city of alamosa customer satisfaction & residents priorities survey by: dr. melissa l. freeman...
TRANSCRIPT
City of Alamosa Customer Satisfaction & Residents’ Priorities Survey
By: Dr. Melissa L. FreemanAssistant ProfessorAdams State College
Description
Future planningResident prioritiesResident satisfaction with city services
Survey of registered voters in the citySurvey developed in consultation with
members of Council and the City Manager
Methodology
Telephone surveyCost efficienciesTime efficienciesConducive to brief, straightforward data
collectionHigh response rate
Margin of error +/- 5%
Four of five interviewers were bilingual
Table 1
Respondent MetricsNumber
Registered voters 4,447Registered voters with no telephone 1,032Telephone numbers recovered from Alamosa directory 182Cases deleted due to no telephone number 850Registered voters in final population 3,597Sample drawn 1,470Invalid telephone numbers called 352Refusals 241No answers 336Respondents 400Total in sample not called 141
*First survey response 9/15/ 2008. Last survey response 9/28/2008
Methodology—Sample
According to Suskie (1996) a sample size of 400 is sufficient to ensure +/-5% margin of error.
In social science research and political polls, 5% is an acceptable margin.
Figure 1
1 x 100% (where n=sample size)
n
Sample Size Formula
Limitations
Population of interest—registered votersMissing telephone numbersInvalid telephone numbers
Voters not required to provide or update telephone numbers
Younger voters and cell phonesSome households may not have a
telephone
Results—Demographics
Respondents' Gender
36%
64%
Male
Female
Results—Demographics
Respondents' Age Range
9% 9%
16%
28%
38%
1%0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
18-30 yrs 30-40 yrs 40-50 yrs 50-60 yrs 60+ yrs Refused
Results—Demographics
Respondents' Intent to Vote in the Next Election
98.0%
0.8%
1.0%
0.3%
Yes
No
Don't Know
Refused
Results—Demographics
Respondents' Race/Ethnicity
70.0%
24.5%
0.3%
1.0%
1.8%
2.5%
Caucasian/white
Hispanic/Latino
AmericanIndian/Alaskan Native
Asian/AsianIndian/Pacific Islander
Other
Refused
Results—Demographics
Number of Years Respondents Have Lived in Alamosa
6.0% 8.3% 10.0%15.8%
59.5%
0.5%0.0%
10.0%
20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%
60.0%70.0%
< 2 yrs 2-5 yrs 6-10 yrs 11-20 yrs > 20 yrs Refused
Results—Demographics
Respondents' Household Income Range Per Year
13.5%
6.8%9.5% 10.8% 8.3%
20.0%
31.3%
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%
Results—Demographics
Number of Children Under the Age of 18 Living with Respondents
76.3%
10.8%
8.5%
2.3%
1.8%
0.5%
No Children
1 Child
2 Children
3 Children
4+ Children
Refused
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with Police Services
1.8%8.0%
28.5%
42.5%
19.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
62%
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with Crime Prevention
1.8%
11.8%
37.8% 38.8%
10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with Traffic Enforcement
7.8%13.3%
29.5%
38.3%
11.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with Fire Services
0.5% 1.0%
15.8%
41.5% 41.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
83%
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with Emergency Preparedness
3.3%7.0%
29.6%
39.1%
21.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
60%
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with Street Repair
26.9%30.2%
23.9%
16.3%
2.8%
0.0%
5.0%10.0%
15.0%20.0%
25.0%30.0%
35.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
57%
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with Street Cleaning
7.5%
17.8%
31.1%
8.5%
35.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with Sidewalk Maintenance
14.0%
20.0%
30.8% 31.0%
4.3%
0.0%
5.0%10.0%
15.0%20.0%
25.0%30.0%
35.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
1/31/3
1/3
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with Garbage Collection
1.0% 3.0% 6.3%
52.0%
37.7%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
90%
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with Recycling Services
4.5%
16.5%
29.8%32.3%
17.0%
0.0%
5.0%10.0%
15.0%20.0%
25.0%30.0%
35.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
49%
Results—Satisfaction
Recycling Services—Open-ended Results Improvement of Services in 3 ways
Recycle class, other materialsCurbside pickupClean up the recycling center located on Ross
Avenue.
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with Water Services
12.8% 14.5%
22.6%
35.8%
14.3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
50%
Results—Satisfaction
Initial reaction was a laughResidents were especially satisfied with
the way in which the city handled the water emergency last spring
Suggestions for improvementLower the chlorine levels
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisifaction with Sewage Services
2.0%8.3%
23.8%20.8%
45.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
66%
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with City Parks
0.8% 3.3%
12.3%
29.6%
54.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
84%
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with Recreation Programs and Facilities
1.8%7.0%
28.4%
41.7%
21.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
63%
Results—Satisfaction
Recreation Programs and FacilitiesComments to offer more adult programming
aside from sportsCooking
Recreation center (walking track) is not disability friendly
ElevatorDifficulty getting to the recreation center
Location
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with Land Use: Zoning and Planning
3.8%11.5%
25.3%
6.5%
52.9%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%
40.0%50.0%60.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with Code Enforcement
7.0%
17.0%
25.6%
7.0%
43.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
Results—Satisfaction
Citizen Satisfaction with Public Library Services.
1.8%
19.0%
29.3%
7.3%
42.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent
72%
Results—City Employees
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Poor Fair
Neutra
lGoo
d
Excelle
nt
Citizen Satisfaction with City Employees
Knowledge
Responsiveness
Courtesy
Overall
Results—City Employees
High level of satisfactionKnowledge 56%Responsiveness 58%Courtesy 69%Overall impression 64%
Large number of neutralsDependent upon which department being
ratedWorthwhile to explore individual
departmental employees
Results—Recreational Facilities & Opportunities
Rank Ordered Recreational Facilities/Opportunities
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%Least important
Fourth important
Third important
Second important
Most important
Results—Recreational Facilities & Opportunities
Public swimming pool most important item to citizens 55% ranked as 1 13% ranked as 2 12% ranked as 3 Thus, 80% of respondents indicated the importance
of a public swimming pool Awful our kids do not have a public swimming pool
to go to in the summer An entire generation of Alamosa children will never
learn to swim Children need something to do
Results—Recreational Facilities & Opportunities
Level of Support of a New Public Swimming Pool
56.1%
16.0% 13.8%7.8% 6.3%
0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%
StronglyAgree
Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree
72%
Results—Recreational Facilities & Opportunities
Likelihood to Support a Tax and/or User Fee for a New Public Swimming Pool
40.1%
9.8% 8.3%
25.1%
12.3%
22.3%
32.1%
8.0%
23.1%19.0%
62.8%
4.0%7.8%5.0%
20.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Very Likely SomewhatLikely
SomewhatUnlikely
VeryUnlikely
Don't Know
Property Tax
Sales Tax
User Fee
Results—Recreational Facilities & Opportunities
Likelihood to support a property tax, sales tax or user fee for a new public swimming pool.Overwhelmingly agreeable to all three
User fee (63% very likely and 21% somewhat likely) = 84%
Sales tax (40% very likely & 19% somewhat likely) = 59%
Property tax (32% very likely & 22% somewhat likely) = 54%
Results—Land Use and Management & the Alamosa Ranch
Familiarity with the Alamosa Ranch
23.5%
23.5%
53.0%
Very Familiar
Somewhat Familiar
Not Familiar
Results—Land Use and Management & the Alamosa Ranch
More than one-half of respondents (53%) were not familiar with the Alamosa Ranch
Of the 23.5% who indicated “somewhat familiar” they weren’t familiar enough to answer certain questions
Results of what to do with the Ranch should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of respondents
Results—Land Use and Management & the Alamosa Ranch
Of the 47% who indicated knowledge about the ranchA majority wanted the ranch to be left alone
as open space43% most important and 23% second most
importantRecreational Opportunities 20-45%Educational Opportunities 10-45%Little support for economic development
Results—Land Use and Management & the Alamosa Ranch
Respondents were not willing to support any taxes relevant to the ranch, regardless of what was planned for it.
Open-ended QuestionCitizens had a lot to say Appreciated the opportunity to provide feedback “should do
this more often” Need more in-depth questions related to specific issues in the
citizen satisfaction section Deer population is a problem Issues with police responsiveness Issues related to ADA—crosswalks, recreation center,
library, sidewalks Roads need repair Support of economic development in the city—downtown—
not the ranch Many felt that, overall, the city is doing a fairly good job
Thank you for this opportunity!
Questions?