City of Janesville Citizen Engagement and Priority Assessment September 2012
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Supporting Decisions | Inspiring Ideas City of Janesville Citizen Engagement and Priority Assessment September 2012 MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM 2012111 © 2012 CobaltCommunityResearch Background on Cobalt Community Research . 501c3 not for profit research coalition . Mission to provide research and education . Developed to meet the research needs of schools, local governments and nonprofit organizations 2 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 2 Measuring Where You Are: Why Research Matters . Understanding community values and priorities helps you plan and communicate more effectively about City decisions . Perception impacts behaviors you care about . Understanding community perception helps you improve and promote the City . Community engagement improves support for difficult decisions . Bottom line outcome measurement of service and trust: Good administration requires quality measurement and reporting 3 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 3 Study Goals . Support budget and strategic planning decisions . Explore service assumptions to ensure baseline service measures are understood . Identify which aspects of community provide the greatest leverage on citizens’ overall satisfaction . Measure improvements by tracking performance over time . Benchmark performance against a standardized performance index statewide, regionally and nationally 4 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 4 Bottom Line . The City has performance consistent with regional and national benchmarks, but slightly below Wisconsin benchmarks . Janesville ACSI Score = 59 (National avg. = 62, Midwest avg. = 62, Wisconsin avg. = 67) . Areas where efforts to improve will further strengthen scores: . Economic Health . City Government Management . Property Taxes . Community Events . Top 5 service or program funding priorities: . Law enforcement . Fire response . Emergency medical response . Streets and urban infrastructure . Economic development . Detailed information by demographic groups is available to aid in policy review . Detail by: years of residency, own/rent, employment status, age, education, income level, marital status, household composition, gender and ethnicity 5 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 5 Available Tools . Detailed questions and responses broken by demographic group and “thermal mapped” so lower scores are red and higher scores are blue . Online portal to allow side-by-side comparisons of groups and subgroups (for example, breaking down the benchmarked scores of individuals divided by age, gender, etc.) . Online portal allowing download of data into MS Excel . Comparison scores with local governments in Wisconsin, the Midwest and across the nation . Comparison scores with non-local government comparables (industries, companies, federal agencies) 6 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 6 Preserving Voice: Looking Into Detail Sample: 7 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 7 Methodology . Random sample of 5,000 residents drawn from utility billing records . Utilized www.random.org, a well-respected utility used internationally by many universities and researchers to generate true random numbers . Conducted using two mailings in July and August 2012 . Used survey identification number to ensure valid response . Strong response from 971 residents, providing a conventional margin of error of +/- 2.8 percent in the raw data and an ACSI margin of error of +/- 1.3 percent (95% confidence) . Note: National surveys with a margin of error +/- 5% require a sample of 384 responses to reflect a population of 330,000,000 . Slight, expected skew towards older residents 8 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 8 Results 9 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 9 Communication Preference 75% 69% 63% 60% 56% 45% 34% 30% 27% 15% 9% 8% 6% 1% 0% Mail Newsletter Newspaper City Email City TV City Facebook/Social Text Website Channel Council Network Message Meetings 10 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 10 Communication Preference by Age Newspaper Facebook/Social Network Newsletter Text Message City TV Channel City Council Meetings City Website Email Mail 280% 260% 240% 220% 200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or over 11 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 11 Where do you go for local news? 75% 69% 60% 53% 44% 45% 36% 30% 15% 2% 0% Newspapers TV Stations Internet Radio Stations None of these 12 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 12 What TV station do you watch for local news? 60% 60% 54% 50% 46% 40% 30% 20% 15% 11% 10% 6% 3% 3% 1% 1% 0% WISC WMTV WKOW WMSN None of WREX WTVO WIFR WBUW WQRF (Channel 3) (Channel 15) (Channel 27) (Channel 47) these (Channel 13) (Channel 17) (Channel 23) (Channel 57) (Channel 39) 13 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 13 What radio station do you listen to for local news? 50% 43% 40% 34% 30% 26% 20% 20% 10% 8% 2% 1% 0% 1230 AM (WCLO) 99.9 FM (WJVL) None of these 107.3 FM (WSJY) 105.9 FM 1380 AM (WTJK) 1490 AM (WGEZ) (WWHG) 14 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 14 What newspaper/website do you read for local news? 90% 85% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 31% 30% 23% 20% 9% 10% 6% 3% 1% 0% Janesville Gazette Janesville Wisconsin State None of these Janesville Jotter Beloit Daily News Stateline News Messenger Journal 15 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 15 Citizen Engagement Model Citizen Experiences Citizen Outcome Behaviors Satisfaction=Value Schools Remain Transportation Recommend Fire/Emergency Volunteer Utility CSI Encourage Businesses Police Health Care Support Admin Overall Satisfaction Taxes Compared to expectations Community Image Compared to ideal Shopping Local Government Events Economy Parks/Rec Library Where to improve Where to invest next 16 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 16 Outcome Behaviors to Benchmarks (High score = 100) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Plan to to volunteer Plan Remain in community in Remain Support government admin government Support Recommend as place to live to as place Recommend Encourage business start up start business Encourage 2012 Janesville 2012 National 2012 National 25,001-100k 2012 Midwest 2012 Midwest 25,001 -100k 2012 WI 17 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 17 Community Satisfaction to Benchmarks (High score = 100) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Compared to ideal to Compared Overall satisfaction Compared to expectations to Compared Overall Community Satisfaction Community Overall 2012 Janesville 2012 National 2012 National 25,001-100k 2012 Midwest 2012 Midwest 25,001 -100k 2012 WI 18 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 18 Community Image Components to Benchmarks (High score = 100) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Safe place to live to Safe place Great place to to live place Great Physically attractive Physically Growing responsibly Growing Enjoyable for seniors for Enjoyable Enjoyable for children for Enjoyable Great place for for business place Great Perfect community for me for community Perfect Overall Community Image Community Overall Safe place to walk walk at night to Safe place Enjoyable for young adults for Enjoyable Safe place to bike bike and walk to Safe place Enjoyable for everyone else everyone for Enjoyable 2012 Janesville 2012 National 2012 National 25,001-100k 2012 Midwest 2012 Midwest 25,001 -100k 2012 WI 19 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 19 Quality of Life Components to Benchmarks (High score = 100) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Overall Library Overall Overall Diversity Overall Transportation Overall Overall Utility Services Medical Services Medical Overall Property Taxes Property Overall Overall Economic Health Economic Overall Overall Local Government Local Overall Overall Police Department Police Overall Overall Community Events Community Overall Overall Fire and Emergency and Emergency Fire Overall Overall Parks and Recreation Parks Overall Overall Shopping Opportunities Shopping Overall 2012 Janesville 2012 National 2012 National 25,001-100k 2012 Midwest 2012 Midwest 25,001 -100k 2012 WI 20 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 20 Understanding the Charts: Community Questions – Long-term Drivers High scoring areas that do not High impact areas where the currently have a large impact on City received high scores from engagement relative to the other citizens. They have a high areas. Action: May show over impact on engagement if investment or under improved. Action: Continue communication. investment Low scoring areas relative to the High impact on engagement other areas with low impact on and a relatively low score. engagement. Action: Limit Action: Prioritize investment to investment unless pressing drive positive changes in Perceived Performance Perceived safety or regulatory outcomes. consideration. Impact 21 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 21 Drivers of Satisfaction and Behavior: Strategic Priorities 86 Fire/EMS Higher Impact, Library Higher Satisfaction Utility Services Police Shopping Parks/Rec Taxes 65 Transportation Infrastructure Local Gov Community Events Mgt Diversity How are we performing? (100= Most Positive) Most (100= are we How performing? Lower Impact, Lower Satisfaction Economic Health 44 0.0 1.3 What happens to citizen engagement if we improve? 22 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 22 Drivers of Satisfaction and Behavior: Economic Health 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Living costs Living Quality of jobs Quality Availability of jobs Affordability of housing Affordability Overall Economic Health Economic Overall Strength of local economy of local Strength Stability of property values of property Stability 2012 Janesville 2012 National 2012 National 25,001-100k 2012 Midwest 2012 Midwest 25,001 -100k 2012 WI 23 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 23 Drivers of Satisfaction