Park Spending per Resident in Los Angeles County, Supervisorial Districts 1 and 3

Why This Matters

The 2016 Los Angeles Countywide Comprehensive Parks & Recreation Needs Assessment concluded that more than half of Los Angeles County is considered “park poor,” with 82% of these High and Very High Need areas in low-income Black and Latino communities. Chronic underfunding of parks in High and Very High Need areas has negatively impacted how long people live, the safety and health of our families, and the economic vitality of our neighborhoods.

Communities don’t just happen to be park-poor – these current conditions are the result of past decisions and policies, like Proposition A (Los Angeles County Safe Neighborhood Parks Acts of 1992 and 1996), which for the last twenty-five years was the County’s main revenue source for park acquisition and development. Prop A did not include mechanisms to address existing disparities in park access, and therefore contributed to even greater inequities over time. Proposition A marks another layer in the history of unequal distribution of park funding in the County that dates back more than half a century.

Policy Levers

The Safe, Clean Neighborhood Parks and Beaches Measure of 2016, also known as Measure A, was passed by Los Angeles County voters in 2016 and is estimated to raise $94.5 million annually for parks, beaches, and open space. Measure A passed only after the County performed a robust needs assessment to understand different communities’ need for parks and developed an equity-based formula for allocating funds. Measure A is an opportunity to remedy the inequities of the past and make sure dollars follow need, not just where dollars have gone in the past.

Indicators

We analyzed over 25 years of Proposition A investment data for Supervisorial Districts 1 and 3 and overlaid them with each area’s current park need status, as defined by the 2016 LA County Park Needs Assessment. From there, we determined the level of historical green space spending per study area and per capita.

The maps show how less-resourced study areas (those that received fewer dollars per capita from Proposition A) are more likely to be categorized as High or Very High need, illustrating how money tends to flow to well-resourced areas. Our budget analysis illustrates how the lack of equity metrics in previous park funding measures widened the park access gap by benefitting sparsely-populated open space areas at the expense of dense, neighborhood urban parks where a majority of low-income people of color reside.