Archive for the ‘Value of Free Play’ Category

Kutska comments on U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s 2-16 -2012 Release #12-109 Children’s Slides Recalled by Landscape Structures due to Fall Hazard

Saturday, February 18th, 2012

2-16-12 RECALL NEWS from CPSC on LSI Glide
The February 16th U.S. CPSC recall on the LSI Slalom Glider is an interesting development and it is worth another look. How many children need to sustain an injury allegedly due to some product before it is determined to be unsafe? What type and how many injuries must be sustained to warrant a government recall? At what point should government intervene to protect us from ourselves? Who determines when something is unsafe? The CPSC has made a decision to require a manufacturer to voluntarily recall one of its products. While we can applaud any action in response to a known hazard but I cannot help but wonder what was their basis for this decision? If 14 reported injuries (fractures), one bruised spleen, and one fractured collar bone over five years on thousands of these types of climbers are enough to require removal when will we hear about a recall on bicycles, soccer balls, skateboards, roller skates, and just about everything else we can think of that results in thousands of cuts and scrapes, numerous broken bones and yes, even death. The children who were reported injured on this equipment were under the age of eight. What has our judicial system determined to be the age of reason; a child older than 7? Obviously these children were probably not experienced in using such a piece of play equipment. They were also probably lacking in physical development, balance, maybe even slightly overweight or lacking in cognitive development. This recall labeled the play component as not compliant with the slide requirements of the CPSC Public Playground Safety Handbook. They are correct in their analysis for all the reasons stated in the recall however the component was not designed or labeled as a slide. It is a GLIDE. I understand that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be a duck. I can see for myself that children can slide down the component or climb up it just like other compliant slide. Just because someone names something does not mean that is how children will use it during play. Does anyone remember the banister slides we have seen on some public playgrounds? Manufacturers even labeled these incline double or triple rails as a type of slide. The user would have to straddle the bars with their legs or arms to go up or down the event safely. I am sure there were children that probably fell through the bars to the surface and I am sure some even broke a bone or two. I am sure some even used this equipment in unintended ways but that is just being a kid playing and experimenting with their own bodies. Do you think children have gone down these on their skateboard? Where am I going with all this? I am not exactly sure but one thing for certain is that until we as a society can accept the results of our own actions and take responsibility for our lack of supervision and most importantly accept broken bones as a part of growing up we will continue to see the loss of play experiences children so desperately need to develop to their full potential. I cannot help but ask myself where this all will end. Is there something to learn from this CPSC action? I think it is time to have a public discussion on Risk and Hazards. What is the definition of an Acceptable Risk? When does something become an Unacceptable Hazard? What level of injury are we trying to protect a child from? Is it all falls? Why not? We know falls are the number one cause of injuries to all people. In this instance we do not even know if the surface the children fell on was compliant to the impact attenuating surface requirements of the CPSC. Does anyone realize the ramifications of this recall? There are several other U.S. manufacturers and some international companies selling very similar play components to this Slalom Glider. While they look very similar and are used in the same way there are distinct differences not easily recognized by the general public. Some may not be as high off the surface. They may be at a different slope. None of them have any side rails and none of them are called slides or even glider.
So what is next? How much litigation might take place as a result of this recall? When is there enough information available to the general public and its government regulatory authority to make some unilateral decision that will have severe financial impact on any industry? I come back to the question of when does something warrant the label, hazard or unsafe? How does something get recalled when such a small number of children have suffered a less than permanently debilitating injury or death? There may be more information related to the decision but I have not seen it. I would like to see it. More importantly I would like to know when we will have an adult discussion on the value of and need for challenging play in children’s development? This discussion is desperately needed so we might agree on some defensible criteria for risk assessment based on the type and severity of injury we can all work towards eliminating. Equally important is the need to agree on what types of injuries we can accept while we attempt to provide physically challenging environments for our children? I fear for children’s free play opportunities based on this governmental course of action. It always seems that avoidance of potential losses through public playground owners elimination of the potential cause is becoming more and more their first course of action. It is easy to implement. That being said I fear for what might become the next playground equipment recall? What play event will be next to be eliminated, the swing set? Why not upper body equipment such as overhead ladder (horizontal ladder)? More broken bones occur on this component than any other piece of play equipment as a result of use by children with limited upper body strength, especially those less than 8 years of age. Why not? After all upper body strength isn’t important in today’s high tech world.
In my opinion, a more reasonable course of action might have been to label this equipment for children above some age greater than 5, 6 or even 7, but I would leave that decision to the designers and the child development community. SEE RECALL BELOW
NEWS from CPSC
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Office of Communications Washington, D.C.________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEFebruary 16, 2012
Release #12-109 Firm’s Recall Hotline: (888) 438-6574
CPSC Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772
CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908
Children’s Slides Recalled by Landscape Structures due to Fall HazardWASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.
Name of Product: Slalom Glider
Units: About 900Manufacturer: Landscape Structures Inc., of Delano, Minn.
Hazard: The Slalom Glider is a playground slide that lacks a transition platform on the top and sides of the chute. Children can fall when moving from the ladder to the slide and when descending the chute.
Incidents/Injuries: CPSC and the firm have received 16 reports of injuries to children under 8-years old, including one bruised arm, 14 fractures to arms and legs, one fractured collar bone and one bruised spleen.
Description: The Slalom Glider is a distinctive 6-foot high playground slide that is curved in shape and made from molded plastic. It includes an arched, tubular steel access ladder. The recalled product comes as a stand-alone slide or as an attachment to other playground equipment. The recalled products have model numbers 156456 and 172627 and were sold in combinations of colors, including red, blue, tan, green, granite and white.
Sold: To schools and other facilities with playground equipment nationwide between January 2006 and December 2011 for about $2300.
Manufactured in: United StatesRemedy: Consumers should immediately stop children from using the recalled gliders and owners will be contacted by Landscape Structures regarding removal instructions. Customers will be given the option of replacing the Slalom Glider with another piece of playground equipment, receiving a refund, or receiving credit towards a future purchase.
Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Landscape Structures toll-free at (888) 438-6574 Monday through Friday between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. CT, or visit the firm’s website at www.playlsi.comThe U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports that are either directly related to this product recall or involve a different hazard with the same product. Please tell us about your experience with the product on www.saferproducts.gov
CPSC is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with the use of the thousands of consumer products under the agency’s jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries, and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than $900 billion annually. CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. CPSC’s work to ensure the safety of consumer products – such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals – contributed to a decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.
Under federal law, it is illegal to attempt to sell or resell this or any other recalled product.
To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury, go online to: www.saferproducts.gov, call CPSC’s Hotline at (800) 638-2772 or teletypewriter at (800) 638-8270 for the hearing impaired. Consumers can obtain this news release and product safety information at www.cpsc.gov. To join a free e-mail subscription list, please go to https://www.cpsc.gov/cpsclist.aspx.

Posted in National Recreation and Park Association, Playground injuries, U.S. CPSC recalls, Value of Free Play, playground safety | No Comments »

Playground Area Standards Update and the Need to Improve Our Oversight of These Spaces

Sunday, November 6th, 2011

Playground Area Standards Update and the Need to Improve Our Oversight of These Spaces
By Kenneth S Kutska, CPSI
Executive Director, International Playground Safety Institute, LLC
May 14, 2011A public play area’s life and the joy it brings to the children who will visit can only be realized after a thorough planning process. It begins with the selection of an appropriate site and some planning meetings with all the intended stakeholders. Once their needs and desires are processed the planning process continues as the owner begins discussion with their local play equipment sales representatives. Here is where the owner and the sales representatives evaluate your specific play area needs. This process usually results in developing your procurement documents for the playground equipment, site amenities, and the necessary compliant impact attenuating surfacing system. This process can be overwhelming for the inexperienced and uninformed as the playground industry and its vast array of product options seem to change dramatically from year to year. Current economic conditions, global competition for industry market share, and different and ever evolving international standards for all aspects of your play area design; are adding many new challenges and opportunities to the typical governmental agency’s purchasing process. We all strive to develop the perfect play area containing something new and unique while meeting everyone’s expectations expressed during the planning process. Many of us do not have the luxury of in-house planning staff to help guide us through this process so we challenge our sales representatives to come up with new and creative designs. We desire equipment and safety surfacing systems of the highest quality that comply with or exceed; current industry safety standards, local building codes, and still remain within our shrinking budgets. Many Requests for Proposals require qualified bidders to address specified items such as; unique installation challenges, materials durability issues for the local environment, and assuring different levels of challenge for the developmental needs of the intended user group. On top of meeting these objectives the owner must first and foremost meet the minimum industry equipment safety requirements and address ease of access for people of all abilities. This process is more of an art form than an exact science. My worldwide observations over the past ten years demonstrate some understand these concepts. I have witnessed the constant improvement in the hundreds of play areas. These areas all look relatively new, attractive and very inviting to all who pass by the area. At first glance it appears everybody understands a very important objective of facility management, “Keep your facility in good repair and properly functioning.” This should be our first objective based on all the current emphasis on, “The Green Movement.” Maximizing the life expectancy of the area is the best use of resources and minimizes the consumption of raw materials used in the manufacturing process of the play equipment. I will comment on my closer observations of these areas later in this article since a drive-by inspection cannot possible do justice to the owner’s responsibility for the safety of the public.
First, I would like to share some of the issues bringing about changes within the children’s play area industry. It can be a real challenge to keep current with all of the changes occurring within the various government regulatory agencies whose actions impact the play equipment and safety surfacing industry. How do you stay current?
Staying Current with Industry “Best Practices” is Imperative
Becoming a Certified Playground Safety Inspector (CPSI) through the National Park and Recreation Association (NRPA) is a step in the right direction. For the past twenty (20) plus years more than 45,000 people worldwide have attended a CPSI Course and many have attained certification status. The current network of approximately 8,000 CPSIs in-good-standing have been introduced to the many organizations which help them stay current with the rapidly changing children’s play industry. All CPSIs receive a complimentary subscription to Playground Magazine (www.playgroundmag.com) and their online magazine and newsletter. While this is an excellent resource a CPSI needs to frequently check many other industry related web sites to stay current with the latest industry developments. Some of these webistes include the National Park and Recreation Association (www.nrpa.org), the International Playground Safety Institute, LLC (www.internationalplaygroundsafetyinstitute.com), the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission’s web site (www.cpsc.gov), the International Playground Equipment Manufacturers Association’s web site (www.ipema.org), and the National Program for Playground Safety (www.uni.edu/playground). Some have even joined the American Society for Testing Materials International (ASTM) (www.astm.org) and thereby get prompted electronically to visit the web site and participate in the standards development process by voting on the many play industry related standards that impact us all. In case you have not had the opportunity to visit these web sites I would like to share some of the most current developments and issues facing our industry.
New Standards and Guidelines Impacting the Play Area Industry
In November 2010 the US CPSC came out with another revision to their 2008 Draft, Handbook for Public Playgrounds, Publication, Number 325. This revision is a major step in harmonizing with the ASTM F1487 Standard Performance Requirements for Play Equipment for Public Use. This Standard is developed through the activities of ASTM Subcommittee F15.29. I, as Chair of this ASTM Subcommittee, invite you to join ASTM and participate online in this subcommittee’s activities. ASTM F15 Committee addresses all consumer products and I am sure there are many other Subcommittees whose activities relate to many other products you deal within your job responsibilities. There is a new revision to the ASTM F1487-07ae1 which should be published some time in 2011. The revision will include a major rewrite of the specific equipment requirements for swings. The new section will include a swing impact test method and performance requirements. Section 14 and 15 have been substantially revised to address five of the most common safety concerns impacting owner/operators. The most significant change is the elimination of the mandatory surfacing warning message as is currently stated in the 2007 version of F1487. The exact warning message for this and other safety related concerns such as supervision, intended user age group, and hot surface warnings; will be left up to the owner/operator and/or manufacturer. This will cause many of us some angst as we attempt to determine what message is most important to convey to the users and their caregivers. During the ASTM standard development ballot process, it became apparent to our Subcommittee that we could not come up with one simple mandatory hot surface warning message that addressed all the safety concern variables related to every possible geographic location, equipment or surface type, material or color.
New ASTM Task Group for Performance Requirements for Outdoor Fitness Equipment for Public Use formed May 2011
During the May ASTM Committee Week in Anaheim California the Subcommittee for Fitness Equipment F8.30, upon formal request to the ASTM from a Chinese Standards organization revising their current 2003 standard for outdoor fitness equipment, established a Task Group to develop a performance requirement standard for outdoor fitness equipment for public use. The initial meeting was an evening, two hour, virtual meeting with members of F8.30, F15.29 and our Chinese counterparts and the assistance ASTM Staff and a translator. This Task Group includes members of the ASTM F15.29 Subcommittee for public play equipment since we are most interested in the potential impact of unsupervised fitness equipment in public settings and have a lot of injury data related to children. The scope of this new standard appears to intended for users thirteen (13) years of age or older in unsupervised public settings. During the Anaheim meeting it was suggested the initial injury prevention discussions address equipment performance requirements addressing unintended users. The Chinese manufacturers of outdoor fitness equipment appear to have injury data supporting our current scoping recommendation to address safety and injury prevention related to the unintended user identified as the same user group in the scope of the ASTM F1487 performance standards for play equipment for public use. It was for this reason F8.30 invited the ASTM F15.29 Subcommittee to join this task group. Most of the work on this standard development process will take place through the ASTM web site and their virtual meeting capabilities. If anyone is interested in joining this effort they should contact ASTM or Harvey Voris, Chair of ASTM F8.30.
In late 2010 the ASTM F2049 Standard Safety Performance Specification for Fences/Barriers for Public, Commercial, and Multi-Family Residential Use Outdoor Play Areas became a performance standard in lieu of a standard guide. While this may appear to be a subtle change, it may have significant design implications to anyone who must follow all ASTM Standards related to public play areas. There are now special performance requirements defining when fencing may become a recommended requirement for a public play area. There are ASTM Subcommittee ballots currently being voted on that address requirements for the type and number of emergency access/egress gates. This standard is under the jurisdiction of the ASTM F14.10 Subcommittee which is part of the ASTM F14 Committee that addresses many other fencing standards for other recreation and park facilities such as; aquatic facilities, ballfields, tennis courts, and so on.
.
Play Area Safety Surfacing Requirements Impacting Owner’s Operating Decisions
The ASTM F8.63 Subcommittee has several projects under consideration under the ASTM F8 Committee which addresses all types of surfaces and manufactured surfacing. There are many ASTM Standards which fall within this Subcommittee’s scope of responsibility that impact the public play area industry. The ASTM F2223 Standard Guide for ASTM Standards on Playground Surfacing gives a brief explanation of the many standards currently in effect that impact the different types of impact attenuating surfacing systems for public play areas. Did you realize there are several standards that should impact your purchasing decisions for the many types of play area surfacing systems you own or will soon own?
ASTM F1292 Specification for Impact Attenuation of Surface Under and Around Playground Equipment impacts every play area surface system requiring a use zone.
ASTM F1951 Specification for Determination of Accessibility of Surface Systems Under and Around Playground Equipment impacts every new or altered play area for its accessible route to each and every accessible play activity.
ASTM F2075 Specification for the Manufacture of Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) Surfacing for Public Playgrounds. If someone is selling you EWF they should be able to provide you an assurance certificate to that effect.
ASTM F 2479 Standard Guide for Specification, Purchase, Installation and Maintenance of Poured-In-Place (PIP) Playground Surfacing. If you are installing PIP in your playgrounds do you even have a clue of the various issues and processes the installer must content with in order to provide you a quality product. It may behoove you to get a copy of this standard and read it to understand what is involved in the installation process and improve your purchasing documents.

All ASTM standards are under constant review and revision. In many instances, new standards are developed to better clarify or even expand the minimum acceptable performance requirements of the existing types of surfaces already being used within the play area industry. There is currently a new ASTM F8.63 Subcommittee standard under development for loose rubber surface systems to determine acceptable levels of specific contaminants and foreign materials such as tramp metal.

How to Verify Compliance to Minimum Play Area Safety Surface Standards
Did you know that the ASTM F2223 Standard recommends several factors for consideration in selecting an impact attenuating surface for under and around your public play area? The surface system should conform to both ASTM F1487 for your use zones and ASTM F1292 for impact attenuation for the fall height of your equipment. In the USA, they must also conform to the minimum performance requirements of the ASTM F1951-99 to meet the minimum requirements of the Americas with Disabilities Act ADA/ABA Accessibility Standards. Now that there is a final standard enforceable by the Department of Justice (DOJ 2010 Standard – 28 CFR 35.1510 and 28 CFR 36.406; Sections 240 & 1008 Play Areas) things could change with regards to what is or is not considered to meet the minimum requirements of the ADA.

Since every surface system is unique in material, formulation, composition, and source of raw materials it should be tested to confirm conformance with the appropriate ASTM specifications identified in ASTM F2223, specifically F1487, F1292, F1951, F2479, and F2075.
Safety Surface Field Testing Will Document Compliance to Minimum Safety Standards
ASTM F1292 recognizes children play in climates with diverse temperature ranges. Regardless of the materials used in the manufacture of the surface system under and around the play equipment surface samples are required to be tested in a laboratory at three temperatures, 30 degrees F (-1 degree C), 72 degrees F (23 degrees C), and 120 degrees F (49 degrees C) to determine the height from which the g-max does not exceed 200 or the Head Injury Criterion (HIC) does not exceed 1000. Once either threshold is exceeded; the next lowest series of drop tests measured in full feet becomes the Critical Fall Height of that surface. The owner/operator of the play area should ensure the Critical Height of their selected surfacing system exceeds the Fall Height of their equipment. Did you know the pass/fail recommendations for the specification are minimum requirements? How do we know for sure what the exact temperature fluctuations might be under extreme heat or cold on any given day? How do we know when these extreme environmental conditions might render the surface system non-compliant to the minimum recommendations? How can we determine when this point of non-compliance might occur? The only real answer is known through field testing. The ASTM F1292 standard gives a detailed explanation of how to conduct the test in the field in addition to the laboratory testing requirements including a comprehensive list of items that must be included in the final test report. The basic difference between these two types of tests is the field test is conducted at the ambient temperature on the date and time of the test and at locations selected by the test operator that appear to be the most likely to fail. These locations might be areas of noticeable heavy use, visible wear, edges of tiles, and/or seams. There are many more requirements for information required within the actual drop test report including the recording of each of the three drops, at each of the three separate locations, within the use zone of each free standing piece of equipment and/or composite structure. This process is required and repeated for each different surface system within the use zone of each free standing or composite piece of equipment. In addition, digital photos are required to document each area tested. Weather conditions must be recorded, including the surface temperature and the temperature between one and two inches into the surface system at the time of the drop test. The surface system fails the compliance test if any of the drop test results (average of the second and third drop test results for each location tested) exceed the thresholds of 200-gs or 1000 HIC for the fall height of the equipment or the height specified by the owner/operator in their purchasing documents or contract, whichever is greater.
Did you know the ASTM F1292 and the ASTM F1487 require the owner/operator document this compliance and retain these records? This documentation includes verification the installation complied with the manufacturer’s specifications and the surface is maintained within the use zone for each play structure in accordance with the standard.
Providing Access For All and New Standard Put Focus on Maintenance Issues
September 2010 the US Department of Justice adopted the Americans With Disabilities Standard (referenced above) that establishes compliance requirements for the installation, maintenance, inspection, and documentation of the accessible route, up to and through, the playground area to every accessible play component. It is now imperative these standards be understood and adhered to in the USA. We are only beginning to realize and understand the ramifications of this landmark legislation. What are the minimum performance requirements of the accessible route? We have known the U.S. Access Board’s recommendations for this route for many years. The acceptable minimum slope of the route outside and to the play area should have a minimum width of 60 inches (1520 mm), a maximum running slope of 1:20 (5%), a maximum cross slope of 1:50 (2%), and a minimum overhead clearance, free of any and all man-made or natural obstacles, of 80 inches (2028 mm). In areas of rapidly growing vegetation this can present a unique set of inspection and maintenance requirements to maintain this clear space and firm, level, and stable surface along the accessible route including areas this route encroaches upon the accessible equipment use zones. Inside the play area the running slope my not exceed 1:16 with a cross slope no greater than 1:48 and it must maintain the 80 inch (2028 mm) overhead clearance. The accessible route within the use zone must comply with impact attenuation requirements of the ASTM F1292 Standard. How we measure these requirements in the field will become a challenge for most of us that utilize loose fill surface systems. It also presents unique challenges for those who use rubber tiles or even Poured-in-Place unitary surface systems. Expansion and contraction of almost any surface and ultraviolet radiation (UV) and thermal degradation (excessively high temperatures) can cause shrinkage, buckling and adhesive breakdown, resulting in raised edges and gaps. If any surface, within the 60 inch (1520 mm) wide accessible route, has gaps, depressions, or vertical raised edges of greater than ½ inch, the route is considered to be non-compliant. This will be the most common compliance issue facing public play area owner/operators. Only recently have most operators and manufacturers of surfacing systems come to realize the impact these accessible route requirements of the Accessibility Standard for public play areas. For more information visit www.access-board.gov.us.
New US Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act has Worldwide Impact
Did you know the U.S. Legislature passed a new safety law in 2010 governing all children’s products? It is the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) and it impacts all manufacturers and distributors of any child product sold in the USA. In short, it sets new threshold limits for toxic substances such as lead paint and toxic substances found in plastics. This will also impact the play equipment industry and the exact impacts are not yet fully known or understood. For the large number of playground equipment manufacturers selling products throughout the world, including here in the U.S., this can create some interesting challenges for many distributors of children’s products sold here and manufactured throughout the world. This Act does not just impact the final product. It impacts each individual component used to assemble the play equipment and includes all manufactured play area surfacing systems. Lead paint content of dyes used to color artificial turf top mats has raised concerns in the sports turf industry over the past several years. The CPSIA will continue to evolve as new information and research on the subject becomes known. One thing the ASTM F15.29 Subcommittee has learned as we attempt to deal with issues, such as; burns from hot surfaces and exposure to toxic substances within the play environment, is that children under the age of three (3) are most at risk to experience the negative impacts from exposure to these conditions.
All of this information is important to manufacturers, designers, installer/contractors, and those of us who inspect, maintain, and repair these public areas for children’s safety and enjoyment. This information is not just “nice to know” it is “need to know” information. All of this information comes into consideration as an owner/operator starts a planning process for a new facility. It is all very important in the analysis and final decision process of selecting equipment and safety surfacing systems for your project. It is time we allocate some of our limited and precious time to become more engaged students of these types of changes within our industry.
Green Objectives for Play Area Owner/Operators
In spite of all these changes the one thing that has not changed that has remained a major concern within the play area industry, is the lack of or improper maintenance being performed on our public play areas. In the USA, it appears that more than 40% of all public playground related injuries requiring emergency room or hospital treatment are alleged to may have been caused by this lack of proper maintenance. Proper maintenance requires knowledge and experience of the basic play area components from the equipment, below grade footings, to the structural components, fasteners, connectors, and fastening connectors, regardless of the materials used to create the components. Play area safety inspections must be routinely conducted by trained personnel authorized to take appropriate action to complete regular custodial type maintenance, conduct manufacturer recommended preventative maintenance at recommended intervals, and to make the repairs necessary to prevent equipment or component failure. Thus, when the inspector identifies a piece of equipment or a component that has failed or is near failure, they must be adequately trained and prepared to take appropriate action. Their actions will range from; immediately replacing a defective part or taking the play event out of service, to properly shutting down the entire play area in order to avert a serious, possibly life threatening, or permanently debilitating injury. The Certified Playground Safety Inspector Course defines this type of injury as; death, brain damage, loss of vision, loss of speech, loss of limb, and loss of internal organ. Long bone fracture and broken bones of any type, while serious, are not considered to fit this definition of permanently debilitating.
The Green Solution
I would like to go back to my earlier comment about the drive-by appearance or first impression of many public amenities. Over the past twenty years I have had the privilege of visiting most States and several countries throughout the world. To me, there appears to be one important, almost constant, issue throughout the world. What the general public and I see from a distance appears to be a very modern looking, well maintained, functional public play areas. Upon closer inspection, by a trained CPSI, they will discover the need for more maintenance and repair of play components and the safety surfacing. Many components and surfacing, regardless of the manufacturer, will show moderate to extreme wear, parts will be missing or broken, and many moving parts show excessive wear and should be replaced immediately. If repairs cannot be made immediately, steps should be taken to remove the broken play component or render it unusable so it does not injure a child or create another safety hazard when a child comes in contact with the temporary repair.
My observation, if correct, can only be addressed with a commitment of resources to hire and develop better informed, knowledgeable, more experienced staff or independent contractors who are charged with the responsibility to inspect, maintain and repair children’s play areas. Our industry safety standards and guidelines and the children who use the playgrounds require us all to do nothing less. Researchers have demonstrated the developmental benefits of play in a child’s development. Over the years, examples of healthy playful community planning have demonstrated these areas, and other similar public spaces, are a necessary amenity which add value to any vibrant city, school, park, childcare facility, or residential development. If play spaces are such a necessary component of quality living spaces then they should receive the necessary attention and resources to preserve the quality, safety, function and aesthetics of the original design concept.
How we move forward to enhance the quality of life for all people can be summed up in how we value and address the needs of our very young and the elderly. Public safety should not be compromised. We need make sure there is a life-cycle cost of maintenance and repair of our public spaces incorporated into the planning process and then we need to ensure adequate resources are allocated to life-cycle maintenance and repair costs associated with any and all public spaces. As I stated earlier in this article, ensuring the safety of the public, maintaining the function of the facility, and reaching or surpassing the intended life-cycle of the capital investment are some of the most basic GREEN objectives for the owner/operator. I suggest we make sure we allocate approximately 10% of the cost of the project to the annual inspection, maintenance, and repair of the area. In addition, I suggest we provide the necessary training to those responsible for the day to day management of these areas Over time we will be able evaluate the outcome and adjust our efforts accordingly.

Posted in National Recreation and Park Association, Playground Safety Training, Playground injuries, Value of Free Play, playground safety | 2 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 »