Financing Strategies for Effective Campus Recreation Management

1 Campus Recreation Diamond Harrell SMGT 623: Sports Governance Dr. Lance Hatfield February 11, 2024

2 The task at hand pertains to financing as the existing policy domain concerning campus recreation. Sport administrators must address matters pertaining to finances, including funding sources, strategies for optimizing funding opportunities, the appropriateness of programming's cost-benefit ratio, and the justification of financing sources. It is evident that the responsibility of establishing and executing efficient financial management policies lies with the campus recreation administrator (Hums & MacLean, 2018). Presently, campus recreation administrators evaluate the merits of various funding alternatives prior to selecting the most advantageous one, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the campus. The principal funding sources are determined primarily by the objectives of the program and the beneficiaries who stand to gain from it. Prior to securing funding, it is critical to ascertain the objectives of the program and ascertain whether it will provide services to communities, students, faculties, or a combination thereof (NIRSA, 2020). Notably, some departments of campus recreation have begun allocating funds for wellness-related programs in addition to athletics and fitness initiatives. NIRSA (2020) finds that members are more inclined to contribute to programs that prioritize the needs and interests of individuals due to the substantial benefits such programs provide. Nevertheless, economic considerations should guide the pricing of the services so as to prevent disparities in health and wellbeing outcomes. Student fees are one of the most prevalent models of recreation funding on college campuses. It is imperative that recreation departments communicate their intentions to establish new recreation centers to the student bodies.

3 Subsequently, the departments ought to await the student bodies' decisions on their propositions, which would indicate whether or not their plan to construct a new recreation facility could be approved. As stated by Illinois State University (n.d.), students exhibit a favorable disposition towards the concept of wellness and recreation and are receptive to making contributions towards the development of novel programs and facilities. The recreation fee is subject to change based on the number of students but is typically as low as $15 per semester. An additional prevalent approach to financing campus recreation is through membership fees. A fee is required for non-members, including community members and alumni of the institution, to utilize the recreation facility or program. Non-students, community members, and alumni are more inclined to participate in the recreation facility's program or facility in comparison to alternative local recreational centers, provided that the facility delivers services of superior quality (Laing, 2010). Membership dues assist the recreation center in meeting operational expenses during periods when a majority of students are not utilizing the facilities or programs. Another model for financing campus recreation is through sponsorship. Sponsorship opportunities with local and even national businesses are an innovative way to acquire development funds. Recreation program planners or recreation departments can work out a deal with these corporations that enables them to get funding while they advertise their products to a wide range of college students (Laing, 2010). Sponsorship is a mutually advantageous strategy due to the fact that each party derives unique benefits. A robust sponsor relationship has the potential to endure for many years and may even provide the institution with future prospects.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 Wellbeing programs that are a component of campus recreation programs can benefit significantly from grant funding. There are numerous wellbeing programs that facilitate funding opportunities for student and community initiatives. The wellbeing program at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), for instance, is supported by external grants from foundations, corporations, and the government (NIRSA, 2020). The capacity of a recreation or wellness program to address issues affecting the health and wellbeing of students and the community is enhanced by external funding. Peirce (2016) asserts that a multitude of grants are utilized to tackle health concerns including but not limited to obesity, smoking, physical inactivity, and disease prevention. The majority of institutions identify grant opportunities through the use of library-accessible databases, such as Grants.gov and Foundation Center. The concept of securing funding from various sources for campus recreation is analogous to the biblical counsel found in Ecclesiastes 11:2. "However, diversify your investments across multiple locations, for the future risks you cannot predict" (Ecclesiastes 1:12, New Living Translation Bible, 1996/2015). The Bible encourages us to diversify our sources of income. Despite the inherent unpredictability of life and the possibility that some of our endeavors will fail, diversification ensures financial security and empowers us to exert control over our own financial destinies. Due to the inherent dangers of unpredictability, campus recreation programs should not depend on a solitary funding source, just as the Bible advises us to diversify our sources of income. Student fees, membership dues, sponsorships, grants, and a combination of these funding models should be taken into consideration by administrators of campus recreation. It is anticipated that challenging periods will arise, and in anticipation of this, administrators of campus recreation should diversify their sources of funding. Although not all of these sources

5 may yield identical outcomes, the process of diversification will ultimately offer them alternative options, prospects, stability, and financial gain.

6 References Hums, M. A., & MacLean, J. C. (2018). Governance and Policy in Sport Organizations. Routledge. Illinois State University. (n.d.). Funding. Retrieved from Illinois State University: Campus Recreation: https://campusrecreation.illinoisstate.edu/sportclubs/resources/funding/ Funding 101: Creative funding for university Rec centers . (2010, November 1). American Spa. https://www.clubindustry.com/universities/funding-101-creative-funding-for-university- rec-centers NLT | New Living Translation . (n.d.). http://www.tyndale.com/nlt/ Granholm, C. (2023, October 25). Funding . NIRSA. https://nirsa.net/nirsa/portfolio-items/health- and-wellbeing-funding/ Staff, A. (2016, February 25). Blog: Attracting Donors for Campus REC Projects. Athletic Business . https://www.athleticbusiness.com/uw-builders-blog/blog-dealing-with- donors.html

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

campus recreation

Related Documents