Getting Kids Outside to Play: Easier Said Than Done
Who will you meet?
Cities are innovating, companies are pivoting, and start-ups are growing. Like you, every urban practitioner has a remarkable story of insight and challenge from the past year.
Meet these peers and discuss the future of cities in the new Meeting of the Minds Executive Cohort Program. Replace boring virtual summits with facilitated, online, small-group discussions where you can make real connections with extraordinary, like-minded people.
It’s well-known that today’s kids don’t get enough exercise. And it’s a common assumption that this problem exists, in part, because children spend their time watching TV or playing video games or chatting with friends. They just need to get off their phones and tablets and go outside and play, right? Well, it’s not always that simple.
Outdoor recreation might be easy for some youth in suburban areas who have access to parks filled with playgrounds, soccer fields, and other amenities. But for children who live in urban neighborhoods, even in cities like New York with large parks, there is often a lack of public spaces near residential neighborhoods or schools. Due to this lack of access and proximity, children in urban areas are left to find places to play wherever they can find a space. It might be an asphalt lot lined with dumpsters or an alley between buildings; these accessible places aren’t always safe.
Research shows that children living in underserved communities are more than four times as likely to lack recreational facilities. This is significant when you consider that 71 percent of youth don’t get the recommended amount of physical activity, and that one in five school-aged children has obesity. The lack of safe places to play is an added barrier to living a healthy lifestyle for these children.
The solution isn’t as easy as telling our youth they need to go outside and play. We need to help bring safe play spaces—and programming—to the areas where our kids live and go to school.
Our Solution: The “Mini-Pitch”
At the U.S Soccer Foundation we aim to bring quality soccer programming and play spaces to more kids. To further expand our after-school soccer program, Soccer for Success, we knew we needed more quality spaces to play the game, especially in urban areas.
Our solution: build small-sized fields, which we dubbed ‘mini-pitches,’ in abandoned or underutilized spaces. For one of our first projects we built a small pitch, using Sport Court’s futsal surface product, between two housing developments in New York City.
We knew this space would be used for our soccer program. But what we didn’t expect was another result. Even when the program wasn’t being run, the brightly colored pitch attracted both youth and adults to play on the field. During daylight hours, you will almost always see people utilizing the pitch.
As we started to build more of these pitches, we saw more of the same results. We also began to use other materials to build these mini-pitches, often resurfacing lots with an acrylic coating that also provides a quality surface on which to play soccer. We designed the pitches in bright colors, which not only attracted people to use them, but also transformed the look and feel of the neighborhood. We found that for both structured and unstructured play, people were utilizing these spaces often.
Replication through public-private partnerships
After building many of these mini-pitches, we were confident we had a solution that worked. But even though these mini-pitches were economical, and significantly less expensive than full-sized grass or synthetic turf fields, they weren’t free. We started to question how we could implement these projects on a larger scale and bring mini-pitches to more neighborhoods. We found that building public-private partnerships was the key.
A great example of the power of this type of partnership is found in New York City. Last summer, the U.S Soccer Foundation announced that it would partner with the Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City, adidas, and the New York City Football Club (NYCFC) to build 50 mini-pitches across all five boroughs over the next five years.
The Mayor’s Fund and other city departments embraced these mini-pitches because they addressed inequalities in access to and use of parks and outdoors spaces. NYCFC and adidas liked the idea of joining with the Foundation to bring soccer to more kids who might not otherwise have access to the sport. A bonus is that the pitches would include the organizations’ logos, an excellent branding opportunity that got them in front of potential fans and customers. Together, all partners committed to raising the funds to build 50 mini-pitches throughout the city and provide free programming for residents.
Lessons learned from our first major partnership
1. Strong community partners drive the effort.
For the project to be successful you need a local champion who knows all the partners at the table and can help drive the effort on the ground.
2. Generate cross-sector buy-in.
Engaging non-traditional partners is key. Soccer was a great hook. But we ultimately got partners on board because of the many benefits that come from access to play—including the positive impact on the health outcomes of the entire community.
3. Offer quality programming.
The Foundation’s programming has proven health and social outcomes for participants. Having evidence of this made all in the difference in seeing this project through to the finish line.
The bottom is line is that these mini-pitches address barriers that impede people from being physically active by expanding access to play. In fact, more than 8,000 youth and adults have access to each pitch, on average, in densely populated areas. That translates to hundreds of thousands of people across our cities that have somewhere to exercise and play soccer right in their neighborhoods.
We still have work to do. But pitch by pitch, we are making it a little easier for all our children, no matter where they live, to ‘go outside and play’.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
People seem frequently to assume that the terms “sustainability” and “resilience” are synonyms, an impression reinforced by the frequent use of the term “climate resilience”, which seems to enmesh both concepts firmly. In fact, while they frequently overlap, and indeed with good policy and planning reinforce one another, they are not the same. This article picks them apart to understand where one ends and the other begins, and where the “sweet spot” lies in achieving mutual reinforcement to the benefit of disaster risk reduction (DRR).
As extreme weather conditions become the new normal—from floods in Baton Rouge and Venice to wildfires in California, we need to clean and save stormwater for future use while protecting communities from flooding and exposure to contaminated water. Changing how we manage stormwater has the potential to preserve access to water for future generations; prevent unnecessary illnesses, injuries, and damage to communities; and increase investments in green, climate-resilient infrastructure, with a focus on communities where these kinds of investments are most needed.
A few years ago, I worked with some ARISE-US members to carry out a survey of small businesses in post-Katrina New Orleans of disaster risk reduction (DRR) awareness. One theme stood out to me more than any other. The businesses that had lived through Katrina and survived well understood the need to be prepared and to have continuity plans. Those that were new since Katrina all tended to have the view that, to paraphrase, “well, government (city, state, federal…) will take care of things”.
While the experience after Katrina, of all disasters, should be enough to show anyone in the US that there are limits on what government can do, it does raise the question, of what could and should public and private sectors expect of one another?