions, if any can be found. Anybody who is interested in working on this subject may contact me; however membership in ASTM is a prerequisite to be on a Subcommittee’s Working Group. I can forward your suggestions to the appropriate Working Group.

Two New Reference Documents

The Standard has added two reference documents that must be followed by the manufacturer, designer, consultant, and owner/operator. Regardless of the material or the treatment process, the manufacturer/designer/fabricator shall ensure that the users of the playground equipment cannot ingest, inhale, or absorb any potentially hazardous amounts of substances through body surfaces as a result of contact with the equipment. All materials content shall comply with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). This Act pertains to, but is not limited to, coatings and substrate of the materials used within the play environment.

As with previous versions of this Standard, this specification does not address accessibility, except as it pertains to safety issues not covered in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) 2010 Standard for Accessible Design: Title II (28 CFR 35) and Title III (28 CFR 36). This document is available free at: http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/ADAregs2010.htm. This document is now the law and will be enforceable early 2012. While this document gives us guidance for what constitutes the minimum requirements for accessible design it cannot guarantee we might not have to face a complaint raised by one or more of our constituents. Then and only then will the Department of Justice rule on what, if anything, may need to done to bring a public playground or any public facility into compliance.

In closing, I would like to encourage everyone to get a copy of this new document and read it carefully. That being said I have just three more changes to highlight from the 2007 version. First, for many years we have stated there should be no gaps at the transition of a slide and the slide surface should smooth and continuous. This has been open to unlimited translations by many inspectors. The manufacturers are very aware of the safety concern with entanglements on slides. To take some of this guesswork out of the application of this old requirement we have changed the wording to, “Slides shall be constructed in such a manner as to provide a continuous sliding surface (roller slides exempted) and shall minimize the likelihood of entanglements.” This leaves a lot of the compliance interpretation to the manufacturer/designer so long as the slide is installed and maintained as intended.

Second, we now have a performance test method to determine when a projection increasing in diameter from its initial surface is truly an entanglement hazard. When the projection fits within any of the protrusion test gauges and the increase in size extends greater than 0.12 in. (3.0 mm) from the initial surface with a depth greater than 0.12 in. (3.0 mm) it is an entanglement hazard.

Third, on stairways, all steps greater than 48 in. (1220 mm) above the protective surfacing shall be required to have protective barriers. The height of the protective barrier on a step shall be the vertical distance between the top front edge of a step and the top surface of the protective barrier and appropriate for the ages of the intended users.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in ASTM Standards, National Recreation and Park Association, Playground Safety Training, Playground injuries, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), playground safety | No Comments »

A Look Back at the Play Movement and its Significance in America

Sunday, April 3rd, 2011

A Look Back at the Play Movement and its Significance in America
By Kenneth S. Kutska, CPRP, CPSI
Executive Director, International Playground Safety Institute, LLC
October 23, 2008
I would like for us all to climb into a time travel machine for just a few minutes to examine the past, current, and future Value of Play in America. What place (did, does, or will) the concepts of PLAY have in American Culture? What does the word PLAY mean to the American Public? Is play just another four letter word?

I am afraid the old saying, “Idle hands do the devil’s work” still rings true to many. Why is this? What can be done or should be done to change the attitudes of parents, caregivers, education and recreation administrators, local public policy makers, regulators, and state and federal legislators? It is time to look back at the impact of PLAY on human development, evaluate where PLAY is in relationship to other society issues of the day, and determine where PLAY should be as a cornerstone of child development and building healthy communities. I suggest we once again re-evaluate the integral value of play to human development and well-being throughout ones’ life. To do this we need to look at the physical, cognitive, and the spiritual benefits of PLAY.

First let me state, the value of PLAY I am speaking of, is FREE PLAY. It is spontaneous and without structure. Yes, there is some supervision to guide and protect participants in a more passive sense, but let us not confuse PLAY with that of organized play in the many youth and adult sports organizations or the many other organized youth groups such as the boy and girl scouts. These organized PLAY related groups provide a valuable service to our youth but let’s face it, they are very structured with rules established by the policy making boards. They have paid staff supervisors even though they rely heavily on volunteers. They are very important to our traditional American culture but this is not what I am talking about. What ever happened to the pick up game on the playground? What is happening on the playground environment that encourages or discourages free play, physical development, social interaction, learning from observing our peers, understanding consequences for one’s own actions, or building one’s self esteem?

Many have and continue to study these issues but most of the PLAY benefits identified here are for the most part intangible or difficult to measure. Some of this research is beginning to become more and more valuable as society begins to address the many health and social related issues facing our youth and young adults. However, it does not and should not stop by focusing only on the cognitive, physical and spiritual benefits to our youth. The aging of America has brought to light a whole other side of the VALUE OF PLAY discussion. People are living longer lives creating similar, yet new, concerns with regards to the social, economic, and political benefits and barriers of PLAY for our adult and aging population. It is time to look at the value of PLAY in its entirety. A group of us are working with Clemson University to conduct a Summit on the Value of PLAY on campus June 14 – 16, 2009 from the premise PLAY stands for the concept of Participatory Living Across the Years. The concept of this summit is to invite experts from various disciplines engaged in this broad concept of the Value of Play. Interested parties should contact Clemson University Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management for information on how to submit your name and organization for consideration to be an active participant in this very important dialogue or to submit a poster for possible inclusion into the summit proceedings. It is the purpose of this summit, and of those attending, to formulate a Call for Action to promote the value of play. Participants will be asked to work in small groups to identify the benefits and barriers to play and propose strategies and action items that will promote these measurable benefits (Cognitive, Physical, Spiritual) and mitigate those identified barriers (Social, Economic, Political) to attaining our mission. There will be more to come on this exciting project in the near future.

In 1917, Curtis Henry, PhD, former Secretary of the Playground Association of America and Supervisor of the playgrounds of the District of Columbia wrote in the preface of his book, The Play Movement and Its Significance; “ The word ‘play’ has been used in its broadest sense, as the effort has been to give a general picture of those movements which mean a better utilization of leisure time and an increase in the joy of life. Its main emphasis has been upon the play of children, but it deals also to a less degree with recreation for adults. It aims to show the place of school playgrounds, of municipal playground, the park, and various commercial forms of recreation in a general scheme for a city.

The contention is that with the proper development of play and social guidance in connection with various institutions, especially for children, these need not be dreary prisons, suppressing all the joy in life and slaying the future by their routine, but that organized play can do more to correct the evils of institutional life than any other single agency. The facts brought forward seem to demonstrate that the providing of adequate facilities for the play of children and the recreation of adults does not necessarily make the city more expensive as a place of residence, but may often have the opposite effect, and may also be the chief cause of the growth of the city.”

Such profound words could be written today but they were in fact written almost one hundred years later. I found this book inspiring and yet at the same time troubling. The same discussions and debate on the value of play are once again coming to the forefront of public dialogue. Why are there schools with no playgrounds or recess? Why do some cities remove playgrounds for lack of funding or the threat of liability? Why are our public places for free play in such disrepair? Why is there no money for maintenance and repair of these facilities? What can be done to train and educate those responsible for child development, supervision, and those who develop, maintain, inspect and repair these areas? Many of the same issues that existed in the early 1900’s still exist today. When it comes to establishing the priorities for resources of each institution attempting to address their most pressing human development needs and issues of the day, PLAY does not have the priority it deserves in the board room discussions. As I read various chapters of this book I could visualize many of the stories as if they were happening today.

If we analyze Mr. Curtis’s comments on the “sources of the play movement” it is like looking at ourselves in the mirror. Mr. Curtis spoke of the “New Need” he was discussing the impact on our country’s youth development through play because of the loss of child time to play as education went from four or five months a year to none or ten months and from the three-R’s to a program of fifteen or twenty subjects. Mr. Curtis claimed that school took most of the time with which the children of the past have played. Mr. Curtis reflects on the impact of the institution of schools on play stating the following;

“The school has taken the time during which the children of all previous ages have played, and in our cities we have built up the vacant places until there has been little room for play. Play has probably reached the lowest ebb during the last half century that it has ever reached during the history of the world.”

The next major reason for the play movement was the disappearance of child work that put the kids out on the street in newly industrialized cities. It was a time when children where no longer helping mom around the home or dad on the farm as many families moved to the city. Boys did not learn about the mechanics of farm implements and other life skills from their fathers. Young girls were not learning traditional household management skills from their mothers. Children could not find any meaningful work due to child labor laws and union requirements of the time restricting most jobs to children at least 14 to 16 years of age. With the move from the country and away from the family farm to the city came increased congestion and loss of open space and those valuable natural areas many experienced as a youth. Most of the children eight to nine years of age of this time had much to do about the home, the shop, or the farm. Curtis remarked of the young men hanging out on street corners where the temptations of unacceptable social behaviors would be practiced such as; smoking, drinking and gambling amongst other things.

On the other hand Curtis says, “Responsible citizens often say they do not believe in play and that the child ought to work, but these people fail to realize, apparently, that work of children has disappeared, and the choice was not between work or play, but between play and idleness. The process of learning any form of work is nearly as interesting to the child as play. But after the activity has been learned and some skill acquired, it ceases to be either educative or interesting; and the great difficulty with the jobs that are open to children is that they consist for the most part in monotonous repetition of the same process, in which full skill is acquired in a short time. The adult may continue such work and find a sort of pleasure in it, because he realizes how his other wants are to be satisfied from the financial returns of his labor”

Today child’s play is defined as their work. They continue to repeat a process until the necessary skill is learned and once this skill becomes too repetitious and monotonous they tend to move on to something else of interest.

Curtis goes on to say the child who is normally supported at home, does not have this motive. He states, “Work in general can never be as educative as play for children, but the greatest misfortune with the disappearance of children’s duties is that nothing has come to take their place, and the child has consequently had much time on his hands for which he had no legitimate use.”

Mr. Curtis goes on to discuss the amounts of physical exercise demanded by most jobs of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Then machines took over everything and the workplace became noisy, with poor air quality, and performing repetitive tasks at breakneck speed imposing undue stain upon the worker’s nervous system, while the muscles are little exercised. There was no systematic effort made to counteract the effect of these conditions and the physiques of the boys were not as good as the physique of their fathers. Factory workers of this time were not able to pass simple fitness requirements for our armed forces. This same condition existed in England where only about three percent of the men of manufacturing districts were able to pass the lowest test for admission to the English Army. This scenario caused an urgency to provide more physical activity for our youth to counteract these trends or it was speculated that an entire race could be eliminated as health conditions began going backwards. Do any of these scenarios sound familiar to our current state of affairs? It is exactly the same types of conditions that exist today that move most people involved in health, wellness, child development and the promotion of a more active adult and senior citizen population that are promoting the play movement once again. While these conditions have highlighted the need then and now for a necessary system of play and physical training for children and adults, it was not these reasons that resonated with most promoters of the play movement. It was the lack of meaningful things for children of that time to do in cities and the fear that this idle time would lead to anti-social behavior. It was the belief that children were an annoyance to their parents and the neighborhood and that they would acquire many vicious habits during this unused time. Back during Mr. Henry Curtis’s time it seemed that time around the home was disappearing and crime was on the rise everywhere in spite of increased funding for a more effective police and probation system. It was the consensus of the time that if they were to stem the tide of these social issues they must surround the children with a different environment.

Mr. Curtis talks about the “New Psychology” of his time that rose from the many sources of the modern play movement of his time – early 1900’s. Mr. Curtis states, “As soon as the attention was turned from the course of study to the child, it was discovered that play was the form of education which nature had devised during the long period of biological evolution, and that the child deprived of play was cut off from those stimuli to which his mind most readily reacted. The new psychology has made the child the center of educational effort and has come to realize that no study can be educative that does not stimulate his mind and arouse it to action.”

The new social spirit of the day was a result of the conditions previously described which demanded the best effort of public-spirited citizens everywhere. Today’s conditions call for similar action of public-spirited citizens who care about the meaningful active lifestyles for all people from cradle to grave. If Mr. Curtis referred to the first three decades of the play movement (1900-1930) as the Renaissance of Play , what should we call the last three quarters of a century and what will our legacy for play be in the future?

From where I sit things have not changed so drastically. The needs for play opportunities for children have never been greater. There are still many social, economic, and political barriers to moving the play agenda forward. However today the mission has somewhat changed and the efforts need to be broadened. The need for more playful environments designed for people of all ages is becoming more important if we are to improve the quality of life for most Americans and provide vibrant healthy communities where we all desire to live and work. Participatory Living Across the Years for ALL, a concept coined by some colleagues of mine, should become the call for action for public-spirited citizens everywhere who have some role in the research, implementation, education, promotion, installation, maintenance, repair, regulation, and funding of advancing and promoting the VALUE OF PLAY MOVEMENT IN AMERICA. It is time to come together and work as one to identify and address the most pressing issues yet to be determined in the most logical order for the greatest impact.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Value of Free Play | 1 Comment »

Looking at the Past and Ahead to the Future of the National Playground Safety Institute (NPSI)

Saturday, July 10th, 2010

By Kenneth S Kutska, CPRP, CPSI
This article was originally written by Ken Kutska on September 15, 2006 as a retrospect of the continued efforts of National Recreation and Park Association and the NPSI to improve playground safety in the United States. This article describes in great detail the NRPA and NPSI role in creating the beginning era of proactive playground inspection and maintenance through education and training of current industry standards. As part of this training the NPSI promotes a proactive model comprehensive public playground inspection and maintenance program to minimize frequency and severity of playground related injuries to children while maximizing the developmental benefits and fun play areas should provide throughout their useful life expectancy

While most of the effort of the National Playground Safety Institute is focused on the enhancement of the Certified Playground Safety Inspector Course we cannot ignore the fact that there are many other items confronting the National Playground Safety Institute Executive Committee. As the Executive Committee begins to look to the future we’re continually looking back over our shoulder at the past. Whenever one begins to develop a vision for the future they must understand their mission, know where they have been, know where they are today, and have goals for the future.

If we stop a moment and look back at the historic perspective of playgrounds in the United States we can see that we have a little more than a 100-year-old playground movement. This movement has flourished within the United States from the very beginning when children’s play became an extension of physical education or gymnastics in an outdoor environment. Experts agreed that play enhances educational opportunities for children especially at a very young age. During this time most major cities incorporated public playgrounds into their city master plans. The next major phase of this movement occurred from the post Industrial Revolution through World War II and was comprised of free standing metal pipe equipment. We still see many of these playgrounds in existence today. You can see them in many of small old school yards and old parks throughout the United States. They consist of the standard monkey bars, turning bars, freestanding slides, and swing sets. This era was followed by a period of similar types of equipment but with a theme. The 1970s brought about rapid change in our theories of play. This era of the American playground led us to the 1980s up to present where the large composite play structure became the rage. From this point on the consumer has been constantly bombarded with new play concepts, new play products, new materials, new safety surfaces, and new construction and installation techniques. Playgrounds had become big business and purchasing equipment to meet the consumer’s needs had become a more sophisticated process requiring a much greater knowledge base of knowledge.

What Started All This?
During the end of the post World War II era of public playgrounds and through the beginning of the composite structure era of public playgrounds there was another movement taking place within the playground industry. The National Recreation and Park Association along with the National Bureau of Standards attempted to develop a national playground safety standard. Although this effort was unsuccessful it did give way to a United States Consumer Product Safety Commission initiative that led to the 1981 Handbook for Public Playgrounds. While this was recognized as a significant milestone in the United States public playground safety movement many realized this was only the beginning. Since 1981 there has been a proliferation of information, guidelines and standards related to public playgrounds not just in the United States but throughout the world. Injury statistics are being tracked and monitored on annual basis by many groups in organizations throughout the U.S. and the world. In the U.S. approximately 40 million children or 14 percent of the population are between the ages of 2-12 which is defined as the user-at-risk in the scope of the public playground safety standards and guidelines in United States. More than 200,000 reported injuries are logged annually by the Consumer Product Safety Commission through the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. In addition to these numbers one more disturbing fact remains. Approximately 17 children a year will die as a result of an injury sustained on a playground.

When the National Playground Safety Institute was formed back in 1990 at the National Park and Recreation Congress in Phoenix AZ the steering committee could not imagine the road they were about to go down.

The first national playground safety Institute was held in Baltimore Maryland in 1991. This marked the beginning of the establishment of a Certified Playground Safety Inspector program. The National Playground Safety Institute Executive Committee formalized their relationship with the National Recreation and Park Association with the signing of a 1993 Memorandum of Understanding. Later in 1993 the National Recreation and Park Association signed a letter of cooperation with United States Consumer Product Safety Commission during the mid-year meeting in Washington D.C.. In 1994, the National Playground Safety Institute received approval for the Certified Playground Safety Inspector program from the National Certification Board. The first certification exam was actually administered in 1993 at the NRPA Annual Conference in San Jose California. During this same time period the NPSI Executive Committee began to work with the National Recreation and Park Association State Affiliates to prepare a protocol for administrating the inspector certification course around the country through the NRPA State Affiliates. This move significantly expanded the course market and from that point on the program grew rapidly, almost too rapidly. The contractual relationships between the National Recreation and Park Association, the National Playground Safety Institute, and our State Affiliates have proven to be very successful for all parties concerned. These relationships continue to grow and prosper. The National Playground Safety Institute could not have achieved what it has to date without the support of its partners. We have learned from each other’s successes and failures but most importantly we have continued to develop a better product. Today we continue to work with not-for-profit groups like the American Society for Testing and Materials, International Playground Equipment Manufacturer’s Association, National Playground Contractors Association International, National Association for the Education of Young Children, International Playground Safety Institute, and the National Program for Playground Safety. We also continue to work with other governmental organizations like the Consumer product Safety Commission, U. S. Access Board, and the park District Risk Management Agency. We will continue to look for opportunities to work with other non-profits like Kaboom, Boundless Playgrounds, and the U.S Play Coalition as well as corporate for-profits like McDonalds Corporation, Burger King, and Disney Corporation. The National Recreation and Park Association and the National Playground Safety Institute had a prominent role in the first two International Institute’s on Public Playgrounds thanks to the leadership and sponsorship of Penn State University. If the National Playground Safety Institute is to continue to grow and attain its vision and mission we will continue to establish new relationships and partnerships with individuals in organizations who share our vision.

Results and Impacts from NPSI and CPSI Program through 1996
Whenever a new successful program is established it is easy to identify positive accomplishments:
• Quality comprehensive training
• State-of-the-art publications and staff training materials
• Created field test entrapment probes and protrusion gauge kits
• Doubled gross program revenue annually since 1995 (1999-$660,000)
• Doubled number of Institutes sites since 1996 (1999-42 Institutes)
• Certified playground safety inspectors in every state in the U.S.
• Developed CPSI Instructor training materials
• Outreach to other organizations sharing our mission
• Started a communication network with Certified Playground Safety Inspectors (NPSI Networks)
• Annual focus and promotion of public playgrounds through Parks and Recreation magazine
• Increased membership of the National Playground Safety Institute Executive Committee and cadre of Certified Playground Safety Institute Instructors.

In spite of these accomplishments we are experiencing growing pains.

Future Challenges
How do we maintain what we have? How do we assure the necessary support for future growth of the program? What impacts will additional state and federal legislation have on the national playground safety Institute? What impacts will other ASTM standards have on our existing program? Can we be successful in identifying and securing outside funding sources to help with future initiatives of the program? Will we be able to sustain the volunteer expertise we currently have on our National Playground Safety Institute Executive Committee?

NRPA and the NPSI Board will continue to address these questions and as opportunities present themselves we will evaluate the situation and work towards a solution that helps us better serve our CPSIs, our playground users, and the playground industry.

Future Opportunities
• Timely revisions to existing training and instructional materials
• Development of a universal playground audit and inspection form and training program in conjunction with the International Playground Equipment Manufacturer’s Association
• Development of a Soft Contained Play Systems training program
• Development of a playground designed accessibility training program
• Develop an advanced level inspector course to better educate and prepare CPSI to perform compliance audits
• Investigate the need to develop a certified playground safety inspector’s correspondence course
• Development of a more interactive Web site with NRPA
• Train new instructors and nurture future National Playground Safety Institute board and committee members
• Identify and develop new partnerships and programs that advance our mission

As we continue to analyze the past, scrutinize the present, and look toward the future there is one challenge or opportunity that always seems to resurface. The need is to better market and promote of the National Playground Safety Institute and the National Recreation and Park Association. We know that fewer than 20% of the CPSI Course participants are NRPA or State Affiliate members yet the program benefits many agencies who have either Commissioner/Board Member or Administrator membership in NRPA. The fact remains the efforts of the NPSI and the CPSI Course provides a valuable service to the general public by helping to make Americas play spaces safer. This is a good thing and NRPA needs to continually promote this fact not just to its membership but to the general public through the media.

Regardless of the task at hand one thing remains constant, “NPSI and its partners intend to be proactive in making playground safer through education rather than reactive to legislative mandates.” Thank you for your continued support. We plan to be there for you.

Tags:
Posted in Playground Safety Training, playground safety | No Comments »