by
Phil Rowe
Did you ever wonder how RV parks and campgrounds in your directory got those ratings? And why is it that some facilities don't measure up to what the ratings lead you to expect? That's what lots of people ask, so we're here to explain.
First off, you need to understand that the various rating systems and evaluation methodologies are not all the same. There is no standardization to ensure that what one directory says about a campground is consistent with what another reports. And even within any one directory, the ratings can vary from year-to-year for a variety of reasons.
Will it help if I tell you that evaluators are human and prone to make mistakes, have good and bad days, or have personal likes and dislikes? Probably not.
You need to know that most evaluators and raters of RV parks and campgrounds are people just like you. They are campers who enjoy the open road and visiting a variety of places. They vary in age from young couples to retirees and have very diverse backgrounds, educational credentials and work experiences. What they have in common, usually, is they are unpaid volunteers. Their compensation, for submitting a number of evaluation report forms each year, is seldom more than a complimentary copy of the directory they serve. And they have no vested interests, financial or otherwise, in the facilities they report upon. You would think that these people would be absolutely objective, honest and straight-forward in their assesments. In the main they are.
How does the evaluation process go? What is it exactly that determines what is said in the directory? And do the standard differ for campgrounds versus RV parks?
The evaluation process, for any particular directory, usually involves completion of an inventory form or scoresheet. The evaluator, inspector, is usually required to be a paying guest at the site to be examined. And he, or she, is not permitted to inform the owners or managers of the facility that an evaluation is being made. All evaluations are thus surprise visits, no-notice inspections, that assess facilities on a random basis. Hence there is little the facility management can do to influence the report.
The evaluator is expected to do a complete physical assessment vof the facility. That includes a count of the various RV spaces available, separating by category of services offered unimproved
sites from the fully developed. For example, there may be a total number of spaces defined by the management available for public use. The evaluator will count and verify that number for the report. The report will show the number of sites with water, electrical and sewer hookups respectively. And the reports typically show the number of sites which qualify as pull-throughs. This is often of interest to people stopping just one night, not wishing to unhook tow vehicles from trailers or fifth-wheel rigs.
The count of amenities is also made and recorded, such as the number of washers and dryers in the laundry room, the number of toilets, wash basins and showers installed, and the number and types of recreational items provided. The latter typically includes swimming and wading pools, tennis courts, shuffleboard sites, horsehoe pits, playgrounds, fishing or boating equipment, and even picnic tables and fire pits.
Some RV parks, and very few campgrounds, even offer television cable connections and telephone hookups. These too are reported.
The evaluator will visit the office, observe the behavior of the management and staff in dealing with customers, and make a judgement about their friendliness, courtesy and competence in
dealing with customer. While there, the evaluator will also inspect the store, if any, to assess the variety and completeness of the inventory as it meets the needs of campers. This includes a visit to any recreational halls, game rooms or other facilities which the management claims to offer.
So far the evaluator's efforts seem to reflect only the inventory of what is there. Nothing has been said yet about the quality and condition of the campground or RV park.
And this is the tricky part, for the guidelines given to evaluators by the directory publisher are not always precise and unambigious. A lot of room is there for subjective asessment. Just what constitutes EXCELLENT, GOOD, FAIR or POOR is open to debate. A lot depends upon the expectations of the evaluator. Sometimes the previous year's rating will influence the evaluation. And, because evaluators are all individuals, these assessments vary from one evaluator to the next. It is possible for two different evaluators to visit the same facility, on the same day, and come up with differing assessments.
What you see in your directory is usually an average of several independent evaluations, often over the span of a season. It's sort of evaluation by committee.
Finally, do the standards differ for campgrounds and RV parks. The answer is probably YES, and the reason is the different expectations and demands of customers who use RV parks versus those who stay at campgrounds. Differences also arise between facilities which cater to trasnsients, one-night guests, versus those which are destination parks or campgrounds.
Some evaluators are more demanding than others and tend to be more critical of the condition of facilities than merely inventory what is offered. For example, if last year's report stated that a particular campground had fifty sites, naturally the evaluator would expect that all those sites were available to traveling RV-ers. That isn't always the case, for oftentimes many of those sites would be occupied by permanent residents and thus unavailable to travelers.
It has been this writer's experience that parks and campgrounds which permit fulltime residents care little about the needs, or opinions, of transients. Hence the condition of restrooms, laundry
facilities and recreational equipment tends to be of lower quality than what is found elsewhere.
Evaluators tend to be disappointed when they find six washers and dryers in the laundry area, but only one or two of each in working condition. Yet, the evaluation forms, based upon inventory of equipment, will indicate six of each. The same goes for matters of cleanliness. It does the customer little good to expect four or five shower stalls, as reflected in the directory, and discover only one is clean enough to use or even operable.
Evaluating the quality and safety of swimming pools and hot tubs is seldom objective, because appearances can be misleading. What looks like a clean facility could indeed be contaminated, unsanitary and unsafe. The evaluator is not usually trained or equipped to judge.
This writer happens to be a part-time, volunteer evaluator for one of the popular directories. He also tends to be very unforgiving when things aren't right or don't measure up to standards. The problem is the standards are mine. The expectations are mine and the assessments are mine, no matter how objective I try to be.
But as a former military flight examiner, I tend to be a little hard-nosed. That's to the benefit of the traveler who depends upon what the directory says, and to the detriment of facility operators who don't want critical reviews. The latter can be consoled by the knowledge that evaluation reports tend to be averaged. The former should be careful.
You can be of help to your fellow travelers by making the effort and taking the time to let campground operators know that they are, or are not, meeting standards deserving of the ratings
they get. We, the customers, should insist on getting the quality we pay for and accept no less. We should also let good owners and operators know when we're pleased.