The Pride of a Community- Fannie Jones-McKinney Park

 

The town of Mercer, population 342, is located on Highway 65 eight miles north of Princeton and 5 miles south of the Missouri/Iowa border.  The first settlers arrived in the 1820’s and by 1839, there were roughly 40 families in residence.  On February 14, 1845, Mercer County was established.  It was named after General Hugh Mercer who was killed in the Battle of Princeton during the Revolutionary War.  Princeton, NJ, is located in Mercer County as well, and Princeton, MO became the county seat. Originally, the town was platted in 1872 and was called Marion, but the name of the town was changed officially to Mercer on July 2, 1900.

 

Environmental Change Initiation

 

In 1999, a park project began in Mercer using seed money from the Missouri Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (MHDSP) Program, though funds obtained by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  This project continued through 2001 with the MHDSP Program, but as the citizens of Mercer have indicated, the park continues to be a “work in progress”.  They plan to continue to enhance the property with both landscaping projects and the addition of sports equipment as funds continue to become available.

 

One elderly woman was seen as key to the success of the project.  Before her death at 107 years of age, Fannie Jones-McKinney donated the 9-acre parcel of land her family had farmed.  In doing so, she stipulated that a community park be built on the site.  The availability of this land stimulated community leaders to apply for the seed money from the MHDSP Program, and it surely focused the decision to use the money to build an exercise trail in a park setting.  Also, the citizens of this community saw the pathway to funds as starting with organizing a group to gather data on availability of exercise facilities in Mercer.  The first phase was for the committee to conduct a survey to assess the policy and environmental barriers to physical activity and healthy eating.  The result of the community inventory was that there were no options for recreation.

 

The first year of the park project required the Mercer community to be inventoried to ascertain their perceptions of the barriers in their community to physical activity and healthy eating.  They also created a community coalition to aid with the park project.  As mentioned in the above paragraph, a lack of recreation facilities was identified as the greatest barrier in Mercer for physical activity.  Years two and three of the project required the creation of an implementation plan, the acquisition of additional outside funding for the park, establishment of additional partners to facilitate the creation of the park, and the actual building of a park from the ground up.

 

Mercer’s demographic profile has some interesting health implications.  The age categories 15-24 years, middle aged (baby boomers) and older aged adults seem to be increasing in numbers, with the percentage of the 65 and older population a significantly large 20%.  These age groups represent high-risk cohorts for whom increased physical activity and obesity prevention make great sense.  Also of interest is that 41% of the Mercer households were non-family units and 38% of all householders were living alone.  This could be relevant for the social network dimension of the intervention, that is, physical activity programs getting isolated people involved socially. 

 

The community is small, mostly rural, predominantly Caucasian (90% or greater), have lower than average median household income compared to the State ($23,906 vs. $37,934), and experience relatively high rates of families below the poverty level in comparison to the rest of Missouri (18.1% vs. 8.6%).

 

Focused interviews conducted with community coalition members, public health employees, the Rural Community Foundation (RCF), and other Mercer residents asked about the genesis of the project.  Everyone interviewed knew the story, and although the perspectives varied depending on roles played, important themes emerged from the interviews.

 

Public Health Agency Roles

 

People interviewed knew that the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services started the ball rolling toward developing the park.  One respondent said, “The Missouri Department of Health had money that was available for us—it was through the Centers for Disease Control—they, the state, received a grant as part of a state grant and they wanted to make funding available to local agencies.”  In 1998, the MHDSP Program received a grant from the CDC.  Funds from this grant allowed the MHDSP Program to support communities in making policy and environmental changes to promote activity and healthy eating.  Mercer responded to an initial request for application to begin the process of assessing and addressing policy and environmental barriers to physical activity and healthy eating.  In the first year of funding, very small grants ($1,000) were awarded to the county health department who worked in collaboration with local coalitions.  Due to continued success, over the past five years, the community was awarded additional funds totaling more than $25,000 to continue efforts towards making their town and city more inviting for physical activity and healthy eating.

 

Major Partners

 

In addition to the MHDSP Program, there were several major partners involved in this project.  These partners donated financial support, materials, equipment and/or labor.  The tables below list these partners.  The first table lists those partners that provided financial support.  The second table lists those partners that provided resources, what the resources were, and their approximate monetary value.

 

Type (Federal, State, Local, Private, Other)      Source                                     Amount

Federal                                     DNR-Landmark Local Parks Program  $21,744

Local                                        Rural Community Foundation                $     600

Local                                        Grand River Mutual                                          $     250

State                                        Conservation Department                                 $  2,000

Local                                        North Mercer School                                       $  1,000

Local                                        Farmers Bank                                                   $  1,500

 

Other program resources donated for the project:

Description of resource     Source of Donation                Estimated Monetary Amount

Land                                        Fannie Jones-McKinney                             $  5,000

Landscaping                             Coons                                                        $     500

Exercise Equipment                  North Mercer School                                 $  7,500

Light posts                                Grundy Electric Cooperative                       $  1,500

Bulldozing                                 Ron Stark                                                   $  3,000

Sewer Lines                             City                                                            $12,500

 

Mercer Park Board                  Seeks additional funding, coordinates development                   

School                                     Exercise equipment, cash                                                         

Local volunteers                       Time, labor, equipment

City of Mercer                          Park Maintenance

DNR                                        Funding for development

Girnder’s Lumber Co.              All materials were sold at their cost

Conservation Department         Funding for development of outdoor classroom

 

Several respondents perceived a grant strategy behind the MHDSP Program’s efforts.  One community leader said it best “So, the great thing about the cardiovascular health program, versus a lot of the other things that the State does, is that they give you money not only to survey and to identify the needs, but they give you money to address the issues.”

 

Another key supporting organization was the RCF.  The RCF does not actually deliver programs, but it does fund projects.  This organization, too, has a commitment to community participation and views itself as a partner to the Mercer coalition.  One of the RCF administrators put it best when he said, “We don’t deliver programs ourselves, we don’t actually do a lot of that, so we try to help with the finances that we have, and whatever time is available to give advice on other fundraising.  Something that we did with the Mercer Park Board, when they first got started, was some research on potential funders - potential public and private funders, and the Foundation prepared a report for the Mercer Park Board.”

 

Results from the Environmental Change

 

No formal evaluations of the park project were done.  However, in revisiting the community in 2004, interviewing community members and observing the usage at the park, the park project would be viewed as a great success.  In addition to creating an environment that is supportive of physical activity, the project has succeeded in stimulating additional activities, projects or events within the community.  For example, Mercer’s community park has led to the development of several children’s soccer teams and the park project brought all ages of the community together to work on one common goal.  The park gave the community a sense of ownership in a very important project.

 

Opposition

 

The citizens in Mercer did not encounter opposition to their efforts.  On the contrary, communities were very supportive.  From the notes taken from the residents per interviews by the interns, everyone was extremely excited about the grants and the possibility of having the means to improve physical activity in their communities.

 

Lessons Learned

 

The major lesson to convey through this study is that changes do not have to take an inordinate amount of money, nor do they necessitate major undertakings in order to move communities in the direction of becoming more convenient for healthy eating and physical activity.  The lessons this community demonstrated are ones of seizing opportunities, maximizing partnerships, creative use of funding, building on existing local assets, a dedicated staff, and having fun.  True, when thinking on a large-scale basis, changing the eating and physical activity landscape of communities seems overwhelming.  What this community succeeded in doing, however, is breaking the problem down into manageable components and attacking these components with innovation and energy, thus creating momentum and unearthing additional opportunities for further pursuit which, in the long run, can yield the kind of massive community change sought through this approach.

 

Submitted By

 

Linda L. Powell

Mo. Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Assistant Program Manager

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services

P.O. Box 570

Jefferson City, MO  65102-0570

573-522-2865 Phone     573-522-2898 Fax

Linda.Powell@dhss.mo.gov