Quality recreation programs are an essential component of the leisure services industry (Edgington & Neal, 1983; LaPage, 1983). Participation in recreation programs can lead to desirable outcomes such as personal development, self-efficacy, wellness, and resiliency. The extent to which these outcomes are realized is often directly related to recreation program quality. Although numerous textbooks focus on recreation programming (e.g., Rossman & Schlatter, 2000), most are written from a best practices perspective, which suggests that the models put forth lack the empirical support necessary for a credible body of knowledge. The purpose of this study was to improve this knowledge base by examining recreation programming practices by programmers and administrators. Specific research questions included: (a) Where are ideas obtained for new programs? (b) What term best describes the people served by agencies? (c) Do programmers and administrators perceive the steps of the Program Development Cycle (Rossman & Schlatter, 2000) differently? (d) Do programmers and administrators differ in the amount of time spent on each step of the Program Development Cycle? A survey based on the leisure literature was mailed to Illinois Park and Recreation Association members. Completed surveys totaled 177 for a response rate of 53%. Descriptive statistics, Chi-Square tests, and independent samples t-tests were used to analyze the data. Respondents were 96% white, 56% female, 60% programmers, and 40% administrators. Regarding ideas for new programs, respondents ranked looking at other agency brochures higher than popular media or survey/needs assessment data. This finding was surprising given the attention focused on the importance of survey/needs assessment data. The most common term used to describe the persons served by recreation agencies was participant (57%). Chi Square tests indicated that administrators significantly ranked the agency mission and strategic directions steps of the Program Development Cycle higher in importance than programmers. Chi Square tests also indicated that programmers ranked the evaluation step significantly higher in importance than administrators. Independent samples t-tests indicated that administrators spend significantly more time than programmers on agency mission and strategic directions, while programmers spend significantly more time than administrators on writing program plans, which is consistent with the Program Development Cycle. These results indicate that, with the exception of sources for new program ideas, the programming practices examined in this study were consistent with approaches presented by Rossman & Schlatter (2000). Future studies should investigate whether similar findings exist in a national sample of programmers and administrators.