Audit of the Department of Parks and Recreation’s Oversight of Indoor Recreation Centers

Audit Impact

Summary of Findings

The audit identified several positives associated with the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation’s (DPR) oversight over its recreation centers. The centers are generally well maintained and the majority of members surveyed during the audit expressed satisfaction with the programs, amenities, and services offered at their respective centers. The audit found that the centers are generally compliant with ADA requirements for people with limited mobility. However, there was no accessibility to other floors at two multi-level centers and the chair lifts were inoperable at 2 of the 7 centers with indoor pools.

The audit also found that the distribution of recreational centers across the five boroughs is not equitable when measured against the size of the population served. While Manhattan accounts for only 19% of the City’s population, 36% of all centers are located there. Brooklyn accounts for 31% of the City’s population but contains just 22% of all centers. Queens accounts for 27% percent of the City’s population but has 14% of DPR’s centers. Conversely, Staten Island only accounts for 6% of the population, but it contains 11% of the centers available to New York City residents. While there are plans to open five additional centers in the outer boroughs in future, these will not fully address the disparities that currently exist.

Operationally, the audit also found that center staff did not consistently conduct and record the results of their daily inspections; not all deficiencies requiring a work order were entered in the work order system as they should have been; work orders were not always addressed in a timely manner; and DPR’s website contained inaccurate information about the programs offered at some of its recreation centers.

Further information about each of the findings appears below.

Intended Benefits

This audit identified areas in which DPR could improve its oversight of its recreation centers to help ensure that equipment is maintained in satisfactory condition.

 

Introduction

Background

DPR is the steward of more than 30,000 acres of land and is the City’s principal provider of recreational and athletic facilities and programs. DPR’s mission is to plan resilient and sustainable parks, public spaces, and recreational amenities, build a park system for present and future generations, and to care for parks and public spaces.

DPR provides an extensive network of recreational services throughout the City.[1] These include recreation centers—large facilities that offer a broad array of programs and activities available to people of all ages, through a paid membership and field houses—and smaller facilities that offer limited, more specialized programming or activities that do not require a membership. Recreation centers offer amenities such as indoor pools, weight rooms, basketball courts, and dance studios, among other things.

Between March 2020 and June 2022, during the COVID-19 emergency, DPR provided various services that were critical to pandemic response. Parks’ staff acted as “Social Distance Ambassadors,” whose duties included educating the public about proper social distancing and distributing more than 3 million face masks to the public. During this time, recreation centers were closed to members for recreational activities and instead were utilized for other purposes, such as childcare centers, food delivery sites, and COVID-19 testing and vaccination sites. Some recreation centers began to reopen to members in July 2021.

In accordance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), recreation centers must be readily accessible to people with disabilities, with at least one accessible route that connects each story and mezzanine in multi-story buildings and that public entities are required to make accessibility alterations to their facilities “to the maximum extent feasible.” [2] [3]

To ensure that recreation centers are maintained in satisfactory condition, DPR requires that recreation center management conduct daily inspections and determine whether any conditions need correction. Inspection results are entered directly into an electronic daily maintenance checklist maintained on DPR’s SharePoint portal.

When staff members identify issues that they are unable to correct on their own, they are required to submit a work order request in DPR’s Asset Management Parks System (AMPS), which is routed to the applicable borough or citywide skill trade shop. Work orders are only submitted in AMPS for issues requiring support from Parks’ Maintenance and Operations teams. Examples of situations in which work orders are not needed include replacing automated external defibrillator (AED) pads, refilling soap dispensers, and locking doors.

In addition to the daily inspections performed by recreation center staff, DPR’s procedures call for biannual inspections administered by the Operations and Management Planning Division (OMP), to assess the centers’ overall condition.

DPR has 36 recreation centers located throughout the five boroughs. Of these, six were closed during the auditor’s visits to the recreation centers (during Calendar Year 2023) due to reconstruction.

According to the Fiscal Year 2023 Mayor’s Management Report (MMR), DPR reported that 79% of recreation centers were in acceptable condition overall, and 100% were rated as having acceptable cleanliness. The MMR also reported that the number of center memberships grew from 100,385 in FY2022 to 117,116 in FY2023, a 17% increase.

Objectives

The objectives of this audit were to determine whether DPR is properly maintaining its indoor recreation centers to provide safe indoor recreational facilities to the public, and whether these centers are equitably distributed throughout the City.

Discussion of Audit Results with DPR

The matters covered in this report were discussed with DPR officials during and at the conclusion of this audit. An Exit Conference Summary was sent to DPR and discussed with DPR officials at an exit conference held on December 15, 2023. On January 12, 2024, we submitted a Draft Report to DPR with a request for written comments. We received a written response from DPR on January 26, 2024.

In its response, DPR stated that it will be implementing the audit’s recommendations. DPR’s written response has been fully considered and, where relevant, changes and comments have been added to the report.

The full text of DPR’s response is included as an addendum to this report.

Detailed Findings

The audit found that recreation centers were generally well-maintained. Auditors visited 31 sites that were in operation during February, March, and August 2023 and found that they were in satisfactory condition overall.[4] The primary deficiencies identified by auditors were damaged flooring , damaged and/or missing ceiling tiles , and peeling paint, which DPR officials stated were due to ongoing roof leaks sustained by the centers over several years.

The auditors found that centers were generally compliant with ADA requirements for people with limited mobility, with some exceptions—2 of the 7 centers with indoor pools did not have working chair lifts to enable people with limited mobility to fully utilize them.

A survey of recreation center members found that the vast majority of those who responded were satisfied with the programs, amenities, and services offered at their respective centers, though many of them identified areas for improvement. The most frequently cited issues included inadequate programming, hours of operation, broken fitness equipment, and cleanliness. The audit noted no significant disparities in satisfaction based on center location.

The auditors also found that recreation centers were not distributed equitably throughout the City. Manhattan houses more centers in operation (13 of 36) than any other borough even though it represents less than 20% of the total population of New York City. Only the Bronx is fairly served relative to population—the borough accounts for 17% of all New York City residents and 17% of the centers are located there. Staten Island is overserved, with 11% of all centers located there, while its population represents only 6% of the City’s total.

The agency stated that it is planning to open five new recreation centers in other boroughs—two are planned in the Bronx and one each are planned in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. DPR also makes efforts to mitigate the disparity in geographic access by offering programming and activities through field houses that are distributed throughout the boroughs. However, inadequate programming was one of the areas in which survey respondents suggested improvements were needed.

The audit identified several areas where operational improvements are also warranted, including that DPR should ensure that center staff more consistently conduct and record the results of their daily inspections, that work orders are consistently entered in the system and timely actioned, and ensure that its website contains more accurate information about the programs offered at recreation centers.

Recreation Centers Generally Maintained in Satisfactory Condition

Auditors Found that 90% of the Features at the Recreation Centers Were in Satisfactory Condition

DPR’s Recreation Evaluation and Center Assessment Program (RECAP) manual requires recreation centers to be well maintained. Specifically, DPR strives to ensure that facilities have an acceptable standard of:

• Cleanliness, with criteria related to litter (i.e., accumulation of trash, inappropriately stored equipment, presence of overflowed bagged garbage etc.); dirt (i.e., spilled liquids or foods and accumulation of dirt on surfaces, presence of mold and mildew, bodily fluids outside toilets, etc.); graffiti (i.e., spray paint, markers or crayons, stickers or posters displayed on building walls); and whether the facility has sufficient amenities present (i.e., toilet paper, hand soap, paper towel, or working hand driers).
• Safety features pertaining to emergency equipment (i.e., working fire extinguishers, AED machines, smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors); emergency procedures (i.e., working exit doors and lights, proper signage); and unauthorized access (i.e., restriction to maintenance rooms, electrical panels, and staff only areas, etc.).
• Structural features, pertaining to floors, ceilings, walls (i.e., cracks and holes, chipped tiles, water damage, rips and tears in carpeted areas, etc.); fixtures and facility equipment (i.e., working or damaged lights, doors, lockers, toilets, sinks, showers, water fountains, etc.).

Auditors found that DPR generally maintained its recreation centers in a clean and safe manner. Auditors visited 31 of DPR’s 36 recreation centers—five recreation centers were closed and undergoing extensive renovations during the auditors’ visits. Currently, six centers are closed for renovations. Three of the centers are located in the Bronx and the remaining three centers are located in Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn.

Visits conducted at the 31 recreation centers found that the physical conditions of the facilities and the available amenities at each were, for the most part, adequately maintained, with some notable exceptions.

During their visits to 31 centers, auditors observed up to 47 features at each center, covering five categories—(1) exterior and interior conditions (e.g., absence of graffiti, reasonably clean floors and surfaces); (2) locker room and bathroom (e.g.; working toilets, showers, faucets and supply of toilet paper and soap); (3) equipment (e.g., fitness equipment in working condition); (4) safety (e.g., exit doors and lights and AED machines in working condition); and (5) structural integrity (e.g., intact ceiling and floor tiles, working fixtures).

Overall, auditors reviewed a total of 1,403 features at the 31 centers (not all features were applicable to all centers), of which 1,268 (90%) were found to be in satisfactory condition. Table I below shows the 135 deficiencies that were identified at 31 recreation centers during auditors’ visits.

Table I: Categories of Deficiencies Identified at 31 Recreation Centers During Observations

Some of the deficiencies found included inoperable fitness equipment , broken lockers , non-working water fountain , unlit exit lights , and missing/damaged ceiling tiles . (A detailed breakdown of the categories and issues identified can be found in Appendix I.) As shown in Table I, auditors identified nine or more issues at four recreation centers—Sunset (Brooklyn), Pelham Fritz (Manhattan), and Al Oerter and Flushing Meadows Corona Pool (both in Queens). Conversely, auditors identified three or fewer issues at 13 of the centers—no issues were identified at Faber Park in Staten Island.

Not all Deficiencies Requiring Work Orders Were Entered in AMPS or Actioned Timely

Of the 135 deficiencies identified, auditors found work orders in AMPS for only 59 of them—of these, 28 had been entered prior to the auditors’ visits and 31 were entered within two months of the visits. One of the contributing factors for deficiencies is that center staff do not consistently perform daily inspections as required. Auditors reviewed SharePoint for a sample of 291 days in total and found that inspection results were available for only 169 (58%) of those days.

The auditors found work orders for broken equipment that were still open after many months. Deficiencies that remain uncorrected may become larger issues that could pose a danger to recreation center members. When the auditors shared the results of their observations with DPR, officials told auditors that 82 (61%) conditions have since been corrected and 53 (39%) are in the process of being corrected . For some of the corrected issues (e.g., clogged toilet, outdated fire extinguisher), DPR officials stated that the center staff resolved them.

In other instances, DPR stated that identified deficiencies will be addressed during larger capital projects that are either in progress or slated to start in the near future, such as Sunset Park Recreation Center, where conditions will be addressed during a renovation project that was scheduled to begin in September 2023. (This center was closed for renovations when auditors attempted to revisit the site in August 2023.) Additionally, DPR stated that issues related to roofing repairs for six centers will be part of larger capital projects for which funding has been secured.

DPR officials also stated that they prioritize safety concerns (e.g., repairing unlit exit signs) when addressing issues identified at the centers. Many of the recreation centers are old—some were built over a century ago—and require major repairs relating to many of the conditions that the auditors identified.[5]

Auditors Found Hazards Identified During OMP Inspections Corrected or in the Process of Being Corrected

DPR’s OMP staff conducts biannual inspections of the recreation centers to assess their overall condition. A report documenting the inspection results is prepared for each center stating whether deficiencies were found and whether the recreation center received an overall condition rating of “Acceptable” (A) or “Unacceptable” (U). These ratings are categorized according to cleanliness, safety, and structural, with each broken down into several ratable features.

Conditions receiving an “Immediate Attention Hazard Priority 1” designation are required to be corrected within 24 hours. Conditions receiving an “Immediate Attention Hazard Priority 2” are required to be corrected within two weeks of the inspection. Additionally, Priority 1 and 2 hazards are required to be monitored by OMP until the issues are resolved.

The audit found that 53 biannual inspections were conducted for 29 of the 30 centers in operation during OMP’s review periods during fall 2021 and summer 2022. Of the 53 inspection reports, 24 were for inspections performed in fall 2021, and 29 were for inspections performed in summer 2022. [6] The Faber Park Recreation Center, located in Staten Island, received no inspection during either round. DPR officials explained that, historically, the center was never part of the OMP’s inspection process because the center is very small, with only one program. Nonetheless, DPR officials stated that they have begun to conduct inspections at Faber Park and provided auditors with the summer 2023 inspection report for that center. As indicated earlier, auditors included Faber Park among the centers visited and identified no unsatisfactory conditions.

Of the 53 reports prepared by OMP during FYs 2021 and 2022, 46 (87%) centers received an overall satisfactory rating , which covered 29 recreation centers for both rounds of inspections. A breakdown by period shows that 20 (83%) of the 24 inspections in fall 2021 resulted in an overall “Acceptable” rating and 26 (90%) of the 29 inspections in summer 2022 resulted in an overall “Acceptable” rating. Seven inspections resulted in an overall “Unacceptable” rating for six recreation centers—Brownsville, Greenbelt, McCarren, Hamilton Fish, Asser Levy and Ocean Breeze. Hamilton Fish Recreation Center received an overall “Unacceptable” rating in both periods.

The six recreation centers that received an overall “Unsatisfactory” rating in either round of inspections were associated with 40 Immediate Attention (IA) hazards—six IA Priority 1 (e.g., expired pads for the AED machine and access to unauthorized areas) and 34 IA Priority 2 (e.g., dimly lit areas and exit doors locked from the inside). A breakdown is shown in Table II below.

Table II shows that the greatest number of hazards were found at the Brownsville and Greenbelt recreation centers; however, these were all Priority 2 hazards. The greatest number of Priority 1 hazards were found at McCarren.

Additionally, auditors learned during their observations that center staff had already corrected the conditions at four centers—including all Priority 1 hazards—and were in the process of correcting the conditions identified at Brownsville and Greenbelt.

Table II: Summary of the Immediate Hazards Corrected at the Six Centers That Received an Overall Unsatisfactory Rating

Accessibility of Recreation Centers is Mixed

Recreation Centers Were Generally ADA Compliant for People with Limited Mobility, with Some Exceptions

DPR’s own policy defines “accessible” recreation centers as having: (1) wheelchair accessible entrances in the front; (2) access to every floor; and (3) accessible amenities.

DPR defines “limited accessibility” recreation centers as having: (1) wheelchair accessible entrances in the back or sides of the facility; (2) an assortment of ramp systems to get to various floors; and (3) accessible amenities, such as gym equipment, computer room, and bathrooms.

Of the 30 centers visited by auditors in August 2023, 27 were classified by DPR as “accessible” and three were classified as having “limited accessibility” for people with limited mobility and using a wheelchair.[7][8] According to § 35.151 of Title II of the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act, public entities are required to make accessibility alterations to their facilities “to the maximum extent feasible.”

DPR’s policy complies with the ADA standards by establishing easily accessible areas where feasible, for people with disabilities. In addition, DPR classifies recreation centers that do not have internal ramp access to other floors (requiring individuals to leave the building and reenter through a different door) as “limited accessibility,” even though this is not a requirement by the ADA standards.

During visits to 30 recreation centers, auditors found that 28 were ADA compliant for people with limited mobility, as discussed below. Auditors found that 26 of the 27 centers designated as accessible met the DPR criteria stated above.

The remaining center, the Jackie Robinson Recreation Center in Manhattan, should have been designated as having “limited accessibility,” because there was no internal ramp providing access to both floors. Both floors are accessible from different entrances from the outside, which was the same situation at Hamilton Fish Recreation Center that DPR designated as “limited accessibility.” After auditors pointed this out to DPR, the agency changed the designation on its web site for Jackie Robinson to “limited accessibility.” Nonetheless, these two sites meet ADA accessibility requirements.

No Accessibility to Other Floors at Two Multi-Level Centers

Twenty-one of the 30 centers visited by auditors are multi-level recreation centers; three of these were designated by DPR as having limited accessibility at the time of the auditors’ visits—Williamsbridge Oval in the Bronx, Metropolitan in Brooklyn, and Hamilton Fish in Manhattan.

While the entrances at these facilities have accessible entryways, amenity spaces, and public restrooms on the first floor, two did not have an elevator or ramp to provide access to an upper floor. Hamilton Fish had access to both levels through different entrances from outside. The inaccessible upper floors contained a multipurpose room (Williamsbridge Oval) and locker rooms (Metropolitan). At the Williamsbridge Oval center, DPR stated that it is in the process of placing a workstation in the first-floor multipurpose room as an alternate to the second-floor media lab. The agency shared no accessibility plans for Metropolitan.

Inoperable Swimming Pool Chair Lifts at Two Sites with Pools

According to § 242.2 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, “At least two accessible means of entry shall be provided for swimming pools. Accessible means of entry shall be swimming pool lifts …; sloped entries …; transfer walls …; transfer systems …; and pool stairs …. At least one accessible means of entry provided shall be located where the water level does not exceed 48 inches.”

Of the 30 centers operating during the review period, nine (30%) had indoor pools and seven were observed during auditors’ visits.[9] Of the seven, auditors found two centers—Gertrude Ederle and Metropolitan Pool—that had inoperable chair lifts .

According to center staff at both locations, the batteries on the chair lifts’ mechanisms were not charged, rendering the lifts inoperable. However, the auditors were not able to determine if this was the only reason the chair lifts did not work. Staff at Gertrude Ederle stated to auditors that they did not know how to operate the chair lift. They stated that the person who knew how to operate it was not at work that day.

As a result, people with limited mobility who need a chair lift to use the pools are denied access.

Siting of Recreation Centers is Not Equitable Relative to Size of Population Served

Brooklyn and Queens are Underserved by Population

Thirteen recreation centers, or 35% of the total, are located in Brooklyn and Queens, which together account for 58% of the total population of New York City. Conversely, 36% of all centers are located in Manhattan which accounts for only 19% of the total population, and while 11% of DPR’s centers are located in Staten Island, the borough accounts for only 6% of the City’s population. Only the Bronx appears to be fairly served relative to population—17% of City residents live in the Bronx which also houses 17% of all centers.

Breakdown by borough is shown in Table III below (Appendix II contains a more detailed breakdown, including the neighborhoods in which the recreation centers are located, and Appendix III contains a map showing the locations of recreation centers and field houses throughout the City).

DPR officials stated that most of the recreation centers are repurposed buildings which were not specifically sited or constructed by DPR. Many were built decades ago. DPR also argues that Manhattan is a good borough to have a large number of centers located in, because mass transit options are plentiful. However, people in many communities in the outer boroughs may not have equitable access to public transportation, which further limits their ability to use recreation centers throughout the City.

No Socioeconomic Disparity Found

The auditors identified no adverse correlation between the socioeconomic statuses of the community districts where recreation centers were located—19 (53%) of the centers are located in community districts that are below the citywide median income level and 17 (47%) are located in community districts that are above the citywide median income level.^[10]

Table III: Breakdown Per Borough of Recreation Centers and Population

*As per 2020 census data.

DPR’s Efforts to Address Siting Disparity are Not Based on Population Distribution within New York City

Officials stated that the agency is working towards greater equity in the siting of recreation centers.  These do not appear to be well placed to address equity relative to the geographic distribution of residents across the five boroughs.

The most recently constructed recreation center, which opened in November 2015, is the Ocean Breeze Track and Field Athletic Complex, located on Staten Island. The borough of Staten Island is also expected to build a new recreation center in the coming years (few details were shared with auditors). However, as noted above, Staten Island is already overserved relative to population.

The agency has five new recreation centers currently planned: two in the Bronx, and one in each of the remaining outer boroughs. According to DPR officials and information posted to its website, the new center in Central Brooklyn—the Shirley Chisholm Recreation Center —is expected to be completed by the end of 2025 and will include multipurpose rooms, a gymnasium, a walking track, an indoor swimming pool, and fitness and media rooms, among other amenities.

More facilities in Brooklyn and Queens are positive developments, but more are likely needed, given that the population of New York City is now concentrated in these boroughs. DPR’s planning and siting of new facilities should consider population distribution.

Most Recreation Center Members Surveyed Were Happy with Amenities and Programs Offered

To assess community user satisfaction, the auditors sent a survey via email to 46,202 people identified as members of recreation centers as of March 2023.[11] Auditors received 1,369 (3%) responses to the survey. The survey questionnaire consisted of 17 questions intended to capture member satisfaction with programs offered, amenities, and services provided at their recreation centers. (The full survey results pertaining to respondents’ levels of satisfaction are presented in Appendix IV.)

The results were generally positive, as follows:

• Of the 1,614 program ratings received from 931 persons who responded that they participated in at least one instructor led program, 1,349 (83%) programs were rated either “Good” or “Excellent.”
• Of the 8,091 amenity ratings received from 1,117 persons who responded that they regularly used the amenities, 5,699 (70%) amenities were rated to be in “Good” or “Excellent” overall condition.

When asked what suggestions respondents had for improving the services at their centers, 941 comments were received. Of those:

• 445 (47%) were primarily about inadequate programming hours and overall hours of operation at the center, staffing issues and request for additional amenities;
• 390 (41%) inoperable fitness equipment and safety;
• 77 (8%) cleanliness conditions, such as roach infestations and leaky roofs; and
• 29 (3%) complained that DPR’s website was not up to date.

DPR officials stated that they are upgrading several recreation centers throughout the City. DPR is actively conducting renovations of centers that are in disrepair, to ensure the safety of its members.

Areas for Improvement

Daily Maintenance Inspections Were Not Consistently Performed and Recorded

According to § A of DPR’s Maintenance Guidelines and Checklist, Center Managers or their Deputies must conduct daily inspections of the interior and exterior of the recreation center’s building to assess the physical conditions of the facility.

For CY2022, auditors randomly selected 10 days during the year for each of the 30 recreation centers (covering a total of 291 checklists) and attempted to retrieve the results of those inspection checklists from the provided dataset extracted from SharePoint.[12] Of the 291 checklists, inspection results were reported for only 169 (58%). No inspections were reported for three recreation centers—Brownsville, McCarren, and Metropolitan—accounting for 30 of the missing inspection results. The remaining 92 missing inspection results were spread out among 22 of the other 27 recreation centers in operation during the audit scope period.

Regarding the three centers where there were no recorded inspections, DPR officials stated that although these centers failed to submit inspection checklists for the period in question, center managers reported their maintenance issues by other means. DPR provided auditors with AMPS data pertaining to 338 work orders for these three centers for period of September 2021 through March 2023.

DPR officials stated centers were closed for some time due to the pandemic. Due to some centers performing emergency functions, the recreation centers temporarily shifted away from usual business practices. With attrition and staff changes, the maintenance checklist protocol was not restarted, as it should have been.

Failure to perform daily inspections has the potential to become larger issues that are more difficult to repair. Potentially hazardous conditions erroneously overlooked during the daily inspections may also go undetected, creating safety issues and liability concerns for the City.

DPR’s Website Contains Inaccurate Program Information About Certain Sites

The New York City Office of Technology and Innovation (OTI) City User Experience Design Guidelines states that an agency’s website should deliver timely, reliable, official, accessible, and authoritative information.

DPR does not update its website to reflect real-time information of all the amenities offered at the recreation centers.

DPR provided us with a dataset with information that was pulled from DPR’s website. It contained a listing of 202 amenities offered at the 30 recreation centers that were operating during the audit review period. Of the 202 amenities, auditors verified through visits that 168 (83%) amenities were present at the centers and 34 (17%) were not. These 34 included three athletic fields which auditors found did not exist. Auditors also found an additional 21 amenities available at 10 recreation centers that were not included in the dataset or listed on DPR’s website.

Officials stated that the Public Programs division engages in conversations with DPR’s Digital Media team, which is responsible for updating the website. However, DPR has no mechanism to periodically check with the recreation centers to obtain a listing of the most current amenities being offered at each facility and update its website accordingly. At the exit conference, DPR stated that it is prioritizing updating the amenities so they are accurately reflected on the website. Failure to regularly update DPR’s website leads to inaccurate information being shared with the public and members who rely on the information posted to its website. In the member satisfaction survey conducted by auditors, 29 members had complained that DPR’s website was not up to date and provided them with inaccurate information.

DPR officials stated they will work to update the discrepancies identified.

Recommendations

To address the abovementioned findings, the auditors propose that DPR:

1. Relocate programs (or provide comparable ones) to an accessible floor at multi-level centers that are inaccessible to people with limited mobility.

DPR Response: DPR agreed with this recommendation.

2. Ensure that center staff conduct periodic checks of pool chair lifts to ensure they are operable; ensure that batteries are charged; provide and document regular training for staff on how to operate them and ensure adequate coverage by knowledgeable staff.

DPR Response: DPR agreed with this recommendation, stating that the agency “will explore adding a check of the pool chair lifts to the daily maintenance inspections at recreation centers to ensure the pool chairs are operational. Additionally, DPR will work with staff to ensure that staff at indoor pool sites received ample training on how to operate the chair lifts.”

Auditor Comment: The auditors also urge DPR to document such training.

3. Consider population distribution when planning and siting new facilities to ensure equitable access to services throughout the five boroughs.

DPR Response: DPR agreed with this recommendation.

4. Consider conducting a trend analysis to determine which programs are in high demand at their respective centers and determine whether it is feasible to adjust the times of day high-demand programs are offered to suit members and/or offering such program(s) multiple times a day.

DPR Response: DPR agreed with this recommendation.

5. Improve its efforts to ensure that equipment needing repairs is identified and addressed in a timely manner and that periodic checks are done to track the progression of those requests in AMPS.

DPR Response: DPR agreed with this recommendation.

6. Improve its monitoring of the daily maintenance checklists to ensure that center staff are completing and submitting them as required.

DPR Response: DPR agreed with this recommendation.

7. Periodically confirm with recreation centers that amenities are accurately recorded and establish written procedures outlining the protocols for updating of DPR’s website.

DPR Response: DPR agreed with this recommendation, stating that the agency “will work with the digital media team to update the amenities and other website pages to ensure accuracy.”

Auditor Comment: The auditors also urge DPR to  establish written procedures for updating the agency’s website to ensure that it is continually updated and remains current.

Recommendations Follow-up

Follow-up will be conducted periodically to determine the implementation status of each recommendation contained in this report. Agency reported status updates are included in the Audit Recommendations Tracker available here: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/services/for-the-public/audit/audit-recommendations-tracker/

Scope and Methodology

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS). GAGAS requires that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions within the context of our audit objective(s). This audit was conducted in accordance with the audit responsibilities of the City Comptroller as set forth in Chapter 5, §93, of the New York City Charter.

The scope of this audit was from July 1, 2021 through December 15, 2023.

To obtain an understanding of DPR’s internal controls governing its recreation centers, the following materials were reviewed and, where applicable, used as criteria:

• DPR’s Public Programs Maintenance Guidelines and Checklists dated August 3, 2016;
• DPR’s Perfect Mind Manual v3 dated February 11, 2022;
• DPR’s Recreation Evaluation and Center Assessment Program (RECAP) manual as of 2010;
• DPR’s webpage detailing the standards it uses to categorize recreation centers as ADA accessible and inaccessible;
• New York City Office of Technology and Innovation (OTI) Citywide User Experience Design Guidelines;
• New York City’s Open Data;
• Mayor’s Management Report for Fiscal Year 2023;
• Tittle II of the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Act 2010;
• United States Environmental Protection Agency’s website;
• 2020 Census Results for New York City;

To gain an understanding of the various roles and responsibilities of the recreation centers, the auditors met with key DPR officials who are involved with the operations at the centers. Specifically, the auditors interviewed the Assistant Commissioner and an Analyst for Public Programs; Borough Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs of Recreation for each of the five boroughs; a Center Manager representing one of the recreation centers in their respective borough; the Xplor Recreation Support team that manages the Xplor Recreation system (used by the recreation centers to maintain membership records); and the IT personnel who oversees AMPS.

To familiarize themselves with the layout and features of the Xplor system, the auditors reviewed the user manual and were provided with a walk-through of the system. During the walkthrough, DPR officials navigated through the system and shared several screens that captured various pieces of information as it pertains to DPR’s recreation center members.

To obtain an understanding of the operations at the recreation centers and see examples of the type of programs, amenities and services provided to members, the auditors conducted a walkthrough of the Chelsea recreation center on February 22, 2023 .

To evaluate the overall conditions at the recreation centers and ensure there were no health and safety hazards, the auditors conducted unannounced visits to 31 recreation centers throughout the boroughs from the period February 22, 2023, through March 15, 2023, and one in August 2023, to see whether amenities provided to members at the centers were in good condition . The 31 locations included 3 centers in the Bronx, 8 in Brooklyn, 12 in Manhattan, 4 in Queens and 4 in Staten Island. The observations revealed several issues, which were categorized according to exterior/interior areas, locker rooms and bathrooms, fitness equipment, safety and structural in accordance with classifications used by DPR’s OMP inspection report form. Auditors provided a list of issues that were identified to DPR on May 3, 2023, June 16, 2023, and November 13, 2023.

To assess whether information listed on DPR’s website had accurate and updated information, the auditors requested and received an excel file listing the names of recreation centers, along with the various types of staff led programs and amenities available at each center . According to DPR, the excel file was created using information extracted from both Xplor and DPR’s website. Using this data, auditors randomly selected 15 centers and performed limited data reliability testing to determine if the sampled amenities reflected in the dataset were also reflected on DPR’s website and found several discrepancies. There were 202 amenities offered at the 30 recreation centers in operation during our review period. Since discrepancies were noted, during the observation visits, auditors checked to see whether the amenities were available at the respective centers as noted in the excel document. A list of the discrepancies was provided to DPR.

To determine whether comprehensive inspections of the recreation centers were done and the number of centers that were deemed to be in satisfactory condition by DPR’s Operations and Management Planning (OMP) inspectors, the auditors obtained and reviewed 53 inspection reports for the period October 2021 to June 2022 from the Recreation Evaluation and Center Assessment Program (RECAP), done biannually of each recreation center. The inspections provide a rating of acceptable or unacceptable for the overall conditions at each inspected facility. The overall rating is determined by the results of three categories: safety, cleanliness and structural, with each category broken down into several ratable features. For the centers that received an overall condition unacceptable rating, auditors conducted visits to determine whether the unsatisfactory conditions noted by the OMP inspectors were corrected by center personnel . DPR was provided with a list of the outstanding conditions that auditors could not verify during the visits.

To assess whether the recreation center staff were completing the required daily maintenance checklist, the auditors requested and were provided with an excel spreadsheet as of March 17, 2023, which contained 8,974 daily maintenance inspection checklists records that were extracted from DPR’s SharePoint for the period September 2021 through to March 2023. In order to review a period that contained the maximum number of checklists for the maximum number of recreation centers that were opened, auditors focused their checklist review to calendar year 2022 which contained 5,504 checklists. To assess whether staff at each of the recreation centers completed the daily checklist as required, auditors randomly selected 10 days the centers should have been open and looked for the corresponding checklists for these days for our review. Auditors informed DPR of the missing checklists that were not found in the dataset.

To determine whether work orders were prepared by center staff for the issues identified during our observational visits of the amenities at each center, auditors requested the work order numbers for the issues identified by staff and entered in AMPS. Auditors were provided a total of 89 work orders on June 6 and 30, 2023, and November 17, 2023. Using the City’s Open data, auditors determined whether these work orders were created in AMPS.

For the three recreation centers—Brownsville, McCarren, and Metropolitan Pool—that were missing checklists for the entire review period, auditors requested clarification from DPR officials. Subsequently, the agency stated that 338 work orders were prepared by these three centers for the period . Using the City’s Open data, auditors verified that the works orders were submitted in AMPS.

To assess whether the facilities were readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disability, auditors conducted a second round of visits, from August 7 to 10, 2023, and completed observations at 30 recreation centers to assess whether the facilities were equipped with the accessibility features for persons with limited mobility, as listed in the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. An overall facility conditions observation was not done at Flushing Meadows Corona Pool during the March 2023 visits since it was closed at that time. The center subsequently reopened, therefore auditors conducted observations for both the overall conditions and ADA accessibility at the center during the second round of visits in August 2023 . Auditors provided DPR with the discrepancies identified.

To assess whether recreation center members were satisfied with the services provided at their respective centers, auditors developed a survey questionnaire soliciting their feedback on their level of satisfaction and asked for recommendation for improvements. Auditors received an excel file from DPR containing 92,530 email addresses associate to potential recreation center members. The data was cleaned to remove duplicates, email addresses that had email handles that appear to be erroneous. For the remaining 46,202 email addresses remaining, auditors emailed a survey questionnaire consisting of 17 questions intended to capture member satisfaction regarding the programs, amenities, and services provided at their recreation centers.

To assess the distribution of centers throughout the city, auditors obtained and reviewed economic data for 59 community districts and median household income from NYC Planning website. Auditors compared the community district median household income levels for each center against the citywide median household income of $67,046, as reported by the American Community Survey performed by the US Census Bureau for 2016–2020, and the respective population and center memberships throughout the City.

The results of the audit’s sample tests, while not projectable to their respective populations, provide a reasonable basis for the auditors to determine whether DPR is operating recreation centers in a safe manner.

Appendix I

Categories of Deficiencies Identified at 31 Recreation Centers During Observations

Appendix II

List of Recreation Centers

N/A – Not Available

Appendix III

Map of Recreation Centers and Field Houses in New York City

                 

Legend:

Open Recreation Centers 

Closed Recreation Centers
as of November 2023

 

Field Houses

Appendix IV

The following is a breakdown of recreation center member survey questions/topics and results.

Borough in which you reside:

Reason for joining (select all that apply):

Frequently visit recreation center originally joined or frequently visit other locations:

On average, how frequently do you visit recreation center during the year

Programs/ Amenities

 

Satisfaction Levels for Overall Conditions of 15 Amenities/Features at Facilities

Assessment of services

 

Responsiveness of Staff

Suggestions for Improvements

 

Demographic information

---

Endnotes

[1] DPR also maintains Field Houses, which are smaller facilities offering limited programming with no membership fee, and Community Centers, which are operated by community-based organization through agreements with DPR. This audit only covered the 36 facilities that are designated as Recreation Centers by DPR.

[2] The Americans with Disabilities Act, originally enacted in 1991, and revised in 2010, protects the rights of individuals with disabilities in employment, access to State and local government service, places of public accommodation, transportation, and other important area of life.

[3] Section 206.2.3 of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

[4] Flushing Meadows Recreation Center was closed for renovations during the February and March observations but was open during the August observations.

[5] In its response, DPR stated that fitness equipment repairs were delayed due to COVID-19 pandemic related issues impacting the manufacturing of fitness replacement parts and delivery times, in addition to recruiting new technicians to work on the fitness equipment.

[6] During 2021 and 2022, DPR was still in the process of reopening recreation centers that were closed for COVID-19.  There were five additional centers that were open by summer 2022, for which OMP inspections were conducted during that inspection cycle.

[7] Sunset Park Recreation Center was closed for reconstruction when auditors visited in August 2023, so only 30 of the 31 recreation centers visited were reviewed for ADA compliance.

[8] The audit did not test compliance with ADA requirements pertaining to people who are visually impaired.

[9] The indoor pools at two recreation centers were closed due to repairs being made to them.

[10] According to the American Community Survey performed by the US Census Bureau for 2016–2020, the citywide median income level was $67,046 for that period.

[11] Approximately 11,115 emails containing the survey were undeliverable.

[12] Von King Recreation Center was closed for most of CY2022 and reopened October 2022. As a result, nine checklists for Von King were not available for our review because the center was closed on the selected dates.