2015 directionfinder® survey€¦ · executive summary . arlington county directionfinder®...

2015 DirectionFinder® Survey

Final Report

conducted for

Arlington County, Virginia

by

ETC Institute 725 West Frontier

Olathe, Kansas 66061

(913) 829-1215

June 2015

Contents

Section 1: Executive Summary .................................................... 1 Section 2: Charts and Trends ....................................................... 8 Section 3: Benchmarking Data .................................................. 45 Section 4: Importance-Satisfaction Analysis ............................. 58 Section 5: GIS Maps .................................................................. 80 Section 6: Composite Performance Index ................................ 140 Section 7: Tabular Data ........................................................... 143 Section 8: Survey Instrument ................................................... 179

Section 1:

Executive Summary

2015 Arlington County, Virginia DirectionFinder Survey: Final Report

ETC Institute (2015) Page 1

Executive Su

mm

ary

Arlington County DirectionFinder® Survey

Executive Summary

Purpose and Methodology

Purpose. ETC Institute administered a comprehensive customer satisfaction survey for Arlington

County, Virginia, during the spring of 2015. The purpose of the survey was to assess citizen

satisfaction with the quality of a wide range of county services, including: police, fire, public

transportation, trash collection, libraries, code enforcement, street maintenance, communication, and

many others. The survey contained many of the same questions that were included in the County’s

last comprehensive customer satisfaction assessments, which were conducted in 2004, 2008 and

2012.

Methodology. A seven-page

survey was mailed to a random

sample of households in

Arlington County in April 2015.

Approximately seven days after

the surveys were mailed,

residents who received the

survey were contacted by phone.

Those who indicated that they

had not returned the survey were

given the option of completing it

by phone or on the Internet. The

survey was administered in both

English and Spanish. Of the

households that received a

survey, a total of 1,512

completed surveys. The overall

results for the random sample of

1,512 households have a 95%

level of confidence with a

precision of at least +/- 2.5%.

In order to better understand how well services are being delivered by the county, ETC Institute

geocoded the home address of respondents to the survey. The map above shows the physical

distribution of survey respondents based on the location of their home. The results for selected

questions are shown by Census Block Group in the maps provided in Section 5 of this report.



Executive Su

mm

ary

The percentage of “don’t know” responses has been excluded from many of the graphs shown in this

report to facilitate valid comparisons of the results from Arlington County with the results from

other communities in ETC Institute’s DirectionFinder® database. Since the number of “don’t

know” responses often reflects the utilization and awareness of county services, the percentage of

“don’t know” responses has been provided in the tabular data section of this report.

This report contains:

a summary of the methodology for administering the survey and major findings

charts showing the overall results for most questions on the survey along with trends from

2004 and 2012

benchmarking data that show how the results for Arlington County compare to other

communities

importance-satisfaction analysis that identifies opportunities for improvement

maps that show the results of selected questions by Census Block Group

a composite performance index

frequency distributions for all questions on the survey

a copy of the survey instrument.

Crosstabulations, which show differences in the results based on the demographic characteristics of

the respondents (such as age, ethnicity, gender and income) are published in a separate appendix to

this report.

Overall Findings

Overall Satisfaction with County Services Rated Significantly Above the National

Average. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of the residents surveyed who had an opinion were

satisfied (rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) with the overall quality of services provided by

the county. This was 32% above the national average of 57%. Arlington County also rated

above the national average in 45 of the 51 areas that were assessed against national averages.

Services that Residents Thought Were Most Important to Improve. The major

categories of county services that residents thought were most important for the County to

improve over the next two years were: the maintenance of county streets and the

management of traffic flow on county streets.

Satisfaction with the Overall Quality of Life in Arlington County Rated Significantly

Above the National Average. Ninety percent (90%) of the residents surveyed who had an

opinion were satisfied (rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) with the quality of life in

Arlington County. This was 11% above the national average of 79%.

Arlington County is Moving in the Right Direction. Satisfaction with County services

improved or stayed the same in 62 of the 101 areas that were assessed in both 2012 and

2015.



Executive Su

mm

ary

Findings by Area

Public Works Services. The public works services that residents who had an opinion were

most satisfied with (rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) were: the adequacy of street lighting

in commercial areas (79%), the cleanliness of County streets and other public areas (78%)

and the maintenance of County buildings (76%). Residents thought the maintenance of

major streets and the maintenance of neighborhood streets were the most important

environmental services for the County to improve over the next two years.

o Trends in Public Works Service Ratings. Satisfaction ratings improved or stayed the

same in 4 of the public works service areas rated in both 2012 and 2015. There was

one significant increase (increase of 3% or more) in satisfaction ratings in the public

works services rated from 2012: mowing and trimming of County land in public

areas (+5%). There were two significant decreases (decreases of 3% or more) in the

following areas: maintenance of major streets (-9%) and maintenance of

neighborhood streets (-9%).

Utility Services. Ninety-one percent (91%) of the residents surveyed who had an opinion

were satisfied (rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) with the overall quality of residential trash

collection services. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of those surveyed were satisfied with the

quality of curbside recycling services. Residents thought that drinking water and wastewater

treatment services were the two most important utility services for the County to emphasize

over the next two years.

o Trends in Utility Service Ratings. Satisfaction ratings improved or stayed the same

in 3 of the 5 utility service areas rated in both 2012 and 2015. There was one

significant increase (increase of 3% or more) in utility services rated from 2012:

drinking water services (+4%). There was one significant decrease (decrease of 3%

or more): yardwaste removal services (-5%).

Public Safety. Ninety-one (91%) of the residents surveyed who had an opinion were

satisfied (rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) with the quality of local fire protection.

Ninety-one percent (91%) of those surveyed were satisfied with the quality of emergency

medical/ambulance service. The public safety services that residents felt were most

important for the County to emphasize over the next two years were: the County’s efforts to

prevent crime, overall quality of local police service, and enforcement of local traffic laws.

o Trends in Public Safety Service Ratings. Satisfaction ratings improved or stayed the

same in 5 of the 7 public safety areas rated in both 2012 and 2015. There were no

significant increases or decreases in satisfaction with public safety services rated

from 2012.



Executive Su

mm

ary

Perceptions of Safety in the County. Residents generally felt safe in Arlington County.

Most (97%) of those surveyed who had an opinion felt safe (rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point

scale) in their neighborhood during the day and 92% had an overall feeling of safety in the

County.

o Trends in the Perception of Safety Ratings. Satisfaction ratings improved or stayed

the same in all of the safety areas rated in both 2012 and 2015. There were no

significant increases or decreases in satisfaction with safety rated from 2012.

Parks, Recreation, Sports and Arts. The parks, recreation, sports and arts items that

residents were most satisfied with (rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) were: walking and

biking trails in the County (87%), maintenance of County parks (86%), and outdoor athletic

fields (81%). Residents felt efforts to preserve nature in the County was the most important

area of parks, recreation, sports and arts for the County to improve over the next two years.

o Trends in Park, Recreation and Art Service Ratings. Satisfaction ratings either

stayed the same or improved in 7 of the 12 parks, recreation, sports and art services

rated in both 2012 and 2015. The services with significant increases (increases of

3% or more) in satisfaction ratings from 2012 were: sports programs (+6%) and

outdoor athletic fields (+3%). The services with significant decreases (decreases of

3% or more) in satisfaction ratings from 2012 were: efforts to preserve nature in the

County (-4%), visual/performing arts programming and facilities (-3%) and off-leash

dog areas (-3%).

Customer Service. More than half (53%) of those surveyed had contacted the County

during the past year. Of those who had contacted the County, 80% were satisfied (rating of 4

or 5 on a 5-point scale) with how easy employees were to contact; 80% were satisfied with

the courtesy and professionalism of county employees, and 75% were satisfied with the

knowledge and technical competence of employees.

o Trends in Customer Service Ratings. There were no significant increases or

decreases in satisfaction with customer service rated from 2012.

Transportation. More than three-fourths (76%) of the residents surveyed who had an

opinion were satisfied (rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) with the availability of bike trails

and bike lanes in Arlington County; 74% were satisfied with the ease of traveling within

Arlington County, and 74% were satisfied with the quality of Arlington’s public transit

system (ART).

o Trends in Transportation Service Ratings. Satisfaction ratings improved or stayed

the same in all transportation services rated from 2012. Services that showed

significant increases (increases of 3% or more) in satisfaction were: quality of

Arlington’s public transit system (+11%), availability of transportation for persons

with disabilities (+10%), pedestrian safety in other areas (+6%), availability of bike

trails and bike lanes (+3%), pedestrian safety in neighborhoods (+3%), and

availability of sidewalks (+3%).



Executive Su

mm

ary

Code Enforcement. More than half (60%) of the residents surveyed who had an opinion

were satisfied (rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) with the County’s efforts to enforce the

exterior maintenance of business property and 57% were satisfied with the County’s efforts

to enforce the exterior maintenance of residential property. Less than half (47%) of the

residents surveyed who had an opinion were satisfied (rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale)

with the County’s efforts to enforce construction site conditions, and 46% were satisfied

with the County’s efforts to enforce noise regulations. Residents thought the enforcement of

noise regulations and enforcing construction site conditions were the two most important

areas of code enforcement for the County to improve over the next two years.

o Trends in Code Enforcement Ratings. Satisfaction ratings improved or stayed the

same in all of the code enforcement areas rated in both 2012 and 2015. The code

enforcement services with significant increases (increases of 3% or more) in

satisfaction ratings were: enforcing exterior maintenance of business property (+3%)

and enforcing maintenance of residential property (+3%).

County Communications. Seventy-four percent (74%) of the residents surveyed who had

an opinion were satisfied (rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) with the quality of information

on the County’s website; 71% were satisfied with the quality of the County’s newsletter, and

69% were satisfied with the availability of information on County programs and services.

o Trends in Communication Ratings. Satisfaction ratings improved or stayed the same

in 4 of the 6 communication areas rated in both 2012 and 2015. There was one

significant increase (increase of 3% or more) in communication services rated from

2012: the County’s Facebook and Twitter sites (+5%). There was a significant

decrease (decrease of 3% or more) in satisfaction ratings for the availability of

information on programs and services (-4%).

Library Services. Seventy percent (70%) of the residents surveyed indicated that they had

visited a County library during the past year. Of those who had used a library, 90% were

satisfied (rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) with the customer service effectiveness of in-

person services; 86% were satisfied with the depth and range of library collections. The

library service that residents felt was most important to improve over the next two years was

the depth and range of library collections.

o Trends in Library Service Ratings. Satisfaction ratings improved or stayed the same

in all of the library service areas rated in both 2012 and 2015. There were four

significant increases (increases of 3% or more) in services rated in both 2012 and

2015: hours libraries are open (+8%), programs for children (+5%),

computer/technology services (+5%), and notifications about what is happening in

the library (+3%).



Executive Su

mm

ary

Health and Human Services. The health and human services that residents who had an

opinion were most satisfied with (rating of 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale) were: the cleanliness

and safety of food in restaurants (84%) and the availability of services to seniors (67%).

Residents thought efforts to preserve and increase affordable housing was the most important

health and human service for the County to improve over the next two years.

o Trends in Health and Human Service Ratings. There were increases in satisfaction

ratings in 3 of the health and human services rated in both 2012 and 2015. The

service that showed a significant increase (increase of 3% or more) in satisfaction

from 2012 was the availability of services to the unemployed (+3%). There was one

significant decrease in satisfaction from 2012: efforts to preserve/increase affordable

housing (-4%).

Opportunities for Improvement

Arlington County rated very well compared other communities in ETC Institute’s DirectionFinder®

database. In fact, Arlington County’s performance is among the best in the nation. The high ratings

in customer satisfaction indicate that the County has done an excellent job of prioritizing County

services based on the needs of the community. Although the County’s ratings are currently high, the

following areas were identified as “high” or “very high” priorities and/or as “opportunities for

improvement” based on the importance-satisfaction analysis (see Section 4).

Overall Priorities for the County: maintenance of County streets, management of traffic

flow on County streets, the effectiveness of the County’s Smart Growth practices, and the

quality of the County’s human services.

Priorities for Specific Areas

o Public Works Services: maintenance of major County streets, maintenance of

neighborhood streets, snow removal on neighborhood streets, and maintenance of

public sidewalks.

o Utility Services: NONE, but drinking water services rated highest.

o Public Safety: NONE, but enforcement of local traffic laws rated highest.

o Parks, Recreation and Arts: efforts to preserve nature in the County.

o Transportation: NONE, but pedestrian safety in other areas of the County rated

highest.

o Code Enforcement: enforcement of noise regulations and the enforcement of

construction site conditions.

o Library Services: NONE, but depth and range of electronic materials rated highest.

o Health and Human Services: efforts to preserve/increase affordable housing.



Section 2:

Charts and Trends



50%

53%

41%

39%

35%

27%

28%

25%

22%

21%

19%

22%

17%

22%

10%

9%

42%

37%

46%

46%

44%

50%

44%

47%

47%

47%

46%

39%

41%

36%

37%

33%

8%

8%

10%

12%

19%

18%

21%

24%

25%

25%

25%

27%

30%

28%

30%

25%

1%

2%

3%

3%

2%

5%

7%

5%

6%

7%

10%

12%

12%

14%

22%

34%

Quality of fire/emergency med/ambulance services

Quality of County's library system

Quality of County parks/recreation programs

Quality of police services

Quality of County emergency preparedness services

Quality of County's water/wastewater services

Customer service you receive from County employees

Quality of County arts/cultural programs

Quality of County's stormwater runoff system

Efforts to help preserve/protect environment

Effectiveness of County communication with public

Quality of County's human services

Enforcement of County codes and ordinances

Effectiveness of County's Smart Growth practices

Management of traffic flow on County streets

Maintenance of County streets

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very Satisfied (5) Satisfied (4) Neutral (3) Dissatisfied (1/2)

Overall Satisfaction With County Servicesby Major Category

by percentage of respondents (excluding don't knows)

Source: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2015)

92%

90%

87%

85%

79%

77%

72%

72%

69%

68%

65%

61%

58%

58%

47%

42%

93%

85%

88%

86%

78%

75%

72%

76%

69%

73%

68%

58%

57%

66%

49%

51%

90%

89%

81%

85%

77%

75%

71%

70%

65%

57%

48%

47%

54%















Management of traffic flow on streets in County


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2012 2004

Overall Satisfaction With County Servicesby Major Category: 2015, 2012 & 2004

by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows)

not asked in 2004

TRENDS

not asked in 2004

not asked in 2004




55%

42%

33%

32%

30%

21%

19%

15%

12%

12%

11%

11%

9%

9%

8%

8%


Management of traffic flow on County streets















0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Sum of all four choices

Major Categories of County Services That Are Most Important for the County to Improve

Over the Next Two Yearsby percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top four choices


74%

35%

42%

28%

23%

57%

45%

53%

2%

7%

9%

16%

1%

1%

4%

4%

In your neighborhood during the day

Overall feeling of safety in the County

In your neighborhood at night

In commercial/retail areas at night

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Very safe (5) Safe (4) Neutral (3) Unsafe/Very unsafe (2/1)

How Safe Residents Feel In Certain Situationsby percentage of respondents (excluding don't knows)




How Safe Residents Feel In Certain Situations:2015, 2012 & 2004


97%

92%

87%

81%

97%

90%

86%

78%

96%

86%

80%


Overall feeling of safety in the County


In commercial/retail areas at night

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2012 2004

not asked in 2004

TRENDSSource: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2015)

42%

43%

33%

42%

27%

20%

18%

18%

16%

16%

10%

48%

46%

56%

42%

49%

44%

44%

41%

40%

40%

29%

8%

8%

9%

12%

21%

28%

24%

31%

34%

25%

36%

2%

3%

2%

4%

3%

8%

14%

10%

10%

19%

26%

Overall quality of life in Arlington County

Overall image of Arlington County

Quality of services provided by Arlington County

Quality of public schools in the County

Physical accessibility of County facilities

Overall inclusiveness of the community

Value you receive for County taxes

County's overall efforts to embrace diversity

County's efforts in civic engagement

How well County is managing growth

Transparency in County's decision making process

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Satisfaction With Items That Influence the Perception Residents Have of the County

by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 1 to 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows)




Satisfaction With Items That Influence the Perception Residents Have of the County: 2015, 2012 & 2004by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows)

90%

89%

89%

84%

76%

64%

62%

59%

56%

39%

92%

91%

89%

82%

78%

72%

63%

66%

62%

44%

86%

86%

86%

71%

59%

51%

Overall quality of life in Arlington County

Overall image of Arlington County

Quality of services provided by Arlington County

Quality of public schools in the County

Physical accessibility of County facilities

Overall inclusiveness of the community

Value you receive for County taxes

County's overall efforts to embrace diversity

How well County is managing growth

Transparency in County's decision making

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2012 2004

not asked in 2004


not asked in 2004

not asked in 2004

not asked in 2004

25%

21%

18%

15%

49%

51%

41%

39%

19%

23%

31%

32%

7%

5%

10%

15%

I trust information provided by Arlington County

I trust Arlington County employees

I trust the County Manager/other senior staff

I trust Arlington County's elected officials

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Strongly Agree (5) Agree (4)

Neither Agree or Disagree (3) Disagree/Strongly Disagree (2/1)

Agreement With Various Statements About Local Government





Public Works Services

23%

21%

18%

20%

17%

19%

11%

12%

8%

10%

56%

57%

58%

54%

55%

47%

45%

39%

40%

37%

16%

16%

21%

16%

21%

18%

25%

23%

21%

20%

5%

6%

3%

11%

7%

16%

20%

27%

31%

34%

Adequacy of street lighting in commercial areas

Cleanliness of County streets/other public areas

Maintenance of County Buildings

Snow removal on major County Streets

Mowing/trimming along County streets/public areas

Adequacy of street lighting in your neighborhood

Maintenance of public sidewalks

Snow removal on neighborhood streets

Maintenance of major streets in Arlington County

Maintenance of streets in your neighborhood

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Public Works Services





Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Public Works Services: 2015, 2012 & 2004


79%

78%

76%

74%

72%

66%

56%

51%

48%

47%

79%

77%

77%

74%

67%

67%

58%

52%

57%

56%

78%

71%

78%

72%

62%

66%

44%

60%

60%



Maintenance of County buildings

Snow removal on major County streets

Mowing/trimming of County land in public areas






0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2012 2004TRENDS

not asked in 2004


54%

49%

36%

32%

23%

18%

15%

8%

8%

4%







Snow removal on major County Streets



Maintenance of County Buildings

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Sum of Top Three Choices

Public Works Services That Are Most Important to Improve Over the Next Two Years

by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top three choices




Utility Services

51%

49%

32%

40%

33%

29%

40%

40%

47%

39%

45%

46%

6%

9%

16%

15%

20%

21%

2%

2%

5%

7%

2%

5%

Residential trash collection services

Curbside recycling services

Drinking water services

Yardwaste removal services

Wastewater treatment services

Stormwater management services

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Utility Services





Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Utility Services: 2015, 2012 & 2004


91%

89%

79%

79%

78%

91%

90%

75%

84%

76%

88%

83%

76%

75%






0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2012 2004

not asked in 2004


32%

23%

23%

20%

19%

15%







0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Sum of Top Two Choices

Utility Services That Are Most Important for the County to Improve Over

the Next Two Yearsby percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top two choices




Public Safety Services

42%

45%

44%

36%

30%

22%

19%

49%

46%

44%

50%

52%

47%

41%

9%

9%

11%

11%

15%

22%

27%

1%

1%

1%

3%

3%

9%

13%

Overall quality of local fire protection

Quality of emergency medical/ambulance service

How quickly public safety personnel respond

Overall quality of local police service

County's efforts to prevent crime

Enforcement of local traffic laws

Enforcement of parking regulations

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Public Safety Services





Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Public Safety Services: 2015, 2012 & 2004


91%

91%

88%

86%

82%

69%

60%

92%

91%

89%

86%

82%

68%

60%

88%

86%

82%

86%

68%

61%

60%



How quickly public safety personnel responds





0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2012 2004TRENDSSource: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2015)

42%

33%

27%

22%

21%

20%

14%








0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%


Public Safety Services Most Important for the County to Improve Over the Next Two Years





Parks, Recreation, Sports & Arts

41%

32%

31%

30%

28%

26%

25%

24%

27%

21%

17%

23%

46%

54%

50%

49%

49%

49%

46%

46%

41%

42%

44%

37%

9%

10%

15%

18%

18%

21%

18%

27%

24%

29%

30%

28%

4%

4%

4%

3%

5%

4%

11%

3%

8%

9%

10%

11%

Walking and biking trails in the County

Maintenance of County parks

Outdoor athletic fields

Sports programs

Community and nature centers

Recreation programs

Efforts to preserve nature in the County

Special events sponsored by the County

Indoor swimming pools

Visual/performing arts programming/facilities

Fees charged for programs

Off-leash dog areas (community canine areas)

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Parks, Recreation, Sports & Arts





Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Parks, Recreation, Sports & Arts: 2015, 2012 & 2004


87%

86%

81%

79%

77%

75%

71%

70%

68%

63%

61%

60%

87%

85%

78%

73%

79%

75%

75%

68%

66%

66%

62%

63%

82%

73%

65%

62%

46%

65%

53%




Sports programs


Recreation programs


Special events sponsored by the county





0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2012 2004

not asked in 2004

not asked in 2004


not asked in 2004

not asked in 2004

not asked in 2004

36%

29%

27%

17%

15%

13%

13%

12%

11%

10%

8%

8%









Recreation programs



Sports programs

0% 20% 40%


Parks, Recreation, Sports & Arts Items Most Important for the County to Improve Over the Next Two Years





County Interaction

Yes51%

No49%

Yes53%

No47%

Have You Contacted the County with a Question, Service Request, or Complaint During the Past year?

by percentage of respondents

2012 2015


TRENDS



67%

40%

30%

12%

5%

4%

2%

1%

By phone

E-mail

Visit in person

The "County's Report-a-Problem" Website

Letter/mail

Arlington VA Mobile app

Facebook/Twitter

Fax

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

How Have You Contacted the County During the Past Year?

by percentage of respondents who had contacted County


67%

40%

30%

5%

2%

1%

76%

41%

28%

7%

1%

2%

83%

23%

30%

10%

5%

By phone

E-mail

Visit in person

Letter/mail

Facebook/Twitter

Fax

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2012 2004

How Have You Contacted the County During the Past Year? 2015, 2012 & 2004

by percentage of respondents who had contacted County


not asked in 2004



24%

21%

14%

14%

13%

11%

9%

6%

5%

4%

Solid waste (e.g. trash/recycling)

Treasurer/Commissioner of Revenue

Street Maintenance

Parks & Recreation

Police

Planning/Code Enforcement

Libraries

Health/Human Services

County Manager/Board

Fire/Emergency Medical/Rescue

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Which service area did you contact most recently? by percentage of respondents who had contacted the County


43%

47%

42%

41%

37%

33%

33%

29%

9%

11%

13%

9%

10%

9%

12%

21%

How easy they were to contact

Courtesy and professionalism

Knowledge and technical competence

Ability to help resolve your issue

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Satisfaction with the Customer Service Received From County Employees





Satisfaction with the Customer Service Received From County Employees: 2015, 2012 & 2004


80%

80%

75%

70%

79%

81%

76%

68%

77%

78%

71%

64%


Courtesy and professionalism

Knowledge and technical competence

Ability to help resolve your issue

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2012 2004


Transportation



32%

30%

23%

26%

25%

22%

24%

21%

21%

16%

22%

46%

46%

51%

49%

49%

49%

46%

49%

48%

46%

39%

19%

17%

14%

17%

21%

22%

16%

18%

18%

27%

33%

3%

7%

12%

9%

5%

7%

15%

13%

13%

12%

6%

Availability of Bikeshare

Availability of bike trails and bike lanes

Ease of traveling within Arlington County

Quality of Metro rail services in Arlington

Quality of Arlington's public transit system (ART)

Quality of Metro bus services in Arlington

Pedestrian safety in your neighborhood

Availability of sidewalks

Ease of travel from Arlington County to other area

Pedestrian safety in other areas of the County

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Satisfaction with Transportation in Arlington County


Availability of transportation for persons with disabilities


Satisfaction with Transportation in Arlington County: 2015, 2012 & 2004


76%

74%

74%

70%

70%

69%

62%

61%

73%

73%

63%

67%

67%

68%

56%

51%

70%

68%

64%

60%

58%

64%

50%

55%







Pedestrian safety in other areas of the county

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2012 2004TRENDS





30%

27%

26%

25%

23%

23%

18%

16%

15%

8%

5%





Pedestrian safety in other areas of the County

Quality of Metro rail services in Arlington


Quality of Metro bus services in Arlington



0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%


Transportation Services Most Important to Improve Over the Next Two Years




Code Enforcement



15%

15%

12%

11%

45%

42%

35%

35%

33%

31%

33%

31%

7%

12%

21%

23%

Enforcing exterior maint. of business property

Enforcing exterior maint. of residential property

Enforcing construction site conditions

Enforcing noise regulations

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Satisfaction With Code Enforcementby percentage of respondents (excluding don't knows)


Satisfaction With Code Enforcement:2015, 2012 & 2004


60%

57%

47%

46%

57%

54%

47%

46%

54%

53%

42%

44%





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

2015 2012 2004TRENDSSource: ETC Institute DirectionFinder (2015)



37%

36%

23%

20%





0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%


Code Enforcement Services that are the Most Important to Improve Over the Next 2 Years

by percentage of respondents who selected the item as one of their top two choices


Communication



23%

22%

18%

20%

21%

17%

16%

51%

49%

51%

45%

40%

40%

35%

21%

25%

24%

25%

36%

37%

45%

5%

4%

7%

10%

3%

6%

4%

Information on the County's website

Quality of the County's newsletter, The Citizen

Information about County programs/services

Efforts to keep residents informed on local issues

The County's e-subscriptions

County's cable TV channel, AVN

The County's Facebook and Twitter sites

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Satisfaction with Communicationby percentage of respondents (excluding don't knows)


Satisfaction with Communication:2015, 2012 & 2004


74%

71%

69%

65%

57%

51%

72%

73%

73%

65%

57%

46%

63%

70%

70%

62%

47%

Quality of information on the County's website

Quality of County's newsletter, The Citizen

Availability of information on programs/services

Efforts to keep residents informed on local issues

County cable TV channel

The County's Facebook and Twitter sites

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2012 2004

not asked in 2004




Primary Sources Currently Used to Get Information About County Issues, Services, and Events


53%

51%

45%

37%

36%

29%

24%

22%

8%

8%

7%

6%

4%

2%

1%

The County newsletter, The Citizen

The Washington Post

County website

ARLNow

Sun Gazette

Local TV/cable news/radio

Civic association newsletters/listservs

Parks and Recreation publications

Arlington Insider (County's e-newsletter)

Arlington's cable TV channel (ATV)

County Facebook/Twitter feeds

Other local media/blogs

County press releases/newsroom

Latino media

Spanish language website

0% 20% 40% 60%


Have you watched ATV (Arlington TV) programming?by percentage of respondents

Yes, on cable TV18%

Yes, on Internet2%

No, I don't watch ATV79%

Not provided1%




What programming is most important to you?by percentage of respondents who watched ATV programming

47%

35%

30%

29%

28%

News/current events

County Board meetings

History

Arts/culture/lifestyle

Government programs/services

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


Emergency Preparedness



24%

13%

12%

10%

45%

33%

31%

26%

23%

22%

27%

37%

9%

32%

31%

26%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Strongly Agree (5) Agree (4) Neutral (3) Disagree (2/1)

Level of Agreement with Statements About Emergency Preparedness Services


My household is prepared with food, waterand other supplies for an emergency

The County has done a good job educating the public about what to do in an emergency

I know where to get information during an emergency

I find emergency alerts useful to help prepare for emergencies


46%

43%

36%

42%

42%

38%

54%

57%

55%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

2015 2012 2004

Level of Agreement with Statements About Emergency Preparedness Services: 2015, 2012 & 2004

by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale

TRENDS

I know where to get information during an emergency

My household is prepared with food, waterand other supplies for an emergency

The County has done a good job educating the public about what to do in an emergency




Libraries

Have you or other members of your household used County library services during the past year?

by percentage of respondents (multiple responses allowed)

70%

39%

26%

Visited a County library

Used online library services (web/internet)

Have not used County library svcs during past yr

0% 20% 40% 60%




Why haven’t you used County library services during the past year?

by percentage of respondents who had not visited a library during the past year

51%

41%

27%

10%

5%

4%

2%

1%

I use the Internet

Do not have a need for library services

Too busy to use library services

Not aware of library services

Does not have programs that interest me

Do not have transportation

Does not have the materials I need

Services/materials not offered in my language

0% 20% 40% 60%


46%

37%

36%

31%

30%

29%

24%

25%

44%

49%

42%

45%

44%

41%

43%

39%

9%

10%

20%

21%

15%

27%

24%

28%

2%

4%

2%

4%

11%

3%

9%

8%

Depth and range of library collections

Programs for children

Computer technology services

Hours libraries are open

Programs for adults

Depth and range of electronic materials

Notifications about what's happening in library

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Satisfaction with Library Services by percentage of respondents (excluding don't knows)

Customer service effectiveness of in-person services




90%

86%

78%

76%

74%

70%

67%

64%

88%

84%

73%

71%

66%

69%

67%

61%

91%

79%

76%

Depth and Range of library collections


Computer/technology services


Programs for adults

Depth and range of electronics materials

Notifications about what is happening in library

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2012 2004

Satisfaction with Library Services: 2015, 2012 & 2004by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale (excluding don't knows)

not asked in 2004

TRENDS

Asked as “helpfulness of library staff” in previous yearsCustomer service effectiveness of in-person services


not asked in 2004

not asked in 2004

not asked in 2004

not asked in 2004

32%

29%

26%

16%

12%

12%

10%

5%







Programs for adults

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%


Library Services Most Important to Improve Over the Next TWO years






Health&

Human Services

24%

20%

16%

18%

16%

14%

11%

60%

47%

45%

38%

35%

32%

28%

12%

26%

30%

33%

33%

42%

31%

4%

7%

9%

12%

16%

13%

30%

Cleanliness/safety of food in restaurants

Availability of services to seniors

Overall quality of school health programs

Availability of services to the unemployed

Efforts to preserve/increase affordable housing

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Satisfaction with Health and Human Services


Availability of quality services for personswith disabilities

Availability of services to people on a low or fixed income




84%

67%

61%

56%

51%

46%

39%

83%

69%

61%

57%

49%

43%

43%

79%

68%

58%

45%






0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2015 2012 2004

Satisfaction with Health and Human Services:2015, 2012 & 2004

by percentage of respondents who rated the item as a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale

not asked in 2004

not asked in 2004


TRENDS



not asked in 2004

34%

19%

18%

18%

17%

16%

10%






0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Sum of Top Two choices

Health and Human Services That are Most Important to Improve Over the Next Two Years







Demographics

Do you own or rent your home?

Rent 31%

Own68%

Not provided1%





Which of the following best describes your home?

Single family 57%

Duplex/triplex5%

Condo/apartment34%

Other2%

Not provided1%



How Many Years Have You Lived in Arlington County, Virginia?


Less than 3 years11%

3-5 years10%

6-10 years17%

11-15 years13%

16-20 years11%

21-30 years16%

31+ years19%

Not provided2%

Less than 3 years8%

3-5 years12%

6-10 years16%

11-15 years13%

16-20 years12%

21-30 years18%

31+ years19%

Not provided2%

2012 2015




White72%

Other28%

White71%

Other29%

Percentage of Arlington County Residents Who Are Whiteby percentage of respondents

2010 Census Data 2015 Survey


Percent of Arlington County Residents Who Are Hispanic/Latino



Hispanic/Latino15%

Other 85%

Hispanic/Latino16%

Other 84%




Percent of Arlington County Residents Who Are Black/African American



Black/African American9%

Other 91%

Black/African American8%

Other 92%


Percent of Arlington County Residents Who Are Asian/Pacific Islander



Asian/Pacific Islander10%

Other 90%

Asian/Pacific Islander10%

Other 90%




Percent of Arlington County Residents Who Are American Indian/Eskimo



American Indian/Eskimo1%Other

99%

American Indian/Eskimo1%Other

99%


Yes 87%

No13%

Is English the primary language spoken in your home?by percentage of respondents




Yes 7%

No92%

Not provided1%

Do you have a physical disability?by percentage of respondents


Under age 1010%

11-19 years9%

20-44 years36%

45-64 years31%

Ages 65+14%

Ages of Household Occupantsby percentage of respondents




Under $35,0006%

$35,000-$79,99916%

$80,000-$149,99930%

$150,000+43%

Not Provided5%

Total Annual Household Income by percentage of respondents


Male49%

Female51%

Gender of the Respondentsby percentage of respondents




Section 3:

Benchmarking Data



Ben

chm

arking A

nalysis

DirectionFinder Survey

Year 2015 Benchmarking Summary Report

Overview

ETC Institute's DirectionFinder® program was originally developed in 1999 to help community

leaders across the United States use statistically valid community survey data as a tool for

making better decisions. Since November 1999, the survey has been administered in more than

300 cities and counties in 43 states.

This report contains benchmarking data from two sources. The first source is from a national

survey that was administered by ETC Institute during the summer of 2014 to a random sample of

nearly 4,000 residents in the continental United States. The second source is from individual

community surveys that were administered in 24 large communities (population of 100,000 or

more) between January 2012 and April 2015. The “U.S. Average” shown in this report reflects

the overall results of ETC Institute’s national survey. The results from individual communities

were used as the basis for developing the ranges of performance that are shown in this report for

specific types of services. The 24 communities included in the performance ranges that are

shown in this report are listed below:

Arlington County, VA

Abilene, TX

Austin, TX

Columbia, MO

Coral Springs, FL

Dallas, TX

Des Moines, IA

Durham, NC

Fort Worth, TX

Henderson, NV

High Point, NC

Independence, MO

Johnson County, KS

Mesa County, CO

Norman, OK

Oklahoma City, OK

Olathe, KS

Overland Park, KS

Pueblo, CO

San Francisco, CA

Springfield, MO

Tempe, AZ

Vancouver, WA

Yuma County, AZ

Interpreting the Charts

The charts on the following pages provide comparisons for several items that were rated on the

survey. The percentages shown reflect the sum of the positive ratings given by respondents

excluding “don’t knows.”



Ben

chm

arking A

nalysis

The two sets of charts are briefly described below:

On the first set of charts, the blue bars show the results for Arlington County and the tan

bars show the results of a national survey that was conducted by ETC Institute in the

summer of 2014 to nearly 4,000 residents across the Unites States.

On the second set of charts, the horizontal bar shows the range of performance among

communities in ETC Institute’s DirectionFinder® database for communities with more

than 100,000 residents. The yellow dot on each chart shows the rating for Arlington

County. The vertical line shows the average rating for communities with more than

100,000 residents.



National Benchmarks

Note: The benchmarking data contained in this report is protected intellectual property. Any reproduction of

the benchmarking information in this report by persons or organizations not directly affiliated with

Arlington County is not authorized without written consent from ETC Institute.

92%

90%

87%

85%

79%

77%

72%

69%

65%

58%

47%

42%

89%

82%

71%

72%

61%

73%

55%

62%

46%

49%

52%

44%

Fire & emergency medical/ambulance services

Quality of the County's library system

Parks/recreation programs

Police services

Emergency preparedness services

Water and wastewater services

Customer service

Stormwater runoff system

Effectiveness of communication w/ the public

Enforcement of codes & ordinances

Management of traffic flow


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Arlington County U.S.

by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scalewhere 5 was "very satisfied" and 1 was "very dissatisfied" (excluding don't knows)

Overall Satisfaction with Major Categories of County Services - Arlington County vs. the U.S.




90%

89%

89%

84%

62%

56%

79%

72%

57%

70%

43%

44%

Overall quality of life in the County

Overall image of the County

Overall quality of services provided by the County

Quality of public schools

Value received for County taxes

How well the County is managing growth

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%



Satisfaction with Issues that Influence Perceptions of the County - Arlington County vs. the U.S.


97%

92%

87%

91%

79%

67%


Overall feeling of safety


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


How Safe Residents Feel in Their CommunityArlington County vs. the U.S.

by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scalewhere 5 was "very safe" and 1 was "very unsafe" (excluding don't knows)




78%

74%

72%

56%

48%

47%

51%

64%

64%

63%

51%

57%

54%

48%

Cleanliness of County streets & public areas


Mowing/trimming of streets & public areas


Maintenance of major County streets

Maintenance of neighborhood streets


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Overall Satisfaction with Public Works ServicesArlington County vs. the U.S.



91%

79%

79%

78%

82%

70%

78%

74%





0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Overall Satisfaction with Utility ServicesArlington County vs. the U.S.





91%

91%

88%

86%

82%

69%

60%

89%

85%

75%

72%

60%

64%

60%

Local fire protection



Local police service

Crime prevention



0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Overall Satisfaction with Public SafetyArlington County vs. the U.S.



87%

86%

81%

68%

54%

77%

68%

48%

Walking/biking trails



County swimming pools

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Overall Satisfaction with Parks, Recreation, Sports & ArtsArlington County vs. the U.S.





80%

70%

70%

56%


Ability to resolve your issue

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Overall Satisfaction with Customer ServiceArlington County vs. the U.S.



60%

57%

59%

48%

Enforcing exterior maint of business property

Enforcing exterior maint of residential property

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Overall Satisfaction with Code EnforcementArlington County vs. the U.S.





74%

69%

65%

57%

59%

52%

48%

57%


Availability of information on services/programs

County efforts to keep residents informed

The County's cable TV channel

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Overall Satisfaction with CommunicationArlington County vs. the U.S.



Large Community Benchmarks

(populations of 100,000 or more only)



94%

95%

91%

89%

79%

78%

87%

82%

82%

73%

75%

75%

68%

48%

57%

71%

46%

62%

47%

36%

39%

35%

18%

27%

Fire & emergency medical/ambulance services

Parks/recreation programs

Police services

Quality of the library system


Water and wastewater services

Customer service

Stormwater runoff system

Effectiveness of communication w/ the public

Enforcement of codes & ordinances

Maintenance of major streets

Management of traffic flow

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overall Satisfaction with County Services by Major Category - Large Communities

LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH

Arlington County,VA

92%

72%

77%

65%

79%

69%



58%

42%

47%

87%

85%

90%

96%

94%

92%

85%

73%

56%

39%

33%

28%

34%

Overall quality of life in the community

Overall image of your community

Overall quality of services provided

Value received for taxes

How well growth is being managed

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH

Perceptions that Residents Have of the Community in Which They Live - Large Communities

90%

89%



56%

62%

89%




97%

93%

90%

71%

42%

42%


Overall feeling of safety


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH

How Safe Residents Feel in Their Community Large Communities

92%


by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scalewhere 5 was "very safe" and 1 was "very unsafe" (excluding don't knows)

87%

97%


89%

84%

79%

88%

85%

88%

73%

30%

49%

46%

24%

17%

35%

22%

Cleanliness of streets & public areas

Snow removal on major streets

Mowing/trimming of streets & public areas


Maintenance of major streets

Maintenance of neighborhood streets


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH

Satisfaction with Public Works Services Large Communities

78%

74%

56%

57%

72%



47%

51%




96%

95%

88%

91%

83%

81%

74%

65%

43%

57%

39%

46%

Local fire protection



Local police service

Crime prevention


0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH

Satisfaction with Public Safety - Large Communities

91%

88%

82%


by percentage of respondents who rated the item 4 or 5 on a 5-point scalewhere 5 was "Strongly Agree" and 1 was "Strongly Disagree" (excluding don't knows)

86%

91%

69%


91%

95%

86%

83%

46%

50%

45%

34%

Walking/biking trails

Maintenance of local parks


Swimming pools

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH

Satisfaction with Parks, Recreation and Arts Large Communities

87%

86%



81%

68%




71%

62%

44%

23%

Enforcing exterior maint of business property

Enforcing exterior maint of residential property

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH

Satisfaction with Code Enforcement Large Communities

60%

57%




80%

87%

78%

66%

42%

31%

41%

32%

Availability of information on services/programs


Efforts to keep residents informed

The County's cable TV channel

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%LOW---------MEAN--------HIGH

Satisfaction with Various Aspects of Communication Large Communities

57%



69%

74%

65%




Section 4:

Importance-Satisfaction Analysis



Importan

ce‐Satisfaction Analysis

Importance-Satisfaction Analysis Arlington County, Virginia

Overview Today, County officials have limited resources which need to be targeted to activities that are of the most benefit to their citizens. Two of the most important criteria for decision making are (1) to target resources toward services of the highest importance to citizens; and (2) to target resources toward those services where citizens are the least satisfied. The Importance-Satisfaction (IS) rating is a unique tool that allows public officials to better understand both of these highly important decision making criteria for each of the services they are providing. The Importance-Satisfaction rating is based on the concept that cities will maximize overall citizen satisfaction by emphasizing improvements in those service categories where the level of satisfaction is relatively low and the perceived importance of the service is relatively high.

Methodology The rating is calculated by summing the percentage of responses for items selected as the most important services for the County to emphasize over the next two years. This sum is then multiplied by 1 minus the percentage of respondents that indicated they were positively satisfied with the County's performance in the related area (the sum of the ratings of 4 and 5 on a 5-point scale excluding “don't knows”). “Don't know” responses are excluded from the calculation to ensure that the satisfaction ratings among service categories are comparable. [IS=Importance x (1-Satisfaction)]. Example of the Calculation. Respondents were asked to identify the major categories of overall services they thought were most important for the County to improve over the next two years. Fifty-five percent (55%) ranked “maintenance of County streets” as the most important overall service to improve over the next two years. With regard to satisfaction, “maintenance of County streets” was ranked sixteenth overall, with 41.7% rating it as a “4” or a “5” on a 5-point scale, excluding “don't know” responses. The I-S rating for “maintenance of County streets” was calculated by multiplying the sum of the most important percentages by 1 minus the sum of the satisfaction percentages. In this example, 55% was multiplied by 58.3% (1-0.417). This calculation yielded an I-S rating of 0.3207, which was ranked first out of the sixteen overall service categories.



Importan


The maximum rating is 1.00 and would be achieved when 100% of the respondents select an activity as one of their top choices to emphasize over the next two years and 0% indicated that they are positively satisfied with the delivery of the service. The lowest rating is 0.00 and could be achieved under either one of the following two situations:

if 100% of the respondents were positively satisfied with the delivery of the service

if none (0%) of the respondents selected the service as one of the most important areas for the County to emphasize over the next two years.

Interpreting the Ratings Ratings that are greater than or equal to 0.20 identify areas that should receive significantly more emphasis over the next two years. Ratings from .10 to .20 identify service areas that should receive increased emphasis. Ratings less than .10 should continue to receive the current level of emphasis.

Definitely Increase Emphasis (IS>=0.20)

Increase Current Emphasis (0.10<=IS<0.20)

Maintain Current Emphasis (IS<0.10) The importance-satisfaction results for each individual service area are provided on the following pages.



Importance-Satisfaction RatingArlington County, Virginia

Overall

Category of Service

Most Important %

Most Important

RankSatisfaction

%Satisfaction

Rank

Importance-Satisfaction

RatingI-S Rating

Rank

Very High Priority (IS >.20)

Maintenance of County streets 55% 1 42% 16 0.3207 1Management of traffic flow on County streets 42% 2 47% 15 0.2229 2

High Priority (IS .10-.20)

Effectiveness of County's Smart Growth practices 33% 3 58% 14 0.1390 3Quality of County's human services 32% 4 61% 12 0.1262 4

Medium Priority (IS <.10)

Efforts to help preserve/protect environment 30% 5 68% 10 0.0966 5Effectiveness of County communication with public 19% 7 65% 11 0.0665 6Enforcement of County codes and ordinances 11% 11 58% 13 0.0477 7Customer service you receive from County employees 11% 12 72% 7 0.0297 8Quality of County's water/wastewater services 12% 9 77% 6 0.0282 9Quality of County parks/recreation programs 21% 6 87% 3 0.0278 10Quality of County arts/cultural programs 9% 13 72% 8 0.0255 11Quality of County emergency preparedness services 12% 10 79% 5 0.0245 12Quality of County's stormwater runoff system 8% 16 69% 9 0.0231 13Quality of police services 15% 8 85% 4 0.0225 14Quality of County's library system 8% 15 90% 2 0.0077 15Quality of fire/emergency med/ambulance services 9% 14 92% 1 0.0072 16

Note: The I-S Rating is calculated by multiplying the "Most Important" % by (1-'Satisfaction' %)

Most Important %: The "Most Important" percentage represents the sum of the first, second, third and fourth

most important responses for each item. Respondents were asked to identify

the items they thought should receive the most emphasis over the next two years.

Satisfaction %: The "Satisfaction" percentage represents the sum of the ratings "4" and "5" excluding 'don't knows.'

Respondents ranked their level of satisfaction with the each of the items on a scale

of 1 to 5 with "5" being very satisfied and "1" being very dissatisfied.

© 2015 DirectionFinder by ETC Institute




Public Works

Category of Service

Most Important

%

Most Important

RankSatisfaction

%Satisfaction

Rank


RatingI-S Rating

Rank


Maintenance of major streets in Arlington County 54% 1 48% 9 0.2781 1Maintenance of streets in your neighborhood 49% 2 47% 10 0.2602 2


Snow removal on neighborhood streets 36% 3 51% 8 0.1778 3Maintenance of public sidewalks 32% 4 56% 7 0.1431 4


Adequacy of street lighting in your neighborhood 23% 5 66% 6 0.0777 5Cleanliness of County streets/other public areas 18% 6 78% 2 0.0401 6Snow removal on major County Streets 15% 7 74% 4 0.0395 7Mowing/trimming along County streets/public areas 8% 9 72% 5 0.0221 8Adequacy of street lighting in commercial areas 8% 8 79% 1 0.0173 9Maintenance of County Buildings 4% 10 76% 3 0.0090 10


Most Important %: The "Most Important" percentage represents the sum of the first, second, and third










Utility Services

Category of ServiceMost

Important %

Most Important

RankSatisfaction

%Satisfaction

Rank


RatingI-S Rating

Rank


Drinking water services 32% 1 79% 3 0.0665 1Stormwater management services 23% 3 75% 6 0.0563 2Wastewater treatment services 23% 2 78% 5 0.0497 3Yardwaste removal services 19% 5 79% 4 0.0397 4

Curbside recycling services 20% 4 89% 2 0.0222 5Residential trash collection services 15% 6 91% 1 0.0133 6


Most Important %: The "Most Important" percentage represents the sum of the first and second










Public Safety

Category of Service

Most Important

%

Most Important

RankSatisfaction

%Satisfaction

Rank


RatingI-S Rating

Rank

Medium Priority (IS < .10)

Enforcement of local traffic laws 27% 3 69% 6 0.0834 1Enforcement of parking regulations 21% 5 60% 7 0.0822 2County's efforts to prevent crime 42% 1 82% 5 0.0767 3Overall quality of local police service 33% 2 86% 4 0.0477 4How quickly public safety personnel respond 22% 4 88% 3 0.0267 5Quality of emergency medical/ambulance service 20% 6 91% 2 0.0180 6Overall quality of local fire protection 14% 7 91% 1 0.0133 7












Parks, Recreation, Sports & Arts

Category of Service

Most Important

%

Most Important

RankSatisfaction

%Satisfaction

Rank


RatingI-S Rating

Rank


Efforts to preserve nature in the County 36% 1 71% 1 0.1032 1


Visual/performing arts programming/facilities 15% 5 63% 6 0.0547 2Fees charged for programs 13% 7 61% 8 0.0491 3Off-leash dog areas (community canine areas) 12% 8 60% 7 0.0460 4Maintenance of County parks 29% 2 86% 10 0.0401 5Community and nature centers 17% 4 77% 11 0.0380 6Walking and biking trails in the County 27% 3 87% 5 0.0339 7Indoor swimming pools 10% 10 68% 4 0.0321 8

Recreation programs 11% 9 75% 3 0.0281 9Outdoor athletic fields 13% 6 81% 12 0.0244 10Special events sponsored by the County 8% 11 70% 9 0.0225 11Sports programs 8% 12 79% 2 0.0158 12









2015 Arlington County, Virginia DirectionFinder Survey: Draft Report





Transportation

Category of ServiceMost

Important %

Most Important

RankSatisfaction

%Satisfaction

Rank


RatingI-S Rating

Rank


Pedestrian safety in other areas of the County 23% 5 62% 10 0.0868 1Ease of travel from Arlington County to other areas 27% 2 69% 9 0.0846 2Availability of sidewalks 26% 3 70% 8 0.0781 3Ease of traveling within Arlington County 30% 1 74% 4 0.0768 4

Pedestrian safety in your neighborhood 25% 4 70% 7 0.0746 5Quality of Metro rail services in Arlington 23% 6 75% 3 0.0565 6Quality of Metro bus services in Arlington 16% 8 71% 6 0.0446 7Availability of bike trails and bike lanes 18% 7 76% 2 0.0422 8Quality of Arlington's public transit system (ART) 15% 9 74% 5 0.0378 9Availability of transportation for persons with disabilities 8% 10 61% 11 0.0314 10Availability of Bikeshare 5% 11 78% 1 0.0112 11












Code Enforcement

Category of Service

Most Important

%

Most Important

RankSatisfaction

%Satisfaction

Rank


RatingI-S Rating

Rank


Enforcing noise regulations 37% 1 46% 4 0.2008 1


Enforcing construction site conditions 36% 2 47% 3 0.1944 2


Enforcing exterior maint. of residential property 23% 3 57% 2 0.0985 3Enforcing exterior maint. of business property 20% 4 60% 1 0.0788 4












Library Services

Category of Service

Most Important

%

Most Important

RankSatisfaction

%Satisfaction

Rank


RatingI-S Rating

Rank


Depth and range of electronic materials 29% 2 67% 7 0.0950 1Hours libraries are open 26% 3 74% 5 0.0689 2Notifications about what's happening in library 16% 4 64% 8 0.0586 3Depth and range of library collections 32% 1 86% 2 0.0456 4Programs for adults 10% 7 70% 6 0.0304 5Computer technology services 12% 6 76% 4 0.0290 6

Programs for children 12% 5 78% 3 0.0272 7Customer service effectiveness of in-person services 5% 8 90% 1 0.0056 8












Health and Human Services

Category of Service

Most Important

%

Most Important

RankSatisfaction

%Satisfaction

Rank


RatingI-S Rating

Rank


Efforts to preserve/increase affordable housing 34% 1 39% 7 0.2079 1


Availability of services to low/fixed income 19% 2 51% 5 0.0934 2

Availability of quality services for persons with disabilities 18% 3 56% 4 0.0802 3

Overall quality of school health programs 16% 6 61% 3 0.0627 4

Availability of services to the unemployed 10% 7 45% 6 0.0559 5Availability of services to seniors 17% 5 67% 2 0.0551 6Cleanliness/safety of food in restaurants 18% 4 84% 1 0.0283 7











Importan


Importance-Satisfaction Matrix Analysis The Importance-Satisfaction rating is based on the concept that public agencies will maximize overall customer satisfaction by emphasizing improvements in those areas where the level of satisfaction is relatively low and the perceived importance of the service is relatively high. ETC Institute developed an Importance-Satisfaction Matrix to display the perceived importance of major services that were assessed on the survey against the perceived quality of service delivery. The two axes on the matrix represent Satisfaction (vertical) and relative Importance (horizontal). The I-S (Importance-Satisfaction) matrix should be interpreted as follows.

Continued Emphasis (above average importance and above average satisfaction). This area shows where the County is meeting customer expectations. Items in this area have a significant impact on the customer’s overall level of satisfaction. The County should maintain (or slightly increase) emphasis on items in this area.

Exceeding Expectations (below average importance and above average satisfaction).

This area shows where the County is performing significantly better than customers expect the County to perform. Items in this area do not significantly affect the overall level of satisfaction that residents have with County services. The County should maintain (or slightly decrease) emphasis on items in this area.

Opportunities for Improvement (above average importance and below average

satisfaction). This area shows where the County is not performing as well as residents expect the County to perform. This area has a significant impact on customer satisfaction, and the County should DEFINITELY increase emphasis on items in this area.

Less Important (below average importance and below average satisfaction). This

area shows where the County is not performing well relative to the County’s performance in other areas; however, this area is generally considered to be less important to residents. This area does not significantly affect overall satisfaction with County services because the items are less important to residents. The agency should maintain current levels of emphasis on items in this area.

Matrices showing the results for Arlington County are provided on the following pages.



Sa t

isf a

ctio

n R

atin

g

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!!

!!

!! !

!

me a

n s

a tis

fact

ion


2015 Arlington County DirectionFinder Importance-Satisfaction Assessment Matrix

-Overall-(points on the graph show deviations from the mean importance and satisfaction ratings given by respondents to the survey)

mean importance

Importance RatingLower Importance Higher Importance

lower importance/higher satisfaction higher importance/higher satisfaction

lower importance/lower satisfaction higher importance/lower satisfaction

Exceeded Expectations

Less Important

Continued Emphasis

Source: ETC Institute (2015)

Management of trafficflow on County streets



Effectiveness of the County's Smart Growth practices




Quality of County parks & recreation programs

Water/wastewater services

Police services

Effectiveness of County communication with the public

Quality of stormwater runoff system

Customer service from County employees

Fire/emergency medical/ambulance services

Quality of arts/cultural programs

Quality of library services



Sa t

isf a

ctio

n R

atin

g

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!

me a

n s

a tis

fact

ion


mean importance





Less Important

Continued Emphasis


-Public Works-(points on the graph show deviations from the mean importance and satisfaction ratings given by respondents to the survey)



Maintenance of streets your neighborhood



Cleanliness of streetsother public areas


Maintenance of buildings






Sa t

isf a

ctio

n R

atin

g

!

!

!

!!!

me a

n s

a tis

fact

ion


mean importance





Less Important

Continued Emphasis


-Utility Services-(points on the graph show deviations from the mean importance and satisfaction ratings given by respondents to the survey)


Waste water treatment services








Sa t

isf a

ctio

n R

atin

g

!

!

!

!!

!

!

me a

n s

a tis

fact

ion


mean importance





Less Important

Continued Emphasis


-Public Safety-(points on the graph show deviations from the mean importance and satisfaction ratings given by respondents to the survey)

The County's efforts to prevent crime



How quickly public safety personnel responds


Quality of local emergency medical/ambulance service

Quality of local fire protection




Sa t

isf a

ctio

n R

atin

g

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

me a

n s

a tis

fact

ion


mean importance





Less Important

Continued Emphasis


-Parks, Recreation, Sports and Arts-(points on the graph show deviations from the mean importance and satisfaction ratings given by respondents to the survey)

Maintenance of County parksWalking & biking trails




Visual/performing arts programming/facilites

Recreation programs



Off-leash dog areas


Sports programs




Sa t

isf a

ctio

n R

atin

g

!

!

!! !!

!! ! !

!

me a

n s

a tis

fact

ion


mean importance





Less Important

Continued Emphasis


-Transportation Services-(points on the graph show deviations from the mean importance and satisfaction ratings given by respondents to the survey)

Availability of sidewalksPedestrian safety in your neighborhood


Quality of Metro rail services

Ease of travel from Arlington to other areas

Pedestrian safety in other areas of the county






Quality of Metro bus services



Sa t

isf a

ctio

n R

atin

g

!

!

!

!

me a

n s

a tis

fact

ion


mean importance





Less Important

Continued Emphasis


-Code Enforcement-(points on the graph show deviations from the mean importance and satisfaction ratings given by respondents to the survey)

Enforcing noise regulationsEnforcing construction site conditions

Enforcing exterior maintenance of residential property

Enforcing exterior maintenanceof business property




Sa t

isf a

ctio

n R

atin

g

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

me a

n s

a tis

fact

ion


mean importance





Less Important

Continued Emphasis


-Library Services-(points on the graph show deviations from the mean importance and satisfaction ratings given by respondents to the survey)





Programs for adults







Sa t

isf a

ctio

n R

atin

g

!

!

!

!

!

!

! me a

n s

a tis

fact

ion


mean importance





Less Important

Continued Emphasis


-Health and Human Services-(points on the graph show deviations from the mean importance and satisfaction ratings given by respondents to the survey)


Availability of services to low/fixed income




Availability of quality services for persons with disabilities





2015 directionfinder® survey€¦ · executive summary . arlington county directionfinder®...

Documents