City of Janesville Citizen Engagement and Priority Assessment September 2012

Supporting Decisions | Inspiring Ideas

. 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%

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

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 and Behavior: Local Government 70

0 Wisely spent money spent Wisely Open to citizen ideas citizen to Open Website meets needs meets Website Well trained employees trained Well Leaders trustworthy Leaders are Effective communication Effective Overall Local Government Local Overall Well managed government managed Well 2012 Janesville 2012 National 2012 National 25,001-100k 2012 Midwest 2012 Midwest 25,001 -100k 2012 WI 24 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 24

Drivers of Satisfaction and Behavior: Taxes 90

0 Fairness of tax levels of tax Fairness Fairness of appraisals Fairness Overall Property Taxes Property Overall Adequate period to pay to period Adequate Bills easy to easy to understand Bills Quality received for taxes for received Quality 2012 Janesville 2012 National 2012 National 25,001-100k 2012 Midwest 2012 Midwest 25,001 -100k 2012 WI 25 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 25

Drivers of Satisfaction and Behavior: Community Events 80

0 Variety of events Variety Quality sporting events sporting Quality Range of cultural offerings ofRange cultural Overall Community Events Community Overall Strong/vibrant art community art Strong/vibrant 2012 Janesville 2012 National 2012 National 25,001-100k 2012 Midwest 2012 Midwest 25,001 -100k 2012 WI 26 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 26

City-Specific Services and Programs Bubble Chart

Bubble Size = Dollars Invested Fire resp. 8.8 EMS Library

Police Trash/Recycling Open space/parks Public facilities

Rec facilities

Public transport Rec programs Winter weather resp.

6.8

Performance (High=10) Sustainabilty init. Infrastructure Poverty init. Code enforcement

D'town dev.

Econ dev.

4.8 7% 46% 85% Percentage of Funding Importance (High=100%)

27 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 27

Support for Budgetary Actions General Budget Direction

50%

41% 40%

31% 30%

26%

20%

10%

0% Reduce City services to keep Reduce City services to Increase taxes/fees to maintain Increases taxes/fees to taxes/fees at the same level decrease taxes/fees services at current levels expand City services 28 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 28

Support for Budgetary Actions Reduce Service Levels

Reduce Service Levels 60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Fire response Fire infrastructure Library services Library Law enforcement Law Poverty initiatives Poverty Streets and urban and urban Streets Recreation facilities Recreation Public transportation Public Open space and parks Open Sustainability initiatives Economic development Economic Downtown development Downtown Recreation programming Recreation Winter weather response weather Winter Public buildings and facilities buildings Public Enforcement of maintenance of maintenance Enforcement standards on private property on private standards Trash and recycling collection and recycling Trash Emergency medical response medical Emergency

29 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 29

Support for Budgetary Actions Raise Taxes

Raise Taxes 50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

30 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 30

Support for Budgetary Actions Raise User Fees

Raise User Fees 60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

31 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 31

Support for Budgetary Actions Preferred Options for All Services

Reduce Service Levels Raise Taxes Raise User Fees 100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

32 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 32

Implementing Results

33 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 33

Perception v Reality: Minimize Distortion or Fix Real Performance Issues

34 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 34

Strategy is About Action: Improve Performance to Improve Outcomes

The diagram at the right provides a framework for following up on this survey. . The first step (measurement) is complete. This measurement helps prioritize resources and create a baseline against which progress can be measured. . The second step is to use internal teams to further 1 analyze the results and form ideas about why Measure respondents answered as they did and potential 2 actions in response. 5 Ideas/ Implement . The third step is to validate ideas and potential Brainstorm actions through conversations with residents and Outcomes line staff – do the ideas and actions make sense. Focus groups, short special-topic surveys and 3 4 benchmarking are helpful. Validate/ Train Confirm . The fourth step is to provide staff with the skills and tools to effectively implement the actions. . The fifth step is to execute the actions. . The final step is to re-measure to ensure progress was made and track changes in resident needs.

35 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 35

Be Clear About Your Strategic Outcomes

What are the characteristics of an ideal community through residents’ eyes?

36 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 36

Your residents want you to succeed.