Archive for the ‘playground safety’ Category

Certified Playground Safety Inspectors: How do they add up?

Monday, August 22nd, 2011

Certified Playground Safety Inspectors: How do they add up?
By Kenneth S Kutska, CPSI
Executive Director
International Playground Safety Institute, LLC

The National Park and Recreation Association has successfully launched its online registry of CPSIs worldwide. In an effort to better serve us this registry lists all CPSIs who have opted to be listed as an inspector in good standing. The CPSI designation is good for three years from the date the participant passes their examination. Because the industry and its workforce is far from stagnant we have seen a lot of turnover in the NRPA registry over the years. Historically it appears there is at least a 30 to 40% annual attrition rate. While we have CPSI’s re-certifying for the 5th time we are seeing as many 50% first timers at nearly every location. We are pleased to finally see increased participation from school systems, childcare facilities and the military.

The economy has impacted the number of participants in many States but the annual number of institutes still exceeds 50. Since 2001 NRPA has conducted over 50 Institutes and certified or recertified more than 2,500 people. NRPA has maintained an up to date CPSI Registry of between 6,000 to 8,000.

Here are a few current statistics about the CPSI Certification Program. As of October 2009 there are currently only 606 people listed. This is voluntary and most seek CPSI designation for their agency only and chose not to be listed. Everyone will have a chance to be added to this registry in the near future. Keep an eye out for information via the NRPA Web site at www.nrpa.org. As of October 2009 there were:

• 7,033 CPSI note this number changes monthly as certifications expire and new people pass the examination
• 1,983 participants passed the CPSI examination out of more than 2,500.
• Total participants in CPSI Courses since 1991 is over 40,000
• The Examination Passing Score is now 70 out of 100.

Over the nearly twenty year history of the National Playground Safety Institute and the CPSI Course there have been significant fluctuations in the year to year participant totals. This information has not been analyzed to determine how or why these numbers fluctuate. I know from my long time involvement in this program that State legislative initiatives have significant impact on their State’s participation in the program. We have experienced up and downs in some State’s participation numbers when the NRPA Affiliate host organization experiences key staff turnover.

It is interesting to see how the CPSI numbers have changed over the years from State to State. In 1999 there was a total of 4,278 CPSI’s. The top states in totals were California at 492, North Carolina 284, Texas 245, New York 229 and both Washington and Florida 224. Ten years later things have changed. California and many other states have implemented legislation impacting public playgrounds. In a report dated October 12, 2009 there were 6,039 CPSIs. California still was leading the State by State total with 830 with Florida next at 353, Texas 327, Illinois 303 and Washington 291. You can see that many State’s numbers have more than doubled yet some like North Carolina and New York for some unknown reason have declined.

Back in the early 1990’s when I wrote my goals for the NPSI and CPSI Course I was hoping we would some day have one certified person in every community in America. While we are not there yet, I believe the numbers demonstrate that we are well on our way. If there has not been a CPSI Course held within your State for at least one year, I urge you to call the NRPA and volunteer to be the Local Host for your next CPSI Course in your area. Chances are your State Park and Recreation Affiliate organization is going through hard times and has cut back on staff who usually run these types or outreach programs and therefore they may need looking for someone to step in and organize the entire course. This is a big job but not as large as one might think. There is an excellent Local Host Manual with a step by step explanation of the entire process. Now is a good time to step forward. If you are from a school district, insurance agency, childcare facility, or military installation you too can help by assisting the local state park and recreation affiliate organization responsible for administering NRPA’s CPSI Courses. You can contact NRPA at www.nrpa.org and ask for your State’s affiliate phone number and contact person to help convince them to organize a CPSI Course near you. With your help we can make it happen.

ATTENTION! Correction needed in Playground Safety Is No Accident, 4th Edition

Friday, December 10th, 2010

PSINA(cover)825ATTENTION!
Playground Safety Is No Accident Update
By Kenneth S Kutska, Executive Director
International Playground Safety Institute, LLC
December 3, 2010

Playground Safety Is No Accident, 4th Edition Correction

It has been over a year since people have been using the fourth edition of Playground Safety Is No Accident and I finally have heard form one of you in writing. Actually it was through one of the CPSI Course instructors who referred the question to me.
I knew it was too good to be true and as the saying goes no news is good news. WRONG.

As many of you already know, I am far from perfect. Nobody will debate this. One of CPSIs have discovered an error in the Audit Compliance Inspection Form. Many of you have been using the electronic Adobe formatted form as shown on the CD everyone has received over this past year when they take the CPSI Course.

The question arose when one of our CPSI’s asked about the clearance requirement for the underside of a whirl of merry-go-round. On page 66 of the fourth edition of Playground Safety Is No Accident, which is also page 27 of the Compliance Audit Form, it states in question #4,

“Underside of platform max. 9” above the surfacing. Platforms w/ diameter <20” are exempt. (ASTM 8.8.4.2: CPSC 5.3.4)”

The citations are correct but the clearance under the rotating platform must be a MINIMUM of 9 inches not maximum of 9 inches to assure head entrapment clearance. Anything less than 9 inches would be non-compliant.

This correction should be made in your audit compliance inspection forms to make sure we all have a minimum of 9 inches underneath the rotating platforms of our spinners, merry-go-rounds, or whirls with platform diameters 20 inches or greater. I apologize for this inconvenience.

If anybody has indentified any other inconsistencies I would appreciate an email so I can correct the situation. In an effort to shorten the form and still include enough information to explain the requirements of the ASTM Standard and CPSC Handbook. Citations help to clarify these situations as they arrive. I thank the CPSI for their diligence in bringing this to my attention and urge others to follow this lead.

It has been over a year since the last book revision and I would like to hear from those of you who have been using any or all of the forms from the book CD. If any of you have used the book to start or improve your playground safety program I would like to hear your story. Two of these stories were highlighted in this fourth edition.

Standards Alert
By now you have heard of the latest revision to the CPSC Handbook, Publication #325. It was released with a November 2010 publishing date. This version addresses most of the concerns raised in a letter I wrote to the CPSC in December or 2008 on behalf of the ASTM Subcommittee F15.29 and many other organizations did likewise. While these two documentsl are not 100% harmonized we are much closer than we were. This new version is available on their web site, www.cpsc.gov. All the other correspondence leading up to this revision is also on their web site. That being said we also expect to have another version of the ASTM F1487 Standard published sometime in early 2011.

Editorial – International Playground Safety Standards Harmonization

With all this change coming I see the opportunity and need for ASTM and other international standard developing organizations to convene with their respective trade organizations and playground safety advocacy groups to discuss the future of their individual playground safety standards and see where we might come to agreement on some form of international minimum playground safety performance recommendation and/or standard. Many countries have adopted the ASTM F1487 and F1292 Standard and many have adopted the EN 1176 and 1177 Standards. The Canadian CSA Z 614 Standard already has some form of harmonization with the ASTM F1487 Standard. Singapore and Korea have adopted the ASTM Standard as their own national Standard. The Australians have their own standard AS 4685- 1 thru 6 and seems to be following the EN 1176 Standard. With so many developing countries getting into the playground business either as manufacturers or consumers there is a real opportunity and reason to do something at this time. There appears, at least to me, to be some interest in identifying the areas of agreement and while we can agree to disagree; we should at least be able to explain our differences in the rationale used to create each section under debate and the approach used to solve a particular situation. This would lead to a better understanding of our differences. We continue to learn from one another and we often cite each other’s standard as rationale when adding new sections to our standard. This kind of discussion could and should lead to a better understanding and possibly the beginning of an effort towards more international playground standards harmonization.
PSINA(cover)825

President Obama signs final ADA guidelines into law. How will this impact your selection of accessible playground safety surfacing systems?

Monday, September 6th, 2010

ISSUES WITH THE ASTM EFFORT TO DEVELOP A FIELD TEST METHOD FOR ACCESSIBLITY
By Ken Kutska, CPSI
Executive Director
International Playground Safety Institute, LLC
September 3, 2010

The ASTM has been working on the development of a test method for the evaluation of an accessible playground safety surface system that meets the intent of the American’s with Disabilities Act/ Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADA/ABA), recently adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice as the 2010 Standards. As an involved participant in this process I can say it has been a very painful and prolonged process due to a lack of in-depth knowledge and understanding of what the 2010 Standards requires of owner/operators of public playgrounds. There is a lot of confusion and misinformation within the marketplace and unfortunately we the consumers are most at risk. What constitutes an accessible ADA compliant safety surfacing will ultimately be determined by the Department of Justice once a formal complaint has been filed against some agency for failure to provide access to a public facility? When will this occur? I suspect sooner than later. Will it be your agency? I would like to share with you some of the unresolved issues as I see them in determining what is accessible and how do we determine compliance to some performance standard for accessibility.

ISSUE #1
The Americans Disabilities Act requires that public playgrounds meet the minimum requirements of the 2010 Standards, especially Section 1008.
Basically this requires owner/operators of public playgrounds to provide barrier free access to these playgrounds and barrier free access to all play components intended to be accessible.
This requires there be an Accessible Route to the playground, into the playground area, and to all access/egress points of every play component that is intended to be accessible. This is the stated minimum requirement and is in no way intended to imply this is all the owner/operator should be attempting to accomplish. It is nothing more than the basement bottom minimum that is required to meet the minimum intent of this legislation.

ISSUE #2
In 1999, ASTM F8.63 created the ASTM F1951 Standard as a method to objectively measure different types of surfaces and determine which surfaces meet the intent of the accessibility standards. Without an objective measurement determination of what constitutes an accessible surface is subjectively left to the Justice Department and the courts to subjectively decide. Everyone has been working together to try and create some basic best practice guidelines to help steer the industry and owner/operators in the right direction when making decisions on what to put into their public playgrounds in order to meet the minimum requirements of the ADA/ABA. It is important to understand that nobody can make a statement that their product or design is ADA Approved. They can state that in their opinion they meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the current ADA/ABA Accessibility Guidelines but that is it. Unfortunately there are some who are abusing this reality and putting the marketplace and owner/operators at risk of legal challenges to these claims. The current ASTM F1951 standard does nothing more than measure the amount of energy required to go across a surface in a lab test plot and compare that value to what energy a wheelchair user will expend to go up a 7% or 1:14 ramp. QUESTION: Should a child in a wheelchair be expected to expend the same amount of energy to go across a surface in a playground just to get to a play component and play with their friends as is required by them to get up a ramp, which by the way is 20% steeper than what is allowed in a public building like the users school.

ISSUE #3
What constitutes an accessible route? There are many conditions that must be in place to meet the minimum requirements for an Accessible Route. The area within the playground perimeter is treated differently than the area outside the playground perimeter. The requirements for the route inside the playground perimeter are less severe giving the owner/operators more leeway to make these accommodations in an outdoor recreation environment.

The following conditions are a minimum requirement inside the playground environment which is generally where the playground safety surface system would be installed.

Surface – ASTM 1951-99/inspected and maintained regularly and frequently
Width – 60 inches minimum/44 inches small playground less than 1000 square feet
Changes in level – should not exceed ½ inch
Running slope – 1:16 maximum (6%)
Cross slope – 1:48 maximum (little more than 2%)
Openings – No openings more that ½ inch
Protruding objects – No protrusions over 4 inches may protrude into the overhead clearance above the accessible route (up to 80 inches above surface)

Outside the playground environment these conditions may be more restrictive

Surface – should be smooth and free of overhead obstructions
Width – 60 inches minimum
Changes in level – should not exceed ½ inch
Running slope – 1:20 maximum (5%)
Cross slope – 1:50 maximum (2%)
Openings – No openings greater than ½ inch
Protruding objects – No protrusions may protrude into the overhead clearance above the accessible route (which is up to 80 inches above surface)

In other words, the accessible route requirements for playgrounds is already less stringent than those technical provisions for the built environment based on years of regulatory negotiations with various groups of constituents.

NOTE: Accessible Routes within the playground allow approximately 20% more running and cross slope than is allowed in the built environment.

ISSUE #4
There are many other considerations when one considers what constitutes an accessible playground surface both within and outside the use zone of the equipment itself.

The 2010 Standards requires the surfacing be firm, stable, and slip resistant and that it meet all the requirements of the ASTM F1292 for impact attenuation within the use zone. The use zone and the accessible route have very explicit MINIMUM requirements but minimum requirement, do not necessarily foster an inclusive environment by design. . These are guides intended to give some very minimum baseline requirements to keep us all out of the court system. The disability advocacy groups always recommend we consult with our constituents who need these types of accommodations to guarantee they will be able to utilize these public facilities and design to exceed the minimum whenever possible.

This is the spirit in which the initial research involving the Rotational Penetrometer came about. It was the first attempt to evaluate and objectively measure firmness and stability which are two very important aspects of any surface when someone with mobility issues must go across a surface. It was done by Peter Axelson and was commissioned by the U.S. Architecture and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board and published in June 1999. It involved people of varying abilities and physical challenges. This study provided information and guidance to those interested in providing access to areas that may not have been considered to be accessible in the past. Things like how long a trail should be and what kind of slope would work best, and evaluating what kids of materials work better than others. The study can be found at http://www.access-board.gov/research/Exterior%20Surfaces/exteriorsarticle.htm

Based on the intent of the ADA the current ASTM F1951 standard dos nothing more than what the original study commissioned by the U.S. Access Board and conducted by Beneficial Design. ASTM F1951 took a test methodology of using a human body (not someone who has to use a wheelchair), and see how much energy is expended to go up a concrete 7% ramp compared to going across a surface that is installed in a laboratory box according to the manufacture’s specifications. This test method establishes an acceptable level of energy as its baseline for a passing test at 20% greater than what is allowed by the 2010 Standards in any public facility outside the playground. How is this justified? It may have been the only test method to begin to address the need for accessible playground safety surfaces but conditions change as time goes on.

ISSUE #5
When the ASTM F1951 Standard was approved and was being administered by various testing companies was it being administered in compliance with the approved test protocol as spelled out in the standard?

This is opened to a lot of debate but during some testing conducted by various testing companies is was observed that the testing equipment used in the test procedure was not being conducted in the same way by each testing company and variation in the testing approach did not follow the protocol for the existing standard. Even today it is difficult for the consumer to acquire the complete test reports showing the values of the ramp baseline results in comparison with the surface sample results. Since the test only measure the work to go up the ramp and turn on the ramp versus the work to go across and turn in the surfacing sample what are we really measuring? How does this translate into defining an accessible surface? Why is the test only using a wheelchair for defining an accessible surface? What about users who may need to use crutches, or leg braces, or a walker?

ISSUE #6
What does ASTM F 1951 really prove?

All this test does is provide some information for the marketplace to use to compare surfaces when it comes to selecting an accessible surface. Any values being touted as “ADA approved” are nothing more than one’s opinion based on what information was available in the marketplace at the time.

The firmness and stability of a surface are more important conditions to consider when evaluating surfaces since it does not so much matter what happens in a controlled laboratory environment as what occurs in the real world where those who require these special accommodations are faced with access challenges each and every day of their lives. This is where owner/operators of public facilities will be faced with challenges of maintaining these surfaces in compliance with the 2010 Standards. Just as the ASTM F1292. 2223, 1951, 2373 and 1487 require the playground be maintained in compliance with the standards it also requires them to document this compliance.

How does a laboratory test show that the surface material being tested can also meet the ASTM F1951 Standard requirements in the field with everyday use? Without a field test this F1951 Standard has no relevance to the real world and the potential financial liability owners/operators may face once a successful challenge has been brought forward should be of major concern to all involved.

NOTE: Why can’t this current F1951 test method be implemented in the field? Shouldn’t it become part of the standard so consumers can be assured they are in compliance with the intent of the ADA.

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.

Pacific Rim US Military Safety Personnel Attend 1st CPSI Course in Okinawa, Japan

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

On June 15 and 16, 45 military civilian safety personnel attended the first ever Certified Playground Safety Inspector Course and Examination in the Pacific Region. The course was conducted at the Foster Marine Base in Okinawa. Mr Mark Hotelling, Occupational Safety & Health Program Manager, DoDEA Pacific was the local host coordinator. He had people from Guam, Korea, Okinawa, and mainland Japan in attendance. There were participants form every branch of the service stationed in the Pacific Region representing school, childcare, and enlisted housing playground facitilities. It was a very intense program and the site visit at the elementary school site on Camp Foster Marine Base was the perfect site for the second day site investigation exercise. Participants were able to see some relatively older equipment (10 years plus) and observe children playing on the equipment. IPSI, LLC hopes this will be only the first of many future playground safety training programs offered in the Pacific Rim for our military infrastructure support team in cooperation with the National Recreation and Park Association and their National Playground Safety Institute.