general information packet thursday, july 11, 2019 phoenix council meeting files/7-11... ·...

General Information Packet

phoenix.govThursday, July 11, 2019

1 Council Request: Councilman DiCiccio's Request for

Information on Police Communications Staffing Levels

Page 3

2 Response to Council Members' Requests from July 2,

2019 Special Public Safety Council Meeting

Page 4

3 Citizen Request: Mr. John Harrington 30

Page 1


City Council Report

Date: 7/11/2019, Item No. 1

Council Request: Councilman DiCiccio's Request for Information on PoliceCommunications Staffing Levels

This report provides the City Council with information in response to a request madeby Councilman Sal DiCiccio at the June 26, 2019 Formal City Council meeting.

SummaryAt the aforementioned City Council meeting, Councilman DiCiccio requestedinformation on the Police Department’s 9-1-1 and dispatch staffing levels.

The Police Communications Bureau utilizes a cross-training model for operators,which means all operator positions are trained to answer incoming 9-1-1 and non-emergency calls, and to dispatch calls to officers. Having cross-trained operators whocan perform both call answering and dispatching functions is a national standard. In2014 when the bureau transitioned to this model, personnel who had been hired in to acall answering classification were grandfathered in, and currently make up a smallpercentage of the overall staffing totals.

Current Staffing Levels (excludes supervisors):195 Cross-trained operators/dispatchers24 Operators (call answering only)21 Positions in training23 Vacancies

Staffing levels vary across the different shifts to better accommodate peak call times.

Responsible DepartmentThis item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Milton Dohoney, Jr. and the PoliceDepartment.


City Council Report

Date: 7/11/2019, Item No. 2

Response to Council Members' Requests from July 2, 2019 Special Public SafetyCouncil Meeting

At the July 2, 2019 Special Public Safety City Council meeting, Council membersasked staff to follow up on several questions. This is the first in a series of reports thatwill be issued in the coming weeks that responds to these questions.

SummaryAt the above referenced meeting, Council members asked that information beprovided on the results from the 2010 (Attachment A) and 2012 (Attachment B)community opinion surveys. The surveys were about many City services, not onlypolice. Of note, in 2010 a new section was added on attitudes about the PhoenixPolice Department. The Community Attitude Survey contract was not renewed by theCity Council in 2014.

Responsible DepartmentThis item is submitted by the City Manager's Office.

behavior research center, inc. RESEARCH IN PUBLIC OPINION, PUBLIC POLICY & CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

phone (602) 258-4554 • fax (602) 252-2729 p.o. box 13178 • phoenix, arizona 85002 • www.brc-research.com

2010 CITY OF PHOENIX

COMMUNITY ATTITUDE SURVEY

VOLUME I - ANALYSIS

December 2010

Prepared For

City of Phoenix200 West Washington

Phoenix, Arizona

Prepared By

Behavior Research Center, Inc.45 East Monterey Way

Phoenix, Arizona 85012(602) 258-4554

Attachment A



2010029/RPT PHX Community Attitude Survey-2010.wpd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

INTRODUCTION 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS 24

PHOENIX AS A PLACE TO LIVE 24

CONTACT WITH CITY PERSONNEL 25

ATTITUDES ABOUT PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT 28

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY PERFORMANCE 29

SATISFACTION WITH SELECTED CITY SERVICES 30

CITY SPENDING PRIORITIES 33

QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX 36

NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS 37

STEPS CITY COULD TAKE TO MAKE PHOENIX MORE LIVEABLE 40

ATTITUDES ABOUT COMMUNITY-BASED POLICING AND OTHERPUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES 41

SOURCES OF INFORMATION 45

USE OF CITY’S WEB SITE 46

AWARENESS OF AND ATTITUDES TOWARD NEIGHBORHOOD ORDINANCES 48

EVALUATION OF SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 49

PERCEPTIONS OF DOWNTOWN PHOENIX 50

AWARENESS OF CITY’S SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS 51

APPENDIX 52

METHODOLOGY 52

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 54




LISTING OF TABLES

page

TABLE 1: PHOENIX AS A PLACE TO LIVE 24

TABLE 2: CONTACT WITH CITY PERSONNEL 25

TABLE 3: REASON FOR LAST CONTACT 26

TABLE 4: EVALUATION OF LAST CONTACT 27

TABLE 5: ATTITUDES ABOUT PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT 28

TABLE 6: OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY PERFORMANCE 29

TABLE 7: SATISFACTION WITH SELECTED CITY SERVICES 31

TABLE 8: HISTORICAL RATING OF CITY SERVICES 32

TABLE 9: WILLINGNESS TO PAY MORE FOR IMPROVED CITY SERVICES 34

TABLE 10: PRIORITY SPENDING INDEX 35

TABLE 11: QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX 36

TABLE 12: MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEMS CITY SHOULD BE WORKINGTO SOLVE 37

TABLE 13: EVALUATION OF SELECTED NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS 38

TABLE 14: EVALUATION OF SELECTED NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS –DETAIL 39

TABLE 15: STEPS CITY COULD TAKE TO MAKE PHOENIX MORE LIVEABLE 40

TABLE 16: ATTITUDES ABOUT COMMUNITY-BASED POLICING 41

TABLE 17: CONTACT WITH PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT 42

TABLE 18: ATTITUDES ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY 43

TABLE 19: PARTICIPATION IN BLOCK WATCH 44

TABLE 20: SOURCES OF INFORMATION 45

TABLE 21: USE OF CITY'S WEB SITE 46

TABLE 22: REASONS FOR VISITING CITY’S WEB SITE 47

TABLE 23: AWARENESS OF AND ATTITUDES TOWARD NEIGHBORHOODORDINANCES 48

TABLE 24: EVALUATION OF SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 49

TABLE 25: CHANGES IN DOWNTOWN PHOENIX 50

TABLE 26: AWARENESS OF CITY’S SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS 51




INTRODUCTION

This study was commissioned by the City of Phoenix with the overall objective of measuring citizenattitudes regarding City services and issues for policy development, program improvement, and resourceallocation. More specifically, this project was conducted for the following purposes:

M To provide a vehicle for public participationM To identify public opinions on relevant issuesM To identify public satisfaction with current service levelsM To pre-test public response to proposed or revised servicesM To provide user service dataM To provide public awareness dataM To identify program or policy alternatives

This project represents the 13th citywide opinion tracking study conducted for the City of Phoenix since1985. Where appropriate, this analysis highlights shifts in public opinion which may have occurred over time.

The information contained in this report is based on 700 in-depth interviews conducted with arepresentative cross section of City of Phoenix heads-of-household. All of the interviewing on this project wasconducted via telephone by professional interviewers of the Behavior Research Center during December2010. For a detailed explanation of the procedures followed during this project, please refer to theMethodology section of this report.

The information generated from this study is presented in three sections. The first section,EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, presents the primary findings of the survey in a brief summary format. The secondsection, SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS, reviews each study question in detail. The primary emphasis of thissection is to review response at the citywide level. However, wherever meaningful variations by selectedsocio-demographic subgroups are found, they are noted. The final section, APPENDIX, details the studymethodology and contains a copy of the survey questionnaire.

The Behavior Research Center has presented all of the data germane to the basic research objectiveof this project. However, if City management requires additional data retrieval or interpretation, we standready to provide such input.

BEHAVIOR RESEARCH CENTER



2010029/RPT PHX Community Attitude Survey-2010.wpd2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

! KEY FINDINGS

Several key findings are evident from this research effort:

– The City of Phoenix continues to be rated as a good place to live, with better thannine out of 10 residents (91%) agreeing with the statement, “Phoenix is a good placeto live.” Importantly, this attitude is universal among all population subgroups.

– When those residents who had contact with the City during the prior 12 months areasked to evaluate their last contact on three specific factors, their responses arepositive. Thus, we find two out of three residents or more indicate: 1) they weretreated in a professional and courteous manner (95%); 2) they were promptlydirected to the individual who could best respond to their needs (81%); and 3) theirneeds were handled in a timely fashion (69%). Each of these readings is improvedfrom 2008.

– A new study question reveals that seven out of 10 residents or more have positiveattitudes about the Phoenix Police Department on a variety of issues: 1) the PhoenixPolice Department has a difficult job protecting the community (87% agree); 2) I haveconfidence in the Phoenix Police Department (79% agree); 3) I trust the PhoenixPolice Department to do the right thing (78% agree); 4) the Phoenix PoliceDepartment cares about people like me (76% agree), and; 5) the Phoenix PoliceDepartment uses appropriate force in performing their duties (71% agree).

Several other issues receive positive response from roughly six out of 10 residentsor more, while at the same time generating negative response from more than 25percent: 1) the Phoenix Police Department treats all residents with respect (66%agree/26% disagree); 2) the Phoenix Police Department is honest and open with thepublic (65% agree/29% disagree); 3) the Phoenix Police Department treats allresidents fairly regardless of race (59% agree/30% disagree).

– Even after the significant budget/service cuts the City has undertaken over the pasttwo years due to the nation’s economic situation, the City continues to receive a highmark from residents for its performance in providing services. Thus, we find morethan eight out of 10 residents (83%) indicating they are satisfied with the job the Cityis doing while only 15 percent are dissatisfied. This attitude is universal among allpopulation subgroups.

– The City also receives highly positive ratings in the vast majority of instances for itsefforts in delivering the 30 specific municipal services tested.

– Throughout this research, residents’ reveal a particular desire for the City to placeadditional emphasis on “providing job training and placement services for theunemployed” and “attracting new employers to the community and helping existingemployers to grow.”




! PHOENIX AS A PLACE TO LIVE

Better than nine out of 10 Phoenix residents (91%) either strongly agree (17%) or agree (74%) that“Phoenix is a good place to live.” This reading is unchanged from 2000 and is universal across allpopulation subgroups.




! CONTACT WITH CITY PERSONNEL

Thirty-four percent of residents had contact with the City during the past 12 months which is in linewith the previous years. As in all prior studies, the most common method of contacting City personnelwas via the telephone (83%), followed by in-person visits (13%) and the Internet (3%). Comparedto 2008, the telephone reading has increased by eight points, while the Internet reading has declinedby an identical eight points. By far, the primary reason residents give for contacting the City is toreport a crime (44%).

When those residents who had contact with the City during the prior 12 months are asked to evaluatetheir last contact on three specific factors, their responses are positive. Thus, we find two out of threeresidents or more indicate: 1) they were treated in a professional and courteous manner (95%); 2)they were promptly directed to the individual who could best respond to their needs (81%); and 3)their needs were handled in a timely fashion (69%). Each of these readings is improved from 2008.




! ATTITUDES ABOUT PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT

A new study question reveals that seven out of 10 residents or more have positive attitudes about thePhoenix Police Department on a variety of issues:

– The Phoenix Police Department has a difficult job protecting the community (87% agree)– I have confidence in the Phoenix Police Department (79% agree)– I trust the Phoenix Police Department to do the right thing (78% agree)– The Phoenix Police Department cares about people like me (76% agree)– The Phoenix Police Department uses appropriate force in performing their duties (71% agree)

Several other issues receive positive response from roughly six out of 10 residents or more, while atthe same time generating negative response from more than 25 percent:

– The Phoenix Police Department treats all residents with respect (66% agree/26% disagree)– The Phoenix Police Department is honest and open with the public (65% agree/29% disagree)– The Phoenix Police Department treats all residents fairly regardless of race (59% agree/30%

disagree).




! OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY PERFORMANCE

More than eight out of 10 Phoenix residents (83%) continue to indicate they are either very satisfied(13%) or satisfied (70%) with the overall performance of the City in providing services. This figure isdown from 88 percent in 2008, but the change does not reach the six points needed for statisticalsignificance. Demographically, overall satisfaction with the City's performance does not drop below76 percent within any population subgroup. These response patterns continue to indicate broad-basedsatisfaction with the City's performance among residents.




! SATISFACTION WITH SELECTED CITY SERVICES

Phoenix residents were asked to indicate how satisfied they are with each of 30 services provided bythe City using a ten-point scale, where one means the City is doing a poor job and 10 means it is doingan excellent job. As has been the case since the start of this series of studies, emergency medicalresponse by the Fire Department (8.3) and fire protection in your area (8.2) receive the highest ratings.Also receiving a high rating over 8.0 this year is garbage and recycling collection (8.2).

Also receiving very positive ratings are 12 additional services which receive satisfaction readingsbetween 7.0 and 7.7:

– Library services in your area (7.7)– Preserving our mountains and deserts (7.6)– Collection frequency of uncontainerized trash such as yard clippings (7.5)– Keeping parks in your area clean (7.5)– Providing citizens with Internet access to City information and services (7.4)– Police protection in your area (7.3)– Keeping our streets clean (7.2)– Operating wastewater plants in a way that protects the environment (7.1)– Preserving historic Phoenix houses and other historic buildings (7.1)– Handling street flooding during rains in your area (7.0)– Providing park and recreation programs in your area (7.0)– Providing city bus service (7.0)

A third tier of 11 City services receives satisfactory readings between 6.0 and 6.9:

– Providing drinking water which meets health and safety standards (6.8)– Controlling cut-through traffic in your neighborhood (6.8)– Enforcing traffic laws on city streets (6.8)– Providing art and cultural events and programs (6.7)– Preserving residential neighborhoods (6.6)– Street repair and maintenance (6.6)– Requiring property owners to maintain their properties to minimum standards

and enforcing cleanup ordinances (6.5)– Crime prevention efforts in your area (6.4)– Providing services for the elderly such as housing and meals at home (6.2)– Providing programs for youth (6.2)– Preventing illegal dumping (6.1)

Four of the 30 City services evaluated receive a satisfaction reading under 6.0. As might be expectedgiven the nation’s, state’s and Valley’s economic woes, the two lowest rated services relate to jobcreation.

– Countering gang activities (5.9)– Providing services and housing for the poor and homeless (5.4)– Providing job training and placement services for the unemployed (5.3)– Attracting new employers to the community and helping existing employers to grow (5.1)

When the 2010 satisfaction ratings are compared to the 2008 ratings, we find that in two areas, theratings are down (a .6 negative shift). In the remaining 28 service areas, the ratings are unchanged(less than a .6 positive or negative shift).

– Attracting new employers (-1.2)– Safe drinking water (-.6)




! CITY SPENDING PRIORITIES

After residents had evaluated each of the 30 service areas under consideration, they were asked toindicate whether they would or would not be willing to pay more to improve each of them. Thisinformation was then correlated with the service satisfaction ratings to create a Priority Spending Indexwhich affords higher spending priority to those services that receive lower satisfaction ratings. This lineof inquiry reveals nine service areas which receive Priority Spending Index readings of 100 or more:

– Job training/placement (137.7)– Poor/homeless services (137.0)– Gang programs (123.7)– Attracting new employers (121.6)

– Youth programs (121.0)– Elderly services (117.7)– Crime prevention efforts (109.4)

The two items in the Index which reveal the highest increase since 2008 are attracting new employers(+35.9) and job training/placement (+22.2)

Each of the remaining services receives an Index reading less than 100.




! QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX

Phoenix residents continue to rate the quality of life in Phoenix quite highly, with nearly two out of threeresidents (64%) indicating it is either excellent (12%) or good (52%). In comparison, 26 percent of residentsrate the quality of life as fair, while 10 percent rate it in negative terms (poor/very poor). The current levelof positive response has remained relatively consistent since 2002, while the negative response hasincreased somewhat.




! NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS

When residents are asked to identify the single most important problem the City should be working onto solve in their neighborhood, crime-related issues (22%) lead the responses, followed bytransportation issues (15%). Each of these issues is down from 2008 (crime 10 points/transportation5 points). The only other problem to register a two-digit reading is the economy with 10 percent – upfrom two percent in 2008.




In a related question, when residents are asked if each of 10 issues is a major, a minor or not aproblem facing neighborhoods, air pollution is viewed as the primary problem with 38 percent ofresidents rating it a major problem. Three additional problems are rated as major problems by roughlythree out of 10 residents – graffiti (29%), drug activity (28%) and juvenile crime (27%). When thecurrent readings are compared to those recorded in 2008, we find statistically significant improvementin two areas – air pollution, which declined from 49 percent in 2008, and traffic congestion whichdeclined from 28 percent in 2008 and 37 percent in 2006.




! STEPS CITY SHOULD TAKE TO MAKE PHOENIX MORE LIVEABLE

Similar to prior years, the main thing residents believe the City could do to make Phoenix a moreliveable community is to improve the transportation system with a reading of 18 percent, down from26 percent in 2008. Also receiving noteworthy mention are improving the economy (16%) and crime(12%).




! ATTITUDES ABOUT COMMUNITY-BASED POLICING

Residents are quite favorable in their evaluation of the Police Department's community-based policingphilosophy with 64 percent rating the Department either excellent or good and only 12 percent ratingit poor or very poor. The positive readings for community-based policing have remained constant since2000.

! CONTACT WITH PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT

Thirty-five percent of residents have had contact with a Phoenix police officer in the past 12 monthsand 81 percent of these residents rate their contact as positive (29% very positive/52% positive).




! ATTITUDES ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY

Fifty-three percent of residents believe their neighborhood is safer than other neighborhoods inPhoenix, while 35 percent believe safety in their neighborhood is on par with other Phoenixneighborhoods. In comparison, only about 11 percent of residents believe their neighborhood is notas safe as other Phoenix neighborhoods. The safer reading is up from 40 percent in 2006.

In a related question, 50 percent of residents indicate their neighborhood participates in a Block Watchor similar crime prevention program. Two out of thee residents (66%) participating in crime preventionprograms feel they are effective in reducing crime in their neighborhood, down 14 points from 80percent in 2008.




! SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The most commonly relied on source of information about what is happening in the City of Phoenixcontinues to be local television programs, with 45 percent of residents indicating they rely on suchprograms a lot. In comparison, 39 percent rely on the Internet a lot, while 28 percent of residentsindicate they rely on newspapers a lot and 22 percent rely on radio news programs a lot. Thesereadings reveal drops in the television, newspaper and radio readings and a sharp increase in theInternet reading over the past eight years.




! AWARENESS OF AND ATTITUDES TOWARD NEIGHBORHOOD ORDINANCES

Fifty-one percent of residents indicate they are aware of the City ordinance designed to helpneighborhoods fight blight and require owners to keep up their property, which is down sharply from64 percent in 2008.

More than eight out of 10 residents aware of the ordinance (84%) believe it is working either very well(43%) or fairly well (41%), while 15 percent believe it is either not working too well (11%) or not at all(4%). The percent of residents who believe the ordinance is working well (very/fairly) has increasedfrom 77 percent in 2008.




! EVALUATION OF SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

When Phoenix residents are asked to evaluate Sky Harbor International Airport on 11 different factorsusing a one-to-ten scale, the airport receives a very positive overall rating of 8.1, with 77 percent ofresidents offering a rating of seven or higher – up from 70 percent in 2008. The specific factorsreceiving the highest positive readings are convenient airport location (8.4) and overall cleanliness ofairport terminals (8.3). On the flip side, Sky Harbor continues to receive its lowest rating on qualityfood and beverages at reasonable prices (5.9) and quality of retail merchandise at reasonable prices(6.0).

When the 2010 readings are compared to those from the 2008 study, we find that on each of the 11factors studied, the readings are unchanged (less than .6 shift).




! PERCEPTIONS OF DOWNTOWN PHOENIX

More than six out of 10 Phoenix residents (62%) believe downtown Phoenix has become either muchbetter (23%) or a little better (39%) over the past few years. The overall change for the better readingof 62 percent is down slightly from 66 percent in 2008.




! USE OF CITY’S WEB SITE

Forty-four percent of residents indicate they have used the City’s web site. Similar to the droprecorded earlier on Internet use in contacting the City, this figure represents a seven-point drop since2008. Nonetheless, the reading is up 20 points from 2002. The City’s web site receives positivereadings from users, with 72 percent giving it a rating of seven or higher on a 10 point scale (up from66 percent in 2008).

Ninety-seven percent of residents indicate they were able to find what they were looking for the lasttime they visited the City’s web site – up sharply from 83 percent in 2004.




! AWARENESS OF CITY’S SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS

Seven out of 10 Phoenix residents (70%) are aware of the City’s sustainability efforts with fewPhoenix residents (14%) indicating they know “a lot” and a majority (56%) indicating they know a little.These figures are little changed from 2008.




SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS

PHOENIX AS A PLACE TO LIVE

Better than nine out of 10 Phoenix residents (91%) either strongly agree (17%) or agree (74%) that“Phoenix is a good place to live.” This reading has not varied since 2000 and is universal across all populationsubgroups.

TABLE 1: PHOENIX AS A PLACE TO LIVE

"Would you say you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with thefollowing statement, ‘Overall, Phoenix is a good place to live’."

StronglyAgree/Agree

Disagree/StronglyDisagree

NotSure

2010 91% 8% 1%2008 91 9 *2006 91 8 12004 91 8 12002 91 8 1

2010 READING – DETAIL

GENDERMale 91% 9% *Female 90 9 1

AGEUnder 35 88 12 035 to 49 91 8 150 to 64 90 9 165 or over 95 4 1

INCOMEUnder $25,000 91 7 2$25,000 to $49,999 87 13 0$50,000 to $74,999 96 4 0$75,000 or over 90 8 2

ETHNICITYWhite 92 7 1Minority 89 11 *

LENGTH OF RESIDENCEUnder 10 93 7 010 or over 90 9 1

*Indicates % less than .5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




CONTACT WITH CITY PERSONNEL

Residents were next asked if they had had any contact with the City in the preceding 12 months. AsTable 2 indicates, 34 percent of residents had contact with the City during this time period – in line withprevious years. As in the prior studies, the most common method of contacting City personnel was via thetelephone (83%), followed by in-person visits (13%) and the Internet (3%). Compared to 2008, the telephonereading has increased by eight points while the Internet reading has declined by an identical eight points.

TABLE 2: CONTACT WITH CITY PERSONNEL

"During the past 12 months, did you contact any city employee, official ordepartment to seek service or information, or to make a complaint?" (IF YES)"Was your most recent contact conducted in person, over the phone, by mail,or electronically by computer?"

METHOD OF CONTACT

% MAKINGCONTACT Phone

InPerson Internet Mail

2010 34% 83% 13% 3% 1%2008 34 75 14 11 02006 33 77 13 7 32004 32 78 12 5 52002 30 75 21 3 1

2010 READING – % MAKING CONTACT

GENDERMale 36%Female 32

AGEUnder 35 3135 to 49 4050 to 64 3465 or over 30

INCOMEUnder $25,000 37$25,000 to $49,999 38$50,000 to $74,999 30$75,000 or over 37

ETHNICITYWhite 32Minority 37

LENGTH OF RESIDENCEUnder 10 3310 or over 35

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




By far, the primary reason residents give for contacting the City is to report a crime (44%).

TABLE 3: REASON FOR LAST CONTACT

"What was the reason for your most recent contact?"

2010 2008 2006

Report a crime 44% 36% 42%Request trash/garbage pick-up

information 16 8 8Request repairs – roads, lights, water 7 9 5File complaint about neighbor 6 10 12Water service/information 5 5 8Request social services 4 4 5Animal control/dog pound 3 7 3Public transportation information 3 5 1Parks/recreation information 2 2 3Historic district information 2 * *Report mosquito problem 1 3 2Building permit information 1 3 2File housing/landlord dispute 1 2 1Election information 0 * 1Zoning issues 0 4 1

All other 6 5 6Don’t recall 3 3 2

*Indicates % less than .5

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Finally, those residents who had contacted the City were asked to evaluate their most recent contacton three variables. As may be seen on the following table, two out of three residents or more indicate: 1) theywere treated in a professional and courteous manner (95%); 2) they were promptly directed to the individualwho could best respond to their needs (81%); and 3) their needs were handled in a timely fashion (69%).Each of these readings is improved from 2008.




TABLE 4: EVALUATION OF LAST CONTACT

"Thinking about your last contact with the City, would you strongly agree, agree,disagree or strongly disagree with each of the following statements?"

StronglyAgree/Agree


NotSure

I was treated in a professionaland courteous manner 95% 5% 0%

I was promptly directed to theindividual who could bestrespond to my needs 81 14 5

My needs were handled in atimely fashion 69 30 1

% AGREE

2010 2008 2006 2004 2002

I was treated in a professionaland courteous manner 95% 86% 89% 86% 85%

I was promptly directed to theindividual who could bestrespond to my needs 81 70 70 78 86

My needs were handled in atimely fashion 69 65 64 76 70

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




ATTITUDES ABOUT PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT

A new study question reveals that seven out of 10 residents or more have positive attitudes about theDepartment on a variety of issues:

– The Phoenix Police Department has a difficult job protecting the community (87% agree)– I have confidence in the Phoenix Police Department (79% agree)– I trust the Phoenix Police Department to do the right thing (78% agree)– The Phoenix Police Department cares about people like me (76% agree)– The Phoenix Police Department uses appropriate force in performing their duties (71% agree).

Several other issues receive positive response from roughly six out of 10 residents or more, while atthe same time generating negative response from over 25 percent:


disagree).

TABLE 5: ATTITUDES ABOUT PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT

“Next, do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each of thefollowing statements about the Phoenix Police Department? Here is the first one.”

StronglyAgree Agree Disagree

StronglyDisagree

NotSure

TOTALAGREE

The Phoenix Police Dept. has adifficult job protecting thecommunity 28% 59% 10% 1% 2% 87%

I have confidence in the PhoenixPolice Dept. 17 62 13 6 2 79

I trust the Phoenix Police Dept. todo the right thing 13 65 15 4 3 78

The Phoenix Police Dept. caresabout people like me 16 60 16 2 6 76

The Phoenix Police Dept. usesappropriate force in performingtheir duties 11 60 17 3 9 71

The Phoenix Police Dept. treats allresidents with respect 10 56 20 6 8 66

The Phoenix Police Dept. is honestand open with the public 7 58 27 2 6 65

The Phoenix Police Dept. treats allresidents fairly regardless of race 10 49 20 10 11 59

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY PERFORMANCE

More than eight out of 10 Phoenix residents (83%) indicate they are either very satisfied (13%) orsatisfied (70%) with the overall performance of the City in providing services. This figure is down from 88percent in 2008, but the change does not reach the six points needed for statistical significance. Thepercentage of residents who profess dissatisfaction is 15 percent.

Demographically, overall satisfaction with the City's performance does not drop below 76 percent withinany population subgroup and satisfaction tends to increase in relationship to increased age and income.These response patterns continue to indicate broad-based satisfaction among residents with the City'sperformance.

TABLE 6: OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY PERFORMANCE

"Would you say that you are very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or verydissatisfied with the overall performance of the City in providing services toPhoenix residents?"

VerySatisfied/Satisfied

Dissatisfied/Very

DissatisfiedNot

Sure

2010 83% 15% 2%2008 88 10 22006 89 10 12004 91 8 12002 87 12 1

2010 READING – DETAILGENDERMale 85% 14% 1%Female 80 18 2


INCOMEUnder $25,000 77 22 1$25,000 to $49,999 80 18 2$50,000 to $74,999 91 8 1$75,000 or over 93 7 0

ETHNICITYWhite 87 11 2Minority 76 23 1

LENGTH OFRESIDENCEUnder 10 83 15 210 or over 83 16 1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




SATISFACTION WITH SELECTED CITY SERVICES

Phoenix residents were asked to indicate how satisfied they are with each of 30 services provided bythe City using a ten-point scale, where one means the City is doing a poor job and 10 means it is doing anexcellent job. As has been the case since the start of this series of studies, emergency medical response bythe Fire Department (8.3) and fire protection in your area (8.2) receive the highest ratings. Also receiving ahigh rating over 8.0 this year is garbage and recycling collection (8.2).

Also receiving very positive ratings are 12 additional services which receive satisfaction readingsbetween 7.0 and 7.7:

M Library services in your area (7.7)M Preserving our mountains and deserts (7.6)M Collection frequency of uncontainerized trash such as yard clippings (7.5)M Keeping parks in your area clean (7.5)M Providing citizens with Internet access to City information and services (7.4)M Police protection in your area (7.3)M Keeping our streets clean (7.2)M Operating wastewater plants in a way that protects the environment (7.1)M Preserving historic Phoenix houses and other historic buildings (7.1)M Handling street flooding during rains in your area (7.0)M Providing park and recreation programs in your area (7.0)M Providing city bus service (7.0)

A third tier of 11 City services receives satisfactory readings between 6.0 and 6.9:

M Providing drinking water which meets health and safety standards (6.8)M Controlling cut-through traffic in your neighborhood (6.8)M Enforcing traffic laws on city streets (6.8)M Providing art and cultural events and programs (6.7)M Preserving residential neighborhoods (6.6)M Street repair and maintenance (6.6)M Requiring property owners to maintain their properties to minimum standards

and enforcing cleanup ordinances (6.5)M Crime prevention efforts in your area (6.4)M Providing services for the elderly such as housing and meals at home (6.2)M Providing programs for youth (6.2)M Preventing illegal dumping (6.1)

Four of the 30 City services evaluated receive a satisfaction reading under 6.0. As might be expectedgiven the nation’s, state’s and Valley’s economic woes, the two lowest rated services relate to job creation.

M Countering gang activities (5.9)M Providing services and housing for the poor and homeless (5.4)M Providing job training and placement services for the unemployed (5.3)M Attracting new employers to the community and helping existing employers to grow (5.1)




TABLE 7: SATISFACTION WITH SELECTED CITY SERVICES

"As you know, the City of Phoenix provides various services to the community ranging from fireprotection to street maintenance. On a scale of one to 10 where one means you think the cityis doing a poor job and 10 means you think the city is doing an excellent job, how would yourate the City of Phoenix on each of the following? Remember, one means a poor job and 10means an excellent job."

Low(1-4)

Mod-erate(5-6)

High(7-8)

VeryHigh

(9-10)Not

SureMEAN

RATING

Emergency medical response by the Fire Dept. 6% 9% 23% 54% 8% 8.3Fire protection in your area 6 7 31 52 4 8.2Garbage and recycling collection 10 8 23 58 1 8.2Library services in your area 10 14 29 41 6 7.7Preserving our mountains and deserts 10 14 36 35 5 7.6Collection frequency of uncontainerized trash

such as yard clippings 13 13 30 39 5 7.5Keeping the parks in your area clean 10 15 37 33 5 7.5Providing citizens with Internet access to City

information and services 8 22 24 33 13 7.4Police protection in your area 13 18 34 34 1 7.3Keeping our streets clean 14 17 36 33 * 7.2Operating wastewater plants in a way that

protects the environment 9 18 29 24 20 7.1Preserving historic Phoenix houses and other

historic buildings 10 22 31 27 10 7.1Handling street flooding during rains in your area 14 18 33 28 7 7.0Providing city bus service in your area 16 17 32 30 5 7.0Providing parks and recreation programs in

your area 17 21 33 23 6 7.0Providing drinking water which meets health

and safety standards 14 22 28 30 6 6.8Controlling cut-through traffic in your neighbor-

hood 17 20 31 28 4 6.8Enforcing traffic laws on city streets 21 18 32 27 2 6.8Providing art and cultural events and programs 16 20 33 23 8 6.7Preserving residential neighborhoods 17 24 36 17 6 6.6Street repair and maintenance 19 23 34 23 1 6.6Requiring property owners to maintain

their properties to minimum standardsand enforcing cleanup ordinances 21 24 30 21 4 6.5

Crime prevention efforts in your area 19 24 36 17 4 6.4Providing services for the elderly such as

housing and meals at home 21 17 19 18 25 6.2Providing programs for youth 21 22 25 14 18 6.2Preventing illegal dumping 25 20 25 17 13 6.1Countering gang activities 27 20 25 17 11 5.9Providing services and housing for the poor

and homeless 33 22 19 12 14 5.4Providing job training and placement services

for the unemployed 27 25 17 12 19 5.3Attracting new employers to the community

and helping existing employers to grow 34 27 23 7 9 5.1





When the 2010 satisfaction ratings are compared to the 2008 ratings, we find that in two areas, theratings are down (a .6 negative shift): attracting new employers (-1.2), safe drinking water (-.6). In theremaining 28 service areas, the ratings are unchanged (less than a .6 positive or negative shift).

TABLE 8: HISTORICAL RATING OF CITY SERVICES

MEAN RATING

2010 2008 2006 2004 2002'08-'10

ChangePROTECTIVE SERVICESEmergency medical response 8.3 8.5 8.5 8.3 8.2 -.2Fire protection 8.2 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.5 -.2Police protection 7.3 7.0 7.2 7.2 7.0 +.3Enforcing traffic laws 6.8 7.0 6.8 6.5 6.1 -.2Crime prevention efforts 6.4 6.6 6.4 6.4 6.5 -.2Gang programs 5.9 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.0 -.2

TRANSPORTATION SERVICESKeeping streets clean 7.2 7.0 7.1 7.2 — +.2City bus service 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 0Street flooding 7.0 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 -.2Cut-through traffic 6.8 7.1 6.6 6.4 6.5 -.3Street repair/maintenance 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.8 0

SOCIAL SERVICESElderly services 6.2 6.5 6.8 6.7 6.5 -.3Youth programs 6.2 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.3 -.3Poor/homeless services 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.1 5.7 -.1Job training/placement 5.3 5.8 5.9 5.5 5.8 -.5

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICESGarbage/recycling collection 8.2 8.0 8.0 7.8 7.6 +.2Preserving mountains/deserts 7.6 7.7 7.1 6.9 7.0 -.1Uncontainerized trash collection 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.1 7.2 0Wastewater plants 7.1 7.1 7.3 7.3 7.3 0Safe drinking water 6.8 7.4 7.0 6.9 6.8 -.6Preventing illegal dumping 6.1 6.3 6.1 6.1 6.0 -.2

PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICESLibrary services 7.7 7.9 7.9 7.7 7.9 -.2Keeping the parks in your area clean 7.5 8.0 – – – -.5Parks/recreation programs 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 +.1Art/cultural events/programs 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 -.2

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICESInternet access 7.4 7.6 7.4 7.4 7.1 -.2Attracting new employers 5.1 6.3 6.8 6.3 6.7 -1.2

NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION SERVICESPreserving historic buildings 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 — +.1Preserving neighborhoods 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.6 0Property maintenance standards 6.5 6.3 6.5 6.4 6.1 +.2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




CITY SPENDING PRIORITIES

After residents had evaluated each of the 30 service areas under consideration, they were asked toindicate whether they would or would not be willing to pay more to improve each of them. Seven services arementioned by at least seven out of 10 residents as areas where they would be willing to pay more:

M Youth programs (75%)M Poor and homeless services (74%)M Gang programs (73%)M Job training and placement services for the unemployed (73%)M Elderly services (73%)M Crime prevention efforts (70%)M Emergency medical response (70%)

There is also a second tier of five service areas where at least six out of 10 residents would be willingto pay more:

M Police protection (68%)M Parks and recreation programs (66%)M Provide safe drinking water (66%)M Attracting new employers to the community and helping existing employers grow

(62%)M Fire protection (62%)

Of particular interest among the 12 service spending priorities noted above, is the fact that theyinclude four of the six protective service categories and all of the four social service categories tested. Thispattern clearly reveals the high priority which residents give these service areas.

On the other end of the spectrum, the following services receive the lowest spending priority readingswith at least 50 percent or more of residents indicating they would not be willing to pay more for each.

M Cut-through traffic (61%)M Street flooding (59%)M Uncontainerized trash collection (57%)M Preserving historic Phoenix houses and other historic buildings (54%)M Internet access to City information (54%)M Garbage and recycling collection (50%)




TABLE 9: WILLINGNESS TO PAY MORE FORIMPROVED CITY SERVICES

"Now I'd like to quickly read the list again, but this time, please tell me if each serviceis one you would or would not be willing to pay more for to improve.”

WillingTo PayMore

NotWillingTo PayMore

NotSure

NET1

MORE/(LESS)

Youth programs 75% 22% 3% 53%Poor/homeless services 74 24 2 50Gang programs 73 23 4 50Job training/placement 73 23 4 50Elderly services 73 25 2 48Crime prevention efforts 70 27 3 43Emergency medical response 70 28 2 42Police protection 68 30 2 38Parks/recreation programs 66 31 3 35Safe drinking water 66 32 2 34Attracting new employers 62 35 3 27Fire protection 62 36 2 26Property maintenance standards 59 38 3 21Preventing illegal dumping 58 38 4 20Keeping streets clean 58 40 2 18Wastewater plants 57 39 4 18Keeping parks clean 58 41 1 17Library services 57 42 1 15Enforcing traffic laws 54 43 3 11Preserving neighborhoods 53 43 4 10Preserving mountains/deserts 53 44 3 9Street repair/maintenance 53 45 2 8City bus service 51 46 3 5Art/cultural events/programs 50 47 3 3Garbage/recycling collection 49 50 1 (1)Internet access 42 54 4 (12)Preserving historic buildings 40 54 6 (14)Uncontainerized trash collection 41 57 2 (16)Street flooding 39 59 2 (20)Cut-through traffic 37 61 2 (24)

1Willing to pay more minus not willing~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Next in this section we present a Priority Spending Index. This Index correlates the earlier discussedservice satisfaction ratings with residents’ willingness to pay more for improved service. The effect of thisIndex is that it affords higher spending priority to those services that receive lower satisfaction readings.

As may be seen in the following table, the result of this exercise is a reordering of the top 10 spendingpriorities from Table 9 with job training/placement (137.7) and poor/homeless services (137.0) receiving thehighest Index reading, followed by gang problems (123.7). Also notice that since 2008, Index increases arerecorded for 12 services, while decreases are recorded for 18 services. Similar to 2008, the strongestincreases are recorded in attracting new employers (+35.9) and job training/placement (+22.2) – a likelyreflection of current economic conditions.

TABLE 10: PRIORITY SPENDING INDEX

PRIORITYSPENDING INDEX

1-10Rating

Willing ToPay More 2010 2008 2006

‘08-‘10Change

Job training/placement 5.3 73% 137.7 115.5 105.1 + 22.2Poor/homeless services 5.4 74 137.0 130.9 125.5 + 6.1Gang programs 5.9 73 123.7 121.3 127.9 + 2.4Attracting new employers 5.1 62 121.6 85.7 76.5 + 35.9Youth programs 6.2 75 121.0 109.2 113.6 + 10.8Elderly services 6.2 73 117.7 118.5 111.8 - .8Crime prevention efforts 6.4 70 109.4 115.2 126.6 - 5.8Safe drinking water 6.8 66 97.1 94.6 101.4 + 2.5Preventing illegal dumping 6.1 58 95.1 100.0 96.7 - 4.9Parks/recreation programs 7.0 66 94.3 100.0 92.9 - 5.7Police protection 7.3 68 93.2 101.4 106.9 - 8.2Property maintenance standards 6.5 59 90.8 88.9 87.7 + 1.9Emergency medical response 8.3 70 84.3 83.5 87.1 + .8Keeping streets clean 7.2 58 80.6 85.7 95.8 - 5.1Wastewater plants 7.1 57 80.3 95.8 93.2 - 15.5Street repair/maintenance 6.6 53 80.3 93.9 93.9 - 13.6Preserving neighborhoods 6.6 53 80.3 86.4 89.6 - 6.1Enforcing traffic laws 6.8 54 79.4 81.4 97.1 - 2.0Keeping parks clean 7.5 58 77.3 76.3 – + 1.0Fire protection 8.2 62 75.6 79.8 83.3 - 4.2Art/cultural events/programs 6.7 50 74.6 76.8 76.8 - 2.2Library services 7.7 57 74.0 65.8 67.1 + 8.2City bus service 7.0 51 72.9 80.0 73.2 - 7.1Preserving mountains/deserts 7.6 53 69.7 80.5 94.4 - 10.8Garbage/recycling collection 8.2 49 59.8 63.8 60.0 - 4.0Internet access 7.4 42 56.8 48.7 55.4 + 8.1Preserving historic buildings 7.1 40 56.3 68.6 63.3 - 12.3Street flooding 7.0 39 55.7 55.6 58.9 + .1Uncontainerized trash collection 7.5 41 54.7 64.0 65.3 - 9.3Cut-through traffic 6.8 37 54.4 63.4 77.3 - 9.0

Calculation: Willing to pay more divided by rating~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX

Phoenix residents continue to rate the quality of life in Phoenix quite highly, with nearly two out of threeresidents (64%) indicating it is either excellent (12%) or good (52%). In comparison, 26 percent of residentsrate the quality of life as fair, while 10 percent rate it in negative terms (poor/very poor). The current level ofpositive response has remained relatively consistent since 2002, while the negative response has increasedsomewhat.

When residents' attitudes about the quality of life in Phoenix are analyzed based on demographicsubgroup, we find several interesting differences between subgroups. For example, as in the past, positiveimpressions tend to increase in direct correlation to increases in yearly income, and white residents reveal amore positive impression about the quality of life in the City than do minority residents (72% vs. 54%).Negative impressions reach the highest level among lower income households (16%) and minority households(14%).

TABLE 11: QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX

"On the whole, would you say that the quality of life in the City of Phoenix isexcellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?"

Excellent/Good Fair

Poor/Very Poor

NotSure

2010 64% 26% 10% *%2008 67 28 5 *2006 70 24 5 12004 70 25 5 *2002 66 28 6 *


GENDERMale 67% 23% 10% 0%Female 63 28 9 *

AGEUnder 35 60 28 12 035 to 49 59 32 9 050 to 64 68 22 9 165 or over 77 15 7 1

INCOMEUnder $25,000 54 30 16 0$25,000 to $49,999 64 20 16 *$50,000 to $74,999 64 34 2 0$75,000 or over 75 20 5 0

ETHNICITYWhite 72 21 7 *Minority 54 32 14 0

LENGTH OF RESIDENCEUnder 10 61 28 11 010 or over 66 25 9 *





NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS

Residents were next asked to indicate the single most important problem the City should be workingon to solve in their neighborhood. As Table 12 indicates, crime-related issues (22%) continue to lead theresponses followed by transportation issues (15%). Each of these issues is down from 2008. The only otherproblem to register a two-digit reading is the economy with 10 percent – up from only two percent in 2008.

TABLE 12: MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEMSCITY SHOULD BE WORKING TO SOLVE

"Next, what do you feel is the single most important problem the City should be workingto solve in your neighborhood?" (IF CRIME MENTIONED, PROBE). "And what is thenext most important problem?"

2010 2008 2006 2004 2002

CRIME 22% 32% 33% 34% 30%

Robberies 6 5 5 8 5Drugs 4 4 7 6 7Gangs 4 2 3 5 8Crime, too much 3 9 11 9 4Need more police 2 3 3 3 4Car theft/jacking 1 1 2 3 5Other responses 2 8 5 3 5

TRANSPORTATION 15 20 23 26 26

Street/road conditions 5 3 4 2 3Traffic congestion 3 4 7 9 7Bad drivers, red light

runners 3 1 4 6 7Lack of public transit 2 5 4 6 6Other responses 4 8 5 4 5

Economy/jobs/unemployment 10 2 2 3 3Trash/litter/graffiti 8 5 8 5 6Illegal immigration 6 7 7 1 *Education 5 3 3 4 6Lack of social services 4 3 4 3 3Environment/pollution 2 4 4 5 6Neighborhood maintenance 2 2 4 4 3Parks and recreation 2 2 1 1 2Uncontrolled growth 1 1 2 2 3All other responses 4 3 3 6 7

No problems 12 10 11 8 12Not sure 8 8 9 7 6

Totals exceed 100% due to multiple responses

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




In a related question, residents were asked if each of 10 issues was a major, a minor, or not a problemin their neighborhood. As may be seen, air pollution is viewed as the primary problem facing neighborhoods,with 38 percent of residents rating it a major problem. Three additional problems are rated as major problemsby roughly three out of 10 residents – graffiti (29%), drug activity (28% ) and juvenile crime (27%).

TABLE 13: EVALUATION OF SELECTEDNEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS

"Next, would you say the following things are major problems, minor problems,or not problems in your neighborhood?"

Major MinorNot A

ProblemNot

Sure

Air pollution 38% 30% 31% 1%Graffiti 29 38 33 *Drug activity 28 29 38 5Juvenile crime 27 34 34 5Traffic congestion 20 37 43 *Houses and yards that are not

well maintained 20 35 44 1Traffic cutting through neigh-

borhood streets 16 34 50 *Signs on utility poles for things

like yard sales or model homes 12 31 56 1Vacant lots 12 32 56 *Interference from industrial or

commercial operations 8 24 66 2


When the current readings are compared to those recorded in 2008, we find statistically significantimprovement in two areas – air pollution, which declined from 49 percent in 2008 to 38 percent today, andtraffic congestion which declined from 28 percent in 2008 and 37 percent in 2006 to 20 percent today.




TABLE 14: EVALUATION OF SELECTEDNEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS – DETAIL

% "MAJOR" PROBLEM

2010 2008 2006 2004 2002‘08 - ‘10CHANGE

Air pollution 38% 49% 46% 42% 45% -11Graffiti 29 32 31 19 22 - 3Drug activity 28 32 38 29 33 - 4Juvenile crime 27 31 34 26 32 - 4Traffic congestion 20 28 37 31 35 - 8Houses and yards that are not

well maintained 20 24 21 22 24 - 4Traffic cutting through neigh-

borhood streets 16 19 24 20 23 - 3Signs on utility poles for things

like yard sales or model homes 12 13 13 11 11 - 1Vacant lots 12 12 14 9 11 0Interference from industrial or

commercial operations 8 9 9 8 7 - 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




STEPS CITY COULD TAKE TO MAKE PHOENIX MORE LIVEABLE

Similar to prior years, the main thing residents believe the City could do to make Phoenix a moreliveable community is to improve the transportation system with a reading of 18 percent, down from 26 percentin 2008. Also receiving noteworthy mention are improving the economy (16%) and crime (12%).

TABLE 15: STEPS CITY COULD TAKETO MAKE PHOENIX MORE LIVEABLE

“What do you feel the City could do to make Phoenix a more liveable city inthe future? (PROBE) What else?”

2010 2008 2006 2004

IMPROVE THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 18% 26% 24% 23%

Public transit/light rail – extend 11 14 11 11Fix roads – pot holes 3 2 1 1Traffic congestion 2 4 5 4Freeways 1 2 4 5Other responses 4 4 5 5

Improve the economy/jobs 16 9 5 6Reduce crime 12 16 17 18Protect environment – air pollution, conserve

water 8 12 6 8Reduce illegal immigration 7 4 5 2Better government – listen to the people 7 3 3 2Improve parks/recreation 6 4 4 4Improve education 5 3 3 4Improve social services 4 2 4 5Slow growth – control 3 6 6 9Lower taxes 3 2 1 2Improve city services 3 1 2 1Revitalize – downtown, vacant lots, run down

areas 2 * 4 7Expand cultural opportunities 1 2 1 1Miscellaneous 3 1 3 5

Nothing – doing fine 8 10 8 5Not sure 12 14 20 17

Totals exceed 100% due to multiple response*Indicates % less than .5

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




ATTITUDES ABOUT COMMUNITY-BASED POLICING AND OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES

Residents were next read a description of community-based policing and asked to evaluate the jobthe Phoenix Police Department is doing operating the philosophy in their neighborhood. As Table 16 reveals,residents are very favorable in their evaluation with 64 percent rating the Police Department either excellent(24%) or good (40%) and only 12 percent rating it poor (8%) or very poor (4%). The positive readings forcommunity-based policing have remained relatively constant since 2000.

TABLE 16: ATTITUDES ABOUT COMMUNITY-BASED POLICING

"Next, for the past several years the Phoenix Police Department has been operatingunder a community-based policing philosophy. Under community-based policing,the Department, in partnership with other City departments, residents andbusinesses, assists the community in enhancing the quality of life. Such programsas Block Watch are a result of this effort along with in-school programs for children.As far as you're concerned, is the Phoenix Police Department doing an excellent,good, fair, poor or very poor job of operating this philosophy in your neighborhood?"

Excellent/Good Fair

Poor/Very Poor

NotSure

2010 64% 18% 12% 6%2008 66 20 8 62006 68 19 7 62004 70 19 4 72002 67 18 6 9


GENDERMale 62% 18% 11% 9%Female 67 18 12 3


INCOMEUnder $25,000 59 23 16 2$25,000 to $49,999 73 9 12 6$50,000 to $74,999 69 16 8 7$75,000 or over 69 14 7 10

ETHNICITYWhite 68 17 7 8Minority 60 18 18 4

LENGTH OF RESIDENCEUnder 10 64 15 9 1210 or over 65 19 12 4

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Continuing with this line of questioning, we find that 35 percent of residents have had contact with aPhoenix police officer in the past 12 months and that 81 percent of these residents rate their contact aspositive.

TABLE 17: CONTACT WITHPHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT

“During the past 12 months, have you had any contact with a Cityof Phoenix police officer?”

Yes 35%No 65

(AMONG THOSE HAVING CONTACT)

“Would you rate your last contact with a City of Phoenix policeofficer as very positive, positive, negative or very negative?”

Very positive 29%Positive 52Negative 13Very negative 6

100%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Residents also were asked about safety in their neighborhood. Here we find that 53 percent ofresidents believe their neighborhood is safer than other neighborhoods in Phoenix, while 35 percent believesafety in their neighborhood is on par with other Phoenix neighborhoods. In comparison, only 11 percent ofresidents believe their neighborhood is not as safe as other Phoenix neighborhoods. Compared to 2008, anincrease of four points is recorded in the “safer” reading (53% vs. 49%) and compared to 2006, a 13-pointincrease (53% vs. 40%).

TABLE 18: ATTITUDES ABOUTNEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY

“From what you know or have heard, is your neighborhood safer than otherneighborhoods in Phoenix, about the same as other neighborhoods inPhoenix, or not as safe as other neighborhoods in Phoenix?”

SaferAboutSame

Not asSafe

NotSure

2010 53% 35% 11% 1%2008 49 37 10 42006 40 41 16 32004 46 39 11 4

2010 READING – DETAILGENDERMale 53% 34% 11% 2%Female 52 37 11 0





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




In a related question, 50 percent of residents indicate their neighborhood participates in a Block Watchor similar crime prevention program which is little changed from 2008. Two out of three residents (66%)participating in crime prevention programs feel they are effective in reducing crime, down 14 points from 80percent in 2008.

TABLE 19: PARTICIPATION IN BLOCK WATCH

“Does your neighborhood participate in a BlockWatch or other similar crime reduction program?”

% YES

2010 2008 2006 2004

TOTAL 50% 51% 45% 46%




(AMONG THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE)

“Do you feel it is effective in reducing crime in yourneighborhood?”

Yes 66% 80% 78% 70%No 26 14 15 19Not sure 8 6 7 11

100% 100% 100% 100%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The most commonly relied on source of information about what is happening in the City of Phoenixcontinues to be local television programs, with 45 percent of residents indicating they rely on such programsa lot. In comparison, 39 percent rely on the Internet a lot, while 28 percent rely on newspapers a lot and 22percent rely on radio news programs a lot. These readings reveal drops in the television, newspaper andradio readings and a sharp increase in the Internet reading over the past eight years. Also note that somemajor variations exist between the various demographic subgroups.

TABLE 20: SOURCES OF INFORMATION

"Next, do you rely a lot, some, only a little or not at all on each of thefollowing for information about the City of Phoenix?"

2010 READING – % A LOT

A LOTA

Lot SomeOnly

A LittleNot

At All 2008 2006 2004 2002

Television programs 45% 22% 19% 14% 44% 48% 48% 51%The Internet 39 21 15 25 36 22 16 17Newspapers 28 16 17 39 30 32 40 35Radio news programs 22 20 23 35 30 30 29 31

*Indicates percent less than .52010 READING – % A LOT

Tele-vision Internet

News-papers Radio

TOTAL 45% 39% 28% 22%

GENDERMale 39 39 27 23Female 51 39 28 21





~~~~~~~~~~~~




USE OF CITY’S WEB SITE

Forty-four percent of residents indicate they have used the City’s web site. Similar to the droprecorded earlier on Internet use in contacting the City, this figure represents a seven-point drop since 2008.Nonetheless, the reading is up 20 points from 2002. The highest use of the site is among upper-incomeresidents (70%). The data also reveals that the City’s web site receives positive readings from users, with 72percent giving it a rating of seven or more on a 10-point scale (up from 66 percent in 2008).

TABLE 21: USE OF CITY’S WEB SITE

"Have you ever used phoenix.gov, the City’s web site, to obtain information orconduct business with the City?" (IF YES): "On a 10 point scale where 1 meanspoor and 10 means excellent, how would you rate the City’s web site?"

AMONG USERS

%USING

Low(1-4)

Mod-erate(5-6)

High(7-8)

VeryHigh

(9-10)Not

SureMEAN

RATING

2010 44% 9% 18% 45% 27% 1% 7.42008 51 4 28 40 26 2 7.32006 36 6 22 45 26 1 7.32004 34 9 23 51 16 1 7.02002 24 6 16 42 28 8 7.4

2010 READING – % USING






~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




The research also reveals that residents’ main reason for visiting the site is to get water bill informationor pay a water bill (21%). This reading has increased from 12 percent in 2008. Ninety-seven percent ofresidents indicate they were able to find what they were looking for the last time they visited the City’s website – up sharply from 83 percent in 2004.

TABLE 22: REASONS FOR VISITINGCITY’S WEB SITE

“For what purpose did you last visit the City’s web site?”

2010 2008 2006 2004

Water bill information/pay bill 21% 12% 9% 12%Request trash pickup 10 10 7 12Entertainment – concerts, theatres, arts 8 8 2 2Employment information 7 12 14 14Tax forms/information 6 3 5 4Police information 6 3 3 1Building permit 4 3 7 3Property/zoning 4 2 2 5Library information 4 * 3 5Neighborhood services 3 1 2 2Parks and recreation 2 6 4 3City elections 2 1 4 3Report repairs need 2 * * 0Court records/jury duty 1 4 6 7Social services 1 4 6 1Public transit 1 3 2 1Graffiti cleanup 1 * 1 2Animal control 1 * * *Business license * 2 1 2Schools/education 0 2 0 3All others with mentions 12 14 12 14Don’t recall 9 12 13 14

Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses* Indicates % less than .5

“Were you able to find what you were looking for on your last visit?”

Yes 97% 90% 92% 83%No 3 10 8 17

100% 100% 100% 100%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




AWARENESS OF AND ATTITUDES TOWARD NEIGHBORHOOD ORDINANCES

Residents were queried about their awareness of a City ordinance designed to help neighborhoodsfight blight and require owners to keep up their property. Fifty-one percent of residents indicate they are awareof the ordinance, which is down sharply from 64 percent in 2008.

Those aware of the ordinance were asked a follow-up question regarding how well they felt theordinance is working in their neighborhood. Here we find that more than eight out of 10 residents (84%)believe the ordinance is working either very well (43%) or fairly well (41%), while 15 percent believe it is eithernot working too well (11%) or not at all (4%). The percent of residents who believe the ordinance is workingwell (very/fairly) has increased from 77 percent in 2008.

TABLE 23: AWARENESS OF AND ATTITUDESTOWARD NEIGHBORHOOD ORDINANCES

"Next, were you aware that the City of Phoenix has an ordinance to helpneighborhoods fight blight and require owners to keep up their property, or not?"

"How well would you say these ordinances are working in your neighborhood –very well, fairly well, not too well or not well at all?"

EVALUATION AMONG THOSE AWARE

PERCENTAWARE

VeryWell

FairlyWell

NotTooWell

NotWellAt All

NotSure

TOTALWELL1

2010 51% 43% 41% 11% 4% 1% 84%2008 64 30 47 15 6 2 772006 64 33 48 12 6 1 812004 55 29 46 15 6 4 752002 59 36 38 14 8 4 74

2010 READING – % AWARE






~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




EVALUATION OF SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Phoenix residents were asked to evaluate Sky Harbor International Airport on 11 different factorsusing a one-to-ten scale. As may be seen on Table 24, Sky Harbor continues to receive a very positivereading with an overall rating of 8.1 with 77 percent of residents offering a rating of seven or higher – up from70 percent in 2008. The specific factors receiving the highest positive readings are convenient airport location(8.4) and overall cleanliness of airport terminals (8.3). On the flip side, Sky Harbor continues to receive itslowest ratings on high quality food and beverages at reasonable prices (5.9) and quality retail merchandiseat reasonable prices (6.0).

When the 2010 readings are compared to those from the 2008 study, we find that on each of the 11factors studied, the readings are unchanged (less than .6 shift).

TABLE 24: EVALUATION OF SKY HARBORINTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

"Next, on a 10-point scale where 1 means you think the airport is doing a poorjob and 10 means you think the airport is doing an excellent job, how would yourate Sky Harbor International Airport for. . .?"

Low(1-4)

Mod-erate(5-6)

High(7-8)

VeryHigh

(9-10)Not

Sure

MEAN RATING '08-'10Change2010 2008 2006 2004

A convenient Airport location 5% 9% 25% 53% 8% 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.3 0Overall cleanliness of Airport

terminals 4 7 30 47 12 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 0Overall rating of Sky Harbor

International Airport 4 8 37 40 11 8.1 7.7 8.0 8.1 +.4Clean and well-supplied

restrooms 7 6 29 44 14 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9 -.2Courteous and knowledgeable

Airport employees 4 10 33 37 16 8.0 7.7 7.8 7.8 +.3Availability of taxis, limousines

and shuttle services 4 12 25 40 19 8.0 8.0 7.8 7.5 0Frequency and quality of shuttle

bus service betweenterminals, parking lots and therental car center 8 10 26 32 24 7.7 7.7 7.4 7.6 0

Clear and understandabledirectional signs on the airportroadway system 13 17 22 39 9 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.4 0

Ease and availability of parkingfacilities at reasonable prices 15 19 29 18 19 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.9 -.1

Quality retail merchandise atreasonable prices 21 23 25 13 18 6.0 5.7 6.1 5.8 +.3

High quality food and bever-ages at reasonable prices 23 21 28 14 14 5.9 5.7 5.9 7.0 +.2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




PERCEPTIONS OF DOWNTOWN PHOENIX

More than six out of 10 Phoenix residents (62%) believe downtown Phoenix has become either muchbetter (23%) or a little better (39%) over the past few years. The overall change for the better reading of 62percent is down slightly from 66 percent in 2008.

The downtown area receives its highest better readings from residents 50 to 64 (77%), residents whoearn $75,000 or more (72%) and white residents (68%).

TABLE 25: CHANGES IN DOWNTOWN PHOENIX

"Do you think downtown Phoenix is much better now than it was a few yearsago, a little better, about the same, or worse?"

MuchBetter

LittleBetter

AboutThe Same Worse

NotSure

TOTALBETTER1

2010 23% 39% 18% 12% 8% 62%2008 32 34 17 5 12 662006 30 34 17 9 10 642004 33 31 16 9 11 642002 44 23 13 4 16 67

2010 READING – % BETTER






~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




AWARENESS OF CITY’S SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS

Seven out of 10 Phoenix residents (70%) are aware of the City’s sustainability efforts with few Phoenixresidents (14%) indicating they know “a lot” and a majority (56%) indicating they know a little. These figuresare little changed from 2008.

TABLE 26: AWARENESS OF CITY’SSUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS

“Would you say you know a lot, a little or nothing at all about the City’s effortsto establish sustainability programs? That is, programs to reduce energy andgreenhouse gases, use of alternative fuel vehicles, design of city-ownedgreen buildings, water reuse and conservation, recycling, restore blightedland for reuse and preserve desert and open spaces?”

ALot

ALittle Nothing

TOTAL – 2010 14% 56% 30%– 2008 15 54 31

2010 READING – % A LOT/A LITTLE

TOTAL 70%

GENDERMale 71Female 69





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




APPENDIX

METHODOLOGY

The information contained in this report is based on 700 in-depth telephone interviews conducted withCity of Phoenix heads of household. Respondent selection on this project was accomplished via a computer-generated random digit dial telephone sample which selects households based on residential telephoneprefixes and includes all unlisted and newly listed households. This methodology was selected because itensures a randomly selected sample of households proportionately allocated throughout the sample universe.This method also insures that all unlisted and newly listed telephone households are included in the sample.

The questionnaire used in this study was designed by Behavior Research Center (BRC) in conjunctionwith the City (see appended questionnaire). After approval of the preliminary draft questionnaire, it was pre-tested with a randomly-selected cross-section of five Phoenix residents. The pre-test focused on the valueand understandability of the questions, adequacy of response categories, questions for which probes werenecessary and the like. Following the pre-test, the final form was approved by the City and a Spanish versionof the questionnaire was prepared.

During the course of this study, only the male or female head of household was interviewed. Thismethodology was utilized because prior studies of this nature have shown that these are the individuals withineach household that have the knowledge and background to respond to the topics under consideration. Inaddition, the sample was selected so that an equal proportion of male and female household heads fell intothe sample.

This survey utilized a "split" sample methodology. Using this methodology, selected survey questionswere designated core questions and asked of all survey respondents while other survey questions were askedof only one-half of the survey respondents. This methodology is commonly used when the volume ofinformation desired is particularly extensive and the number of interviews to be conducted is of adequate sizeto justify splitting. Questions 1 to 4, 6 to 7 and 18 to 21 were designated core questions for the purpose ofthis survey and asked of all study respondents. The remaining questions were asked of one-half of the studyrespondents.

All of the interviewing on this project was conducted during December 2010 at the Center's centrallocation computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) facility where each interviewer worked under thedirect supervision of BRC supervisory personnel. All of the interviewers who worked on this project wereprofessional interviewers of the Center. Each had prior experience with BRC and received a thorough briefingon the particulars of this study. During the briefing, the interviewers were trained on (a) the purpose of thestudy, (b) sampling procedures, (c) administration of the questionnaire, and (d) other project-related factors.In addition, each interviewer completed a set of practice interviews to ensure that all procedures wereunderstood and followed.

Interviewing on this study was conducted during an approximately equal cross-section of evening andweekend hours. This procedure was followed to ensure that all households were equally represented,regardless of work schedules. Further, during the interviewing segment of this study, up to five separateattempts, on different days and during different times of day, were made to contact each selected resident.Only after five unsuccessful attempts was a selected household substituted in the sample. Using thismethodology, the full sample was completed, and partially completed interviews were not accepted norcounted toward fulfillment of the total sample quotas.

One hundred percent of the completed interviews were edited, and any containing errors ofadministration were pulled, the respondent re-called, and the errors corrected. In addition, 15 percent of eachinterviewer's work was randomly selected for validation to ensure its authenticity and correctness. Noproblems were encountered during this phase of interviewing quality control.




When analyzing the results of this survey, it should be kept in mind that all surveys are subject tosampling error. Sampling error, stated simply, is the difference between the results obtained from a sampleand those which would be obtained by surveying the entire population under consideration. The size ofsampling error varies, to some extent, with the number of interviews completed and with the division of opinionon a particular question.

An estimate of the sampling error range for this study is provided in the following table. The samplingerror presented in the table has been calculated at the confidence level most frequently used by socialscientists, the 95 percent level. The sampling error figures shown in the table are average figures thatrepresent the maximum error for the sample bases shown (i.e., for survey findings where the division ofopinion is approximately 50%/50%). Survey findings that show a more one-sided distribution of opinion, suchas 70%/30% or 90%/10%, are usually subject to slightly lower sampling tolerances than those shown in thetable.

As may be seen in the table, the overall sampling error for this study is approximately +/- 3.8 percentwhen the sample is studied in total (i.e., all 700 cases). However, when subsets of the total sample arestudied, the amount of sampling error increases based on the sample size within the subset.

Sample Sampling Error At ASize 95% Confidence Level

700 3.8%500 4.5300 5.8100 10.0

SAMPLE PROFILE


100%AGEUnder 35 29%35 to 49 3250 to 64 2365 or over 16

100%INCOMEUnder $25,000 29%$25,000 to $49,999 26$50,000 to $74,999 23$75,000 or over 22

100%ETHNICITYWhite 62%Hispanic 28Black 8Asian American 1American Indian 1

100%LENGTH OF RESIDENCEUnder 10 20%10 or more 80

100%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2010029\QUE Phx Community Attitude Survey - 2010.wpd **FINAL** February 15, 2011 (9:12am)Copyright © 2010. All rights reserved. For information: Behavior Research Center (602) 258-4554. Page: 542010029/RPT PHX Community Attitude Survey-2010.wpd

BEHAVIOR RESEARCH CENTER, INC. JOB ID 201002945 East Monterey WayPhoenix, AZ 85012(602) 258-4554 December 2010

Hello, my name is and I'm with the Behavior Research Center of Arizona. We'reconducting a survey among Phoenix residents on city services and I'd like to speak with youfor a few minutes.

A. Is your residence located within the Phoenix city limits?

IF YES: CONTINUE IF NO: THANK AND TERMINATE

B. And are you the (male/female) head of your household?

IF YES: CONTINUE IF NO: ASK TO SPEAK WITH MALE/ FEMALEHEAD, RE-INTRODUCE YOURSELF ANDCONTINUE. IF NONE AVAILABLE,ARRANGE CALLBACK.

Male...1Female...2

Throughout this interview I will be asking you questions which deal ONLY with the City of Phoenix -- NOTthe overall metropolitan area which includes Scottsdale, Tempe, Glendale and other Valley cities. Please keepthis in mind when answering the questions.

1. To begin, would you say you strongly agree, agree, disagree or stronglydisagree with the following statement, "Overall, Phoenix is a good place to live."

Strongly agree...1Agree...2

Disagree...3Strongly disagree...4

Not sure...5

2. On the whole, would you say that the quality of life in the City of Phoenix isexcellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?

Excellent...1Good...2

Fair...3Poor...4

Very poor...5Not sure...6

3. Next, what do you feel is the single most important problem the City should beworking to solve in your neighborhood? (IF CRIME MENTIONED, PROBE).And what is the next most important problem?

________________________

4. What do you feel the City could do to make Phoenix a more liveable city in thefuture? (PROBE:) What else?

________________________


5. (SQ) As you know, the City of Phoenix provides various services to the community ranging from fireprotection to street maintenance. On a scale of one to 10 where one means you think the city is doinga poor job and 10 means you think the city is doing an excellent job, how would you rate the City ofPhoenix on each of the following? Remember, one means a poor job and 10 means an excellent job.(ROTATE)

5a. (SQ) Now I’d like to quickly read the list again, but this time please tell me if each service is oneyou would or would not be willing to pay more for to improve. (ROTATE)

Q5aQ5 Pay More

Service Would NotCity Service Rating Would Not Sure

A. Police protection in your area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3B. Fire protection in your area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3C. Enforcing traffic laws on city streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3D. Crime prevention efforts in your area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3E. Garbage and recycling collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3F. Collection frequency of uncontainerized trash such

as yard clippings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3G. Preventing illegal dumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3H. Providing drinking water which meets health and

safety standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3I. Operating wastewater plants in a way that protects

the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3J. Street repair and maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3K. Keeping our streets clean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3L. Preserving our mountains and deserts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3M. Providing City bus service in your area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3N. Handling street flooding during rains in your area . . . . . . 1 2 3O. Providing parks and recreation programs in your area . . . 1 2 3P. Providing services and housing for the poor and

homeless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3Q. Providing programs for youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3R. Attracting new employers to the community and helping

existing employers to grow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3S. Requiring property owners to maintain their properties to

minimum standards and enforcing cleanup ordinances . . 1 2 3T. Emergency medical response by the fire department . . . . 1 2 3U. Preserving residential neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3V. Providing art and cultural events and programs . . . . . . . . 1 2 3W. Providing services for the elderly such as housing and

meals at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3X. Providing job training and placement services for the

unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3Y. Countering gang activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3Z. Controlling cut-through traffic in your neighborhood . . . . . 1 2 3AA. Providing citizens with Internet access to city information

and services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3BB. Library services in your area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3CC. Preserving historic Phoenix houses and other

historic buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____ 1 2 3DD. Keeping the parks in your area clean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____ 1 2 3

6. Would you say that you are very satisfied, satisfied,dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the overallperformance of the City in providing services toPhoenix residents?

Very satisfied...1Satisfied...2

Dissatisfied...3Very dissatisfied...4

Not sure...5


7. Next, would you say the following things are major problems,minor problems, or not problems in your neighborhood?(ROTATE)

Not A NotMajor Minor Problem Sure

A. Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4B. Juvenile crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4C. Air pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4D. Traffic cutting through neighborhood streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4E. Houses and yards that are not well maintained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4F. Traffic congestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4G. Signs on utility poles for things like yard sales or model homes . . . . 1 2 3 4H. Drug activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4I. Interference from industrial or commercial operations . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4J. Vacant lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

8. (SQ) During the past 12 months, did you contact any city employee, officialor department to seek service or information, or to make a complaint?

(GO TO Q8a) Yes...1(GO TO Q9) No...2

8a. (SQ) Was your most recent contact conducted in person, over thephone, by mail, or over the Internet?

In person...1Phone...2

Mail...3Internet...4

8b. (SQ) What was the reason for your most recent contact?

________________________________

8c. (SQ) Thinking about your last contact with theCity, would you strongly agree, agree, disagree,or strongly disagree with each of the followingstatements (ROTATE)

Strongly Dis- Strongly NotAgree Agree agree Disagree Sure

A. I was treated in a professional andcourteous manner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

B. My needs were handled in a timely fashion . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5C. I was promptly directed to the individual who

could best respond to my needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

9. (SQ) Next, on a 10 point scale where 1 means you think the Airport is doing apoor job and 10 means you think the Airport is doing an excellent job, how wouldyou rate Sky Harbor International Airport for. . . (ROTATE A-J) RATING

A. Clear and understandable directional signs on the airport roadway system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B. Frequency and quality of shuttle bus service between terminals, parking lots

and the rental car center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C. Ease and availability of parking facilities at reasonable prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .D. Quality retail merchandise at reasonable prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E. High quality food and beverages at reasonable prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F. Clean and well-supplied restrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .G. Overall cleanliness of Airport terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H. Courteous and knowledgeable Airport employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I. Availability of taxis, limousines, and shuttle services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J. A convenient Airport location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .K. Overall rating of Sky Harbor International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


10. (SQ) Next, for the past several years the Phoenix Police Department has beenoperating under a community based policing philosophy. Under communitybased policing, the Department, in partnership with other City departments,residents and businesses, assists the community in enhancing the quality of life.Such programs as Block Watch are a result of this effort along with in-schoolprograms for children. As far as you're concerned, is the Phoenix PoliceDepartment doing an excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job of operating thisphilosophy in your neighborhood?


Fair...3Poor...4


10a. During the past 12 months have you had any contact with a Cityof Phoenix police officer?

(GO TO Q10b) Yes...1(GO TO Q10c) No...2

10b. Would you rate your last contact with a City of Phoenix policeofficer as very positive, positive, negative or very negative?

Very positive...1Positive...2

Negative...3Very negative...4

Not sure...5

10c. Next, do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagreewith each of the following statements about the Phoenix PoliceDepartment? Here is the first one... (ROTATE)

Strongly Dis- Strongly NotAgree Agree Agree Disagree Sure

A. The Phoenix Police Department uses appropriate force inperforming their duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

B. The Phoenix Police Department is honest and open with thepublic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

C. I trust the Phoenix Police Department to do the right thing . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5D. The Phoenix Police Department treats all residents with respect . 1 2 3 4 5E. The Phoenix Police Department has a difficult job protecting

the community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5F. I have confidence in the Phoenix Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5G. The Phoenix Police Department treats all residents fairly

regardless of race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5H. The Phoenix Police Department cares about people like me . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

11. (SQ) Next, were you aware that the City of Phoenix has anordinance to help neighborhoods fight blight and requireowners to keep up their property, or not?


Not Sure...3

11a. (SQ) How well would you say these ordinances areworking in your neighborhood -- very well, fairly well,not too well, or not well at all?

Very well...1Fairly well...2

Not too well...3Not well at all...4

Not Sure...5

12. (SQ) From what you know or have heard, is yourneighborhood safer than other neighborhoods in Phoenix,about the same as other neighborhoods in Phoenix, or not assafe as other neighborhoods in Phoenix?

Safer...1About the same...2

Not as safe...3Not sure...4

13. (SQ) Does your neighborhood participate in a Block Watch orother similar crime reduction program?


Not Sure...3

13a. (SQ) Do you feel it is effective in reducing crime in yourneighborhood?

Yes...1No...2

Not Sure...3


14. (SQ) Do you think downtown Phoenix is much better now than it was a few yearsago, a little better, about the same, or worse?

Much better...1Little better...2

About the same...3Worse...4

Not sure...5

15. (SQ) Have you ever used Phoenix dot Gov, the City’s web site to obtaininformation or conduct business with the City?


Not sure...3

15a. (SQ) On a 10 point scale where 1 means poor and 10 means excellent,how would you rate the City’s web site? RATING: / / /

15b. (SQ) For what purpose did you last visit the City’s web site?______________________________________________________

15c. (SQ) Were you able to find what you were looking for on your last visit?Yes...1No...1

16. (SQ) Next, do you rely a lot, some, only a little, or not at all on each ofthe following for information about the City of Phoenix? (ROTATE)

A Only A Not NotLot Some Little At All Sure

A. Newspapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5B. Television news programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5C. Radio news programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5D. The Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

17. (SQ) Would you say you know a lot, a little or nothing at all about theCity’s efforts to establish sustainability programs. That is, programs toreduce energy and greenhouse gases, use of alternative fuel vehicles,design of city-owned green buildings, water reuse and conservation,recycling, restore blighted land for reuse and preserve desert and openspaces?

A lot...1A little...2

Nothing at all...3

18. Now before I finish, I need a few pieces of information about yourselffor classification purposes only. First, which of the followingcategories comes closest to your age? (READ EACH EXCEPTREFUSED)

Under 25...125 to 34...235 to 49...350 to 64...4

65 or over...5(DO NOT READ) Refused...6

19. How many years have you lived in the City of Phoenix? YEARS___________

20. Which of the following categories best describes your ethnic origin?(READ EACH EXCEPT REFUSED)

White...1Black...2

Hispanic...3American Indian...4Asian American...5

(DO NOT READ) Refused...6

21. And finally, was your total family income for last year, I mean beforetaxes and including everyone in your household, under or over$50,000?

UNDER $50,000Was it under $25,000...1

or over $25,000...2Refused...3

OVER $50,000Was it under $75,000...4

or $75,000 or over...5Refused...6

REFUSED OVERALL.........7

2008069\QUE Phx Community Attitude Survey - 2008.wpd **FINAL** February 15, 2011 (9:12am)Copyright © 2006. All rights reserved. For information: Behavior Research Center (602) 258-4554. Page: 59

Thank you very much, that completes this interview. My supervisor may want to call you to verify that I conductedthis interview so may I have your first name in order that he/she may do so? (VERIFY PHONE NUMBER)

NAME: PHONE #: ______TIME END: TOTAL TIME: ______

ADMINISTRATIVE DATA:INTERVIEWER NAME: #: ______VALIDATED BY: #: ______CODED BY: #: ______FROM SAMPLE: ZIP CODE ______

behavior research center, inc. RESEARCH IN PUBLIC OPINION, PUBLIC POLICY & CONSUMER BEHAVIORphone (602) 258-4554 • fax (602) 252-2729 p.o. box 13178 • phoenix, arizona 85002 • www.brc-research.com

2012 CITY OF PHOENIX

COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY

VOLUME I - ANALYSIS

December 2012

Prepared For

City of Phoenix200 West Washington

Phoenix, Arizona

Prepared By

Behavior Research Center, Inc.45 East Monterey Way

Phoenix, Arizona 85012(602) 258-4554

Attachment B


2012078/RPT PHX Community Opinion Survey-2012.wpd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

INTRODUCTION 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS 24

PHOENIX AS A PLACE TO LIVE 24

CONTACT WITH CITY PERSONNEL 25

ATTITUDES ABOUT PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT 28

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY PERFORMANCE 29

SATISFACTION WITH SELECTED CITY SERVICES 31

CITY SPENDING PRIORITIES 34

QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX 37

NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS 38

STEPS CITY COULD TAKE TO MAKE PHOENIX MORE LIVEABLE 41

ATTITUDES ABOUT COMMUNITY-BASED POLICING AND OTHERPUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES 42

SOURCES OF INFORMATION 46

USE OF CITY’S WEB SITE 47

AWARENESS OF AND ATTITUDES TOWARD NEIGHBORHOOD ORDINANCES 49

EVALUATION OF SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 50

PERCEPTIONS OF DOWNTOWN PHOENIX 51

AWARENESS OF CITY’S SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS 52

APPENDIX 53

METHODOLOGY 53

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 55



LISTING OF TABLES

page

TABLE 1: PHOENIX AS A PLACE TO LIVE 24

TABLE 2: CONTACT WITH CITY PERSONNEL 25

TABLE 3: REASON FOR LAST CONTACT 26

TABLE 4: EVALUATION OF LAST CONTACT 27

TABLE 5: ATTITUDES ABOUT PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT 28

TABLE 6: OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY PERFORMANCE 29

TABLE 7: CITY’S EFFORTS IN MANAGING DURING ECONOMIC DOWNTURN 30

TABLE 8: SATISFACTION WITH SELECTED CITY SERVICES 32

TABLE 9: HISTORICAL RATING OF CITY SERVICES 33

TABLE 10: WILLINGNESS TO PAY MORE FOR IMPROVED CITY SERVICES 35

TABLE 11: PRIORITY SPENDING INDEX 36

TABLE 12: QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX 37

TABLE 13: MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEMS CITY SHOULD BE WORKINGTO SOLVE 38

TABLE 14: EVALUATION OF SELECTED NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS 39

TABLE 15: EVALUATION OF SELECTED NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS –DETAIL 40

TABLE 16: STEPS CITY COULD TAKE TO MAKE PHOENIX MORE LIVEABLE 41

TABLE 17: ATTITUDES ABOUT COMMUNITY-BASED POLICING 42

TABLE 18: CONTACT WITH PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT 43

TABLE 19: ATTITUDES ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY 44

TABLE 20: PARTICIPATION IN BLOCK WATCH 45

TABLE 21: SOURCES OF INFORMATION 46

TABLE 22: USE OF CITY'S WEB SITE 47

TABLE 23: REASONS FOR VISITING CITY’S WEB SITE 48

TABLE 24: AWARENESS OF AND ATTITUDES TOWARD NEIGHBORHOODORDINANCES 49

TABLE 25: EVALUATION OF SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 50

TABLE 26: CHANGES IN DOWNTOWN PHOENIX 51

TABLE 27: AWARENESS OF CITY’S SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS 52



INTRODUCTION

This study was commissioned by the City of Phoenix with the overall objective of measuring citizenattitudes regarding City services and issues for policy development, program improvement and resourceallocation. More specifically, this project was conducted for the following purposes:

� To provide a vehicle for public participation� To identify public opinions on relevant issues� To identify public satisfaction with current service levels� To pre-test public response to proposed or revised services� To provide user service data� To provide public awareness data� To identify program or policy alternatives

This project represents the 14th citywide opinion tracking study conducted for the City of Phoenix since1985. Where appropriate, this analysis highlights shifts in public opinion which may have occurred over time.

The information contained in this report is based on 700 in-depth interviews conducted with arepresentative cross-section of City of Phoenix heads of household. All of the interviewing on this project wasconducted via telephone by professional interviewers of the Behavior Research Center during December2012. For a detailed explanation of the procedures followed during this project, please refer to theMethodology section of this report.

The information generated from this study is presented in three sections. The first section,EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, presents the primary findings of the survey in a brief summary format. The secondsection, SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS, reviews each study question in detail. The primary emphasis of thissection is to review response at the citywide level. However, wherever meaningful variations by selectedsocio-demographic subgroups are found, they are noted. The final section, APPENDIX, details the studymethodology and contains a copy of the survey questionnaire.

The Behavior Research Center has presented all of the data germane to the basic research objectiveof this project. However, if City management requires additional data retrieval or interpretation, we standready to provide such input.

BEHAVIOR RESEARCH CENTER


2 2012078/RPT PHX Community Opinion Survey-2012.wpd

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

� KEY FINDINGS

Several key findings are evident from this research effort:

– The City of Phoenix continues to be rated as a good place to live, with better thannine out of 10 residents (93%) agreeing with the statement, “Phoenix is a good placeto live.” Importantly, this attitude is universal among all population subgroups.

– Even after the significant budget/service cuts the City has undertaken over the pastseveral years due to the nation’s economic situation, it continues to receive a highmark from residents for its performance in providing services. Thus, we find nearlynine out of 10 residents (87%) indicating they are satisfied with the job the City isdoing while only 10 percent are dissatisfied. The positive reading is up slightly from2010 and is universal among all population subgroups.

– The City also receives highly positive ratings in the vast majority of instances for itsefforts in delivering the 30 specific municipal services tested.

– When those residents who had contact with the City during the prior 12 months areasked to evaluate their last contact on three specific factors, their responses arepositive. Thus, we find that roughly two out of three residents or more indicate:1) they were treated in a professional and courteous manner (87%); 2) their needswere handled in a timely fashion (75%), and; 3) they were promptly directed to theindividual who could best respond to their needs (63%).

– A new question was added in the 2010 study which reveals that seven out of 10residents or more have positive attitudes about the Phoenix Police Department ona variety of issues: 1) the Phoenix Police Department has a difficult job protectingthe community (84% agree); 2) I trust the Phoenix Police Department to do the rightthing (79% agree); 3) I have confidence in the Phoenix Police Department (77%agree); 4) the Phoenix Police Department cares about people like me (77% agree),and; 5) the Phoenix Police Department uses appropriate force in performing theirduties (71% agree).

Several other issues receive positive response from roughly six out of 10 residentsor more while at the same time generating negative response from over 20 percent:1) the Phoenix Police Department treats all residents with respect (67% agree/23%disagree); 2) the Phoenix Police Department is honest and open with the public (65%agree/24% disagree); 3) the Phoenix Police Department treats all residents fairlyregardless of race (57% agree/32% disagree).

– Throughout this research, residents reveal a particular desire for the City to placeadditional emphasis on “providing job training and placement services for theunemployed” and “attracting new employers to the community and helping existingemployers to grow.”



� PHOENIX AS A PLACE TO LIVE

Better than nine out of 10 Phoenix residents (93%) either strongly agree (27%) or agree (66%) that“Phoenix is a good place to live.” This reading has been consistently high since 2000 and is universalacross all population subgroups.



� OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY PERFORMANCE

Nearly nine out of 10 Phoenix residents (87%) continue to indicate they are either very satisfied (18%)or satisfied (69%) with the overall performance of the City in providing services. This figure is up from83 percent in 2010. Demographically, overall satisfaction with the City's performance does not dropbelow 83 percent within any population subgroup. These response patterns continue to indicatebroad-based satisfaction with the City's performance among residents.



� SATISFACTION WITH SELECTED CITY SERVICES

Phoenix residents were asked to indicate how satisfied they are with each of 30 services provided bythe City using a ten-point scale, where one means the City is doing a poor job and 10 means it isdoing an excellent job. As has been the case since the start of this series of studies, emergencymedical response by the Fire Department (8.6) and fire protection in your area (8.6) receive thehighest ratings. Also receiving a high ratings over 8.0 this year are garbage and recycling collection(8.2) and maintaining traffic signals and signs (8.1).

Also receiving very positive ratings are 16 additional services (compared to 12 in 2010) which receivesatisfaction readings between 7.0 and 7.6:

– Library services in your area (7.6)– Keeping our streets clean (7.6)– Police protection in your area (7.6)– Keeping parks in your area clean (7.6)– Collection frequency of uncontainerized trash such as yard clippings (7.5)– Handling street flooding during rains in your area (7.4)– Preserving our mountains and deserts (7.4)– Providing park and recreation programs in your area (7.4)– Enforcing traffic laws on city streets (7.4)– Operating wastewater plants in a way that protects the environment (7.4)– Preserving historic Phoenix houses and other historic buildings (7.3)– Providing city bus service (7.2)– Providing drinking water which meets health and safety standards (7.1)– Preserving residential neighborhoods (7.1)– Requiring property owners to maintain their properties to minimum standards and

enforcing cleanup ordinances (7.0)– Providing services for the elderly such as housing and meals at home (7.0)

A third tier of eight City services receives satisfactory readings between 6.2 and 6.8:

– Providing art and cultural events and programs (6.8)– Controlling cut-through traffic in your neighborhood (6.7)– Street repair and maintenance (6.6)– Crime prevention efforts in your area (6.6)– Providing programs for youth (6.6)– Countering gang activities (6.6)– Preventing illegal dumping (6.5)– Attracting new employers to the community and helping existing employers to grow

(6.2)

Two of the 30 City services evaluated receive a satisfaction reading under 6.0.

– Providing services and housing for the poor and homeless (5.8)– Providing job training and placement services for the unemployed (5.8)

When the 2012 satisfaction ratings are compared to the 2010 ratings, we find that in four areas theratings are up significantly (a .6 or more positive shift): attracting new employers (+1.1), elderlyservices (+.8), gangs programs (+.7), enforcing traffic laws (+.6). In the remaining 26 service areas,the ratings are unchanged (less than a .6 positive or negative shift). Compared to the 2002 ratings,five areas record significant positive change: enforcing traffic laws (+1.3), property maintenancestandards (+.9), police protection (+.6), gang programs (+.6), and garbage recycling collection (+.6).



� CITY SPENDING PRIORITIES

After residents had evaluated each of the 30 service areas under consideration, they were asked toindicate whether they would or would not be willing to pay more to improve each of them. Thisinformation was then correlated with the service satisfaction ratings to create a Priority SpendingIndex which affords higher spending priority to those services that receive lower satisfaction ratings.This line of inquiry reveals three service areas which receive Priority Spending Index readings of 100or more (down from seven service areas in 2010):

– Job training/placement (110.3)– Poor/homeless services (106.9)– Crime prevention efforts (104.5)

Since 2010, no Index increases are recorded while decreases are recorded for each compatibleservice tested. Additionally, when the current readings are compared with those from 2002, in onlyone case, “attracting new employers” is an increase recorded (+16.1).

Each of the remaining services receives an Index reading less than 90.



� QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX

Phoenix residents continue to rate the quality of life in Phoenix quite highly, with nearly seven out of10 residents (69%) indicating it is either excellent (16%) or good (53%). In comparison, 26 percentof residents rate the quality of life as fair, while only five percent rate it in negative terms (poor/verypoor). The current level of positive response is up five points since 2010 and has remained relativelyconsistent since 2004.



� CONTACT WITH CITY PERSONNEL

Twenty-seven percent of residents had contact with the City during the past 12 months which is downslightly from roughly one-third of residents in previous years. As in all prior studies, the most commonmethod of contacting City personnel was via the telephone (79%), followed by in-person visits (15%)and the Internet (5%). The primary reasons residents give for contacting the City are to report a crime(26%) or file a complaint about a neighbor (20%). The crime reading is down from 44 percent in 2010,while the file a complaint reading is up from only six percent.

When those residents who had contact with the City during the prior 12 months are asked to evaluatetheir last contact on three specific factors, their responses are positive. Thus, we find that roughly twoout of three residents or more indicate: 1) they were treated in a professional and courteous manner(87%); 2) their needs were handled in a timely fashion (75%), and; 3) they were promptly directed tothe individual who could best respond to their needs (63%).



� ATTITUDES ABOUT PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT

A new question was added in the 2010 study which reveals that seven out of 10 residents or morehave positive attitudes about the Phoenix Police Department on a variety of issues:

– The Phoenix Police Department has a difficult job protecting the community (84% agree)– I trust the Phoenix Police Department to do the right thing (79% agree)– I have confidence in the Phoenix Police Department (77% agree)– The Phoenix Police Department cares about people like me (77% agree)– The Phoenix Police Department uses appropriate force in performing their duties (71% agree)



disagree).

The 2012 readings are little changed from the 2010 readings.



� NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS

When residents are asked to identify the single most important problem the City should be working onto solve in their neighborhood, crime-related issues (26%) lead the responses, followed bytransportation issues (13%). Each of these issues is little changed from 2010.



In a related question, when residents are asked if each of 10 issues is a major, a minor or not aproblem facing neighborhoods, air pollution is viewed as the primary problem with 34 percent ofresidents rating it a major problem. Two additional problems are rated as major problems by roughlyone out of four residents – drug activity (28%) and graffiti (24%). When the current readings arecompared to those recorded in 2010, we find positive improvement in three areas – juvenile crime,graffiti and air pollution.



� STEPS CITY SHOULD TAKE TO MAKE PHOENIX MORE LIVEABLE

Similar to prior years, the main thing residents believe the City could do to make Phoenix a moreliveable community is to improve the transportation system (18%) followed by improving the economy(14%) and reducing crime (12%).



� ATTITUDES ABOUT COMMUNITY-BASED POLICING

Residents continue to be favorable in their evaluation of the Police Department's community-basedpolicing philosophy with 64 percent rating the Department either excellent or good and only 11 percentrating it poor or very poor. The positive readings for community-based policing have remainedrelatively constant since 2000 but have been down-trended slightly since 2004.

� CONTACT WITH PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT

Thirty percent of residents have had contact with a Phoenix police officer in the past 12 months and75 percent of these residents rate their contact as positive (37% very positive/38% positive).



� ATTITUDES ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY

Forty-four percent of residents believe their neighborhood is safer than other neighborhoods inPhoenix, while an equal 44 percent believe safety in their neighborhood is on par with other Phoenixneighborhoods. In comparison, only about 11 percent of residents believe their neighborhood is notas safe as other Phoenix neighborhoods. The “safer” reading is down from 53 percent in 2010. Ofparticular interest, however, is the fact that the “not as safe” reading has remained relatively constantover the past three study cycles, while the “same as” reading is up a similar nine points from 35percent.

In a related question, 42 percent of residents indicate their neighborhood participates in a Block Watchor similar crime prevention program. Seven out of 10 residents (73%) participating in crime preventionprograms feel they are effective in reducing crime in their neighborhood, up seven points from 66percent in 2010.



� SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The most commonly relied on source of information about the City of Phoenix is the Internet with an“a lot” reading of 49 percent – up from only 16 percent in 2004. This marks the first time in this seriesof studies that the Internet outpaces local television (42% a lot) as the primary source. This year’sreadings also reveal the continuing decline of newspapers as a source of City information (40% a lotin 2004, 25% today).



� AWARENESS OF AND ATTITUDES TOWARD NEIGHBORHOOD ORDINANCES

Fifty-two percent of residents indicate they are aware of the City ordinance designed to helpneighborhoods fight blight and require owners to keep up their property, which is unchanged from 51percent in 2010 but down sharply from 64 percent in 2008.

More than eight out of 10 residents aware of the ordinance (84%) believe it is working either very well(36%) or fairly well (48%), while 11 percent believe it is either not working too well (5%) or not at all(6%). The percent of residents who believe the ordinance is working well (very/fairly) is unchangedfrom 2010.



� EVALUATION OF SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

When the 47 percent of residents who have visited Sky Harbor International Airport in the past 12months are asked to evaluate the airport on 11 different factors using a one-to-ten scale, the airportreceives a very positive reading with an overall rating of 8.4 with 83 percent of residents offering arating of seven or higher. The specific factors receiving the highest positive readings are convenientairport location (8.5), clean and well-supplied restrooms (8.5) and overall cleanliness of airportterminals (8.4). On the flip side, Sky Harbor receives its lowest ratings on high quality food andbeverages at reasonable prices (6.0) and quality retail merchandise at reasonable prices (6.0).

The 2012 readings are not comparable to those from the 2010 study since the 2010 readings were ofall residents, not just those who had visited in the past 12 months.



� PERCEPTIONS OF DOWNTOWN PHOENIX

Two out of three Phoenix residents (66%) believe downtown Phoenix has become either much better(31%) or a little better (35%) over the past few years.



� USE OF CITY’S WEB SITE

Forty-seven percent of residents indicate they have used the City’s web site – up from 44 percent in2010. The City’s web site receives positive readings from users, with 73 percent giving it a rating ofseven or higher on a 10 point scale (little changed from 72 percent in 2010).

Ninety-four percent of residents indicate they were able to find what they were looking for the last timethey visited the City’s web site – up from 83 percent in 2004.



� AWARENESS OF CITY’S SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS

Seven out of 10 Phoenix residents (68%) are aware of the City’s sustainability efforts with 20 percentindicating they know “a lot.”



SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS

PHOENIX AS A PLACE TO LIVE

Better than nine out of 10 Phoenix residents (93%) either strongly agree (27%) or agree (66%) that“Phoenix is a good place to live.” This reading has varied little since 2000 and is universal across allpopulation subgroups.

TABLE 1: PHOENIX AS A PLACE TO LIVE

"Would you say you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with thefollowing statement, ‘Overall, Phoenix is a good place to live’."

StronglyAgree/Agree


NotSure

2012 93% 6% 1%2010 91 8 12008 91 9 *2006 91 8 12004 91 8 1


GENDERMale 94% 5% 1%Female 92 7 1

AGEUnder 35 95 5 *35 to 49 94 5 150 to 64 92 8 *65 or over 92 6 2


LENGTH OF RESIDENCEUnder 10 93 6 110 or over 93 6 1




CONTACT WITH CITY PERSONNEL

Residents were next asked if they had had any contact with the City in the preceding 12 months. AsTable 2 indicates, 27 percent of residents had contact with the City during this time period – down slightly fromprevious years. As in the prior studies, the most common method of contacting City personnel was via thetelephone (79%), followed by in-person visits (15%) and the Internet (5%).

TABLE 2: CONTACT WITH CITY PERSONNEL

"During the past 12 months, did you contact any city employee, official ordepartment to seek service or information, or to make a complaint?" (IF YES)"Was your most recent contact conducted in person, over the phone, by mail,or electronically by computer?"

METHOD OF CONTACT

% MAKINGCONTACT Phone

InPerson Internet Mail

2012 27% 79% 15% 5% 1%2010 34 83 13 3 12008 34 75 14 11 02006 33 77 13 7 32004 32 78 12 5 5

2012 READING – % MAKING CONTACT





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



The primary reasons residents give for contacting the City are to report a crime (26%) or file acomplaint about a neighbor (20%). Note the major decline in the crime reading and the major increase in thereport a neighbor reading compared to the prior studies.

TABLE 3: REASON FOR LAST CONTACT

"What was the reason for your most recent contact?"

2012 2010 2008 2006

Report a crime 26% 44% 36% 42%File complaint about neighbor 20 6 10 12Request trash/garbage pick-up

information 14 16 8 8Request repairs – roads, lights, water 9 7 9 5Water service/information 9 5 5 8Request social services 3 4 4 5Public transportation information 2 3 5 1Report mosquito problem 2 1 3 2Blue Stake information 2 * * *Home loan information 2 0 0 0Burn day information 2 * * *Animal control/dog pound 1 3 7 3Building permit information 1 1 3 2File housing/landlord dispute 1 1 2 1Election information 1 0 * 1Zoning issues 1 0 4 1Parks/recreation information 0 2 2 3Historic district information 0 2 * *

All other 4 6 5 6Don’t recall 5 3 3 2

*Indicates % less than .5

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Those residents who had contacted the City were asked to evaluate their most recent contact on threevariables. As may be seen on the following table, roughly two out of three residents or more indicate: 1) theywere treated in a professional and courteous manner (87%); 2) their needs were handled in a timely fashion(75%, and; 3) they were promptly directed to the individual who could best respond to their needs (63%). Notethat the treated professionally and promptly directed readings are down after recording positive increases in2010.



TABLE 4: EVALUATION OF LAST CONTACT

"Thinking about your last contact with the City, would you strongly agree, agree,disagree or strongly disagree with each of the following statements?"

StronglyAgree/Agree


NotSure

I was treated in a professionaland courteous manner 87% 11% 2%

My needs were handled in atimely fashion 75 25 0

I was promptly directed to theindividual who could bestrespond to my needs 63 34 3

% AGREE

2012 2010 2008 2006 2004

I was treated in a professionaland courteous manner 87% 95% 86% 89% 86%

My needs were handled in atimely fashion 75 69 65 64 76

I was promptly directed to theindividual who could bestrespond to my needs 63 81 70 70 78

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



ATTITUDES ABOUT PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT

A new question was added in the 2010 study which reveals that seven out of 10 residents or morehave positive attitudes about the Department on a variety of issues:

– The Phoenix Police Department has a difficult job protecting the community (84% agree)– I trust the Phoenix Police Department to do the right thing (79% agree)– I have confidence in the Phoenix Police Department (77% agree)– The Phoenix Police Department cares about people like me (77% agree)– The Phoenix Police Department uses appropriate force in performing their duties (71% agree).



disagree).

Each of the above readings is little changed from 2010.

TABLE 5: ATTITUDES ABOUT PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT

“Next, do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each of thefollowing statements about the Phoenix Police Department? Here is the first one.”

TOTAL AGREE

StronglyAgree Agree Disagree

StronglyDisagree

NotSure 2012 2010

The Phoenix Police Dept. hasa difficult job protecting thecommunity 27% 57% 10% 1% 5% 84% 87%

I trust the Phoenix Police Dept.to do the right thing 15 64 13 5 3 79 78

I have confidence in the PhoenixPolice Dept. 17 60 16 4 3 77 79

The Phoenix Police Dept. caresabout people like me 15 62 14 4 5 77 76

The Phoenix Police Dept. usesappropriate force in perform-ing their duties 13 58 17 3 9 71 71

The Phoenix Police Dept. treatsall residents with respect 14 53 18 5 10 67 66

The Phoenix Police Dept. ishonest and open with thepublic 12 53 19 5 11 65 65

The Phoenix Police Dept. treatsall residents fairly regardlessof race 13 44 24 8 11 57 59

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY PERFORMANCE

More than eight out of 10 Phoenix residents (87%) indicate they are either very satisfied (18%) orsatisfied (69%) with the overall performance of the City in providing services. This figure is up from 83 percentin 2010 but the change does not reach the six points needed for statistical significance. The percentage ofresidents who profess dissatisfaction is ten percent.

Demographically, overall satisfaction with the City's performance does not drop below 83 percent withinany population subgroup. These response patterns continue to indicate broad-based satisfaction amongresidents with the City's performance.

TABLE 6: OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY PERFORMANCE

"Would you say that you are very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or verydissatisfied with the overall performance of the City in providing services toPhoenix residents?"

VerySatisfied/Satisfied

Dissatisfied/Very

DissatisfiedNotSure

2012 87% 10% 3%2010 83 15 22008 88 10 22006 89 10 12004 91 8 1

2012 READING – DETAILGENDERMale 88% 9% 3%Female 86 11 3



LENGTH OFRESIDENCEUnder 10 92 5 310 or over 86 12 2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



In a new question, residents were asked to evaluate the job the City has done managing its financesduring our country’s economic downturn. Here we find that 40 percent of residents offer a positive readingof excellent (9%) or good (31%), while 28 percent offer a fair reading and 26 percent a poor (19%) or very poor(7%) reading. Males, white residents and residents over 50 offer the most positive readings.

TABLE 7: CITY’S EFFORTS IN MANAGING

DURING ECONOMIC DOWNTURN

“As you are probably aware, over the past few years the United States andthe City of Phoenix have faced the worst economy since the GreatDepression in the 1930s. Do you feel the City has done an excellent, good,fair, poor or very poor job of managing its finances during this period?”

Excellent/Good Fair

Poor/Very Poor

NotSure

TOTAL 40% 28% 26% 6%





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



SATISFACTION WITH SELECTED CITY SERVICES

Phoenix residents were asked to indicate how satisfied they are with each of 30 services provided bythe City using a ten-point scale, where one means the City is doing a poor job and 10 means it is doing anexcellent job. As has been the case since the start of this series of studies, emergency medical response bythe Fire Department (8.6) and fire protection in your area (8.6) receive the highest ratings. Also receiving ahigh ratings over 8.0 this year are garbage and recycling collection (8.2) and maintaining traffic signals andsigns (8.1).

Also receiving very positive ratings are 16 additional services (compared to 12 in 2010) which receivesatisfaction readings between 7.0 and 7.6:

� Library services in your area (7.6)� Keeping our streets clean (7.6)� Police protection in your area (7.6)� Keeping parks in your area clean (7.6)� Collection frequency of uncontainerized trash such as yard clippings (7.5)� Handling street flooding during rains in your area (7.4)� Preserving our mountains and deserts (7.4)� Providing park and recreation programs in your area (7.4)� Enforcing traffic laws on city streets (7.4)� Operating wastewater plants in a way that protects the environment (7.4)� Preserving historic Phoenix houses and other historic buildings (7.3)� Providing city bus service (7.2)� Providing drinking water which meets health and safety standards (7.1)� Preserving residential neighborhoods (7.1)� Requiring property owners to maintain their properties to minimum standards

and enforcing cleanup ordinances (7.0)� Providing services for the elderly such as housing and meals at home (7.0)

A third tier of eight City services receives satisfactory readings between 6.2 and 6.8:

� Providing art and cultural events and programs (6.8)� Controlling cut-through traffic in your neighborhood (6.7)� Street repair and maintenance (6.6)� Crime prevention efforts in your area (6.6)� Providing programs for youth (6.6)� Countering gang activities (6.6)� Preventing illegal dumping (6.5)� Attracting new employers to the community and helping existing employers to grow (6.2)

Two of the 30 City services evaluated receive a satisfaction reading under 6.0.

� Providing services and housing for the poor and homeless (5.8)� Providing job training and placement services for the unemployed (5.8)



TABLE 8: SATISFACTION WITH SELECTED CITY SERVICES

"As you know, the City of Phoenix provides various services to the community ranging from fireprotection to street maintenance. On a scale of one to 10 where one means you think the cityis doing a poor job and 10 means you think the city is doing an excellent job, how would yourate the City of Phoenix on each of the following? Remember, one means a poor job and 10means an excellent job."

Low(1-4)

Mod-erate(5-6)

High(7-8)

VeryHigh

(9-10)NotSure

MEANRATING

Emergency medical response by the Fire Dept. 3% 8% 23% 58% 8% 8.6Fire protection in your area 2 8 28 57 5 8.6Garbage and recycling collection 5 14 27 52 2 8.2Maintaining traffic signals and signs 7 8 34 49 2 8.1Library services in your area 10 17 28 42 3 7.6Keeping our streets clean 8 22 29 40 1 7.6Police protection in your area 9 20 31 39 1 7.6Keeping the parks in your area clean 8 15 37 36 4 7.6Collection frequency of uncontainerized trash

such as yard clippings 12 17 27 40 4 7.5Handling street flooding during rains in your area 13 16 30 37 4 7.4Preserving our mountains and deserts 12 15 33 35 5 7.4Providing parks and recreation programs in

your area 8 21 32 32 7 7.4Enforcing traffic laws on city streets 11 15 43 28 3 7.4Operating wastewater plants in a way that

protects the environment 7 19 27 28 19 7.4Preserving historic Phoenix houses and other

historic buildings 10 17 34 27 12 7.3Providing city bus service in your area 16 18 22 38 6 7.2Providing drinking water which meets health

and safety standards 14 17 29 34 6 7.1Preserving residential neighborhoods 13 20 38 24 5 7.1Requiring property owners to maintain

their properties to minimum standardsand enforcing cleanup ordinances 16 18 31 29 6 7.0

Providing services for the elderly such ashousing and meals at home 11 20 21 25 23 7.0

Providing art and cultural events and programs 16 22 30 25 7 6.8Controlling cut-through traffic in your neighbor-

hood 18 21 28 29 4 6.7Street repair and maintenance 19 25 31 23 2 6.6Countering gang activities 18 21 26 22 13 6.6Providing programs for youth 17 20 27 21 15 6.6Crime prevention efforts in your area 20 23 34 20 3 6.6Preventing illegal dumping 17 25 20 24 14 6.5Attracting new employers to the community

and helping existing employers to grow 18 30 26 17 9 6.2Providing services and housing for the poor

and homeless 26 23 19 14 18 5.8Providing job training and placement services

for the unemployed 22 27 17 14 20 5.8




When the 2012 satisfaction ratings are compared to the 2010 ratings, we find that in four areas theratings are up significantly (a .6 or more positive shift): attracting new employers (+1.1), elderly services (+.8),gangs programs (+.7), enforcing traffic laws (+.6). In the remaining 26 service areas, the ratings areunchanged (less than a .6 positive or negative shift). Compared to the 2002 ratings, five areas recordsignificant positive change: enforcing traffic laws (+1.3), property maintenance standards (+.9), policeprotection (+.6), gang programs (+.6), and garbage recycling collection (+.6).

TABLE 9: HISTORICAL RATING OF CITY SERVICES

MEAN RATING

2012 2010 2008 2006 2004 2002'10-'12Change

'02-'12Change

PROTECTIVE SERVICESEmergency medical response 8.6 8.3 8.5 8.5 8.3 8.2 +.3 +.4Fire protection 8.6 8.2 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.5 +.4 +.1Police protection 7.6 7.3 7.0 7.2 7.2 7.0 +.3 +.6Enforcing traffic laws 7.4 6.8 7.0 6.8 6.5 6.1 +.6 +1.3Crime prevention efforts 6.6 6.4 6.6 6.4 6.4 6.5 +.2 +.1Gang programs 6.6 5.9 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.0 +.7 +.6

TRANSPORTATION SERVICESMaintaining traffic signals 8.1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NAKeeping streets clean 7.6 7.2 7.0 7.1 7.2 NA +.4 NAStreet flooding 7.4 7.0 7.2 7.3 7.2 7.4 +.4 0City bus service 7.2 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.0 +.2 +.2Cut-through traffic 6.7 6.8 7.1 6.6 6.4 6.5 -.1 +.2Street repair/maintenance 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.8 0 -.2

SOCIAL SERVICESElderly services 7.0 6.2 6.5 6.8 6.7 6.5 +.8 +.5Youth programs 6.6 6.2 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.3 +.4 +.3Poor/homeless services 5.8 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.1 5.7 +.4 +.1Job training/placement 5.8 5.3 5.8 5.9 5.5 5.8 +.5 0

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICESGarbage/recycling collection 8.2 8.2 8.0 8.0 7.8 7.6 0 +.6Uncontainerized trash collection 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.1 7.2 0 +.3Preserving mountains/deserts 7.4 7.6 7.7 7.1 6.9 7.0 -.2 +.4Wastewater plants 7.4 7.1 7.1 7.3 7.3 7.3 +.3 +.1Safe drinking water 7.1 6.8 7.4 7.0 6.9 6.8 +.3 +.3Preventing illegal dumping 6.5 6.1 6.3 6.1 6.1 6.0 +.4 +.5

PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICESLibrary services 7.6 7.7 7.9 7.9 7.7 7.9 -.1 -.3Keeping the parks in your area clean 7.6 7.5 8.0 – – NA +.1 NAParks/recreation programs 7.4 7.0 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.9 +.4 +.5Art/cultural events/programs 6.8 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.9 +.1 -.1

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICESAttracting new employers 6.2 5.1 6.3 6.8 6.3 6.7 +1.1 -.5

NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION SERVICESPreserving historic buildings 7.3 7.1 7.0 7.1 7.1 NA +.2 NAPreserving neighborhoods 7.1 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.6 +.5 +.5Property maintenance standards 7.0 6.5 6.3 6.5 6.4 6.1 +.5 +.9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



CITY SPENDING PRIORITIES

After residents had evaluated each of the 30 service areas under consideration, they were asked toindicate whether they would or would not be willing to pay more to improve each of them. Nine services arementioned by at least six out of 10 residents as areas where they would be willing to pay more:

� Crime prevention efforts (69%)� Emergency medical response (66%)� Elderly services (65%)� Youth programs (65%)� Job training and placement services for the unemployed (64%)

� Poor and homeless services (62%)� Countering gang activities (61%)� Provide safe drinking water (61%)� Police protection (60%)

It should be noted that the nine service spending priorities listed above include four of the sixprotective service categories tested and all of the four social service categories tested. This pattern clearlyreveals the high priority which residents give these service areas.

On the other end of the spectrum, the following eight services receive the lowest spending priorityreadings with at least 50 percent or more of residents indicating they would not be willing to pay more for each.

� Uncontainerized trash collection (66%)� Street flooding (65%)� Cut-through traffic (64%)� Preserving historic Phoenix houses and other historic buildings (55%)� Garbage and recycling collection (53%)� Maintaining traffic signals (53%)� Property maintenance standards (50%)� Art/cultural events/programs (50%)

Of particular interest in this year’s findings is the fact that, compared to 2010, in every case the volumeof residents who are willing to pay more minus those who are not willing to pay more (net more/less) hasdeclined (on 24 services significantly: 7 points or more).



TABLE 10: WILLINGNESS TO PAY MORE FOR

IMPROVED CITY SERVICES

"Now I'd like to quickly read the list again, but this time, please tell me if each serviceis one you would or would not be willing to pay more for to improve.”

NET MORE/(LESS)1

WillingTo PayMore

NotWillingTo PayMore

NotSure 2012 2010

‘10-‘12CHANGE

Crime prevention efforts 69% 28% 3% 41% 43% -2Elderly services 65 30 5 35 48 -13Emergency medical response 66 32 2 34 42 -8Youth programs 65 31 4 34 53 -19Job training/placement 64 31 5 33 50 -17Countering gang activities 61 32 7 29 50 -21Poor/homeless services 62 34 4 28 50 -22Safe drinking water 61 38 1 23 34 -11Police protection 60 37 3 23 38 -15Parks/recreation programs 59 36 5 23 35 -12Attracting new employers 59 38 3 21 27 -6Fire protection 58 37 5 21 26 -5Wastewater plants 53 41 6 12 18 -6Keeping parks clean 54 43 3 11 17 -6Keeping streets clean 53 43 4 10 18 -8Library services 52 44 4 8 15 -7Preserving mountains/deserts 51 46 3 5 9 -4Preserving neighborhoods 50 45 5 5 10 -5Street repair/maintenance 48 48 4 0 8 -8Preventing illegal dumping 47 48 5 (1) 20 -21Enforcing traffic laws 47 49 4 (2) 11 -13Art/cultural events/programs 47 50 3 (3) 3 -6Property maintenance standards 46 50 4 (4) 21 -25City bus service 44 49 7 (5) 5 -10Garbage/recycling collection 42 53 5 (11) (1) -10Maintaining traffic signals 42 53 5 (11) NA NAPreserving historic buildings 40 55 5 (15) (14) -1Cut-through traffic 32 64 4 (32) (24) -8Street flooding 31 65 4 (34) (20) -14Uncontainerized trash collection 30 66 4 (36) (16) -20

1Willing to pay more minus not willing~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Next in this section we present a Priority Spending Index. This Index correlates the earlier discussedservice satisfaction ratings with residents’ willingness to pay more for improved service. The effect of thisIndex is that it affords higher spending priority to those services that receive lower satisfaction readings.

As may be seen in the following table, the result of this exercise is a reordering of the top 10 spendingpriorities from Table 10 with job training/placement (110.3) and poor/homeless services (106.9) receiving thehighest Index reading, followed by crime prevention efforts (104.5). Also notice that since 2010, no Indexincreases are recorded, while decreases are recorded for each service tested. Additionally, when the currentreadings are compared with those from 2002, in only one case, “attracting new employers” is an increaserecorded (+16.1).

TABLE 11: PRIORITY SPENDING INDEX

PRIORITYSPENDING INDEX

1-10Rating

Willing ToPay More 2012 2010 2008 2002

‘10-‘12Change

‘02-‘12Change

Job training/placement 5.8 64% 110.3 137.7 115.5 118.9 -27.4 - 8.6Poor/homeless services 5.8 62 106.9 137.0 130.9 122.8 -30.1 -15.9Crime prevention efforts 6.6 69 104.5 109.4 115.2 126.2 -4.9 -21.7Youth programs 6.6 65 98.5 121.0 109.2 127.0 -22.5 -28.5Attracting new employers 6.2 59 95.2 121.6 85.7 79.1 -26.4 +16.1Elderly services 7.0 65 92.9 117.7 118.5 116.9 -24.8 -24.0Countering gang activities 6.6 61 92.4 123.7 121.3 131.7 -31.3 -39.3Safe drinking water 7.1 61 85.9 97.1 94.6 107.4 -11.2 -21.5Parks/recreation programs 7.4 59 79.7 94.3 100.0 102.9 -14.6 -23.2Police protection 7.6 60 78.9 93.2 101.4 112.9 -14.3 -34.0Emergency medical response 8.6 66 76.7 84.3 83.5 85.4 -7.6 - 8.7Street repair/maintenance 6.6 48 72.7 80.3 93.9 94.1 -7.6 -21.4Preventing illegal dumping 6.5 47 72.3 95.1 100.0 113.3 -22.8 -41.0Wastewater plants 7.4 53 71.6 80.3 95.8 93.2 -8.7 -21.6Keeping parks clean 7.6 54 71.1 77.3 76.3 NA -6.2 NAPreserving neighborhoods 7.1 50 70.4 80.3 86.4 93.9 -9.9 -23.5Keeping streets clean 7.6 53 69.7 80.6 85.7 NA -10.9 NAArt/cultural events/programs 6.8 47 69.1 74.6 76.8 76.8 -5.5 - 7.7Preserving mountains/deserts 7.4 51 68.9 69.7 80.5 94.3 -.8 -25.4Library services 7.6 52 68.4 74.0 65.8 78.5 -5.6 -10.1Fire protection 8.6 58 67.4 75.6 79.8 87.1 -8.2 -19.7Property maintenance standards 7.0 46 65.7 90.8 88.9 101.6 -25.1 -35.9Enforcing traffic laws 7.4 47 63.5 79.4 81.4 109.8 -15.9 -46.3City bus service 7.2 44 61.1 72.9 80.0 81.4 -11.8 -20.3Preserving historic buildings 7.3 40 54.8 56.3 68.6 NA -1.5 NAMaintaining traffic signals 8.1 42 51.9 NA NA NA NA NAGarbage/recycling collection 8.2 42 51.2 59.8 63.8 69.7 -8.6 -18.5Cut-through traffic 6.7 32 47.8 54.4 63.4 80.0 -6.6 -32.2Street flooding 7.4 31 41.9 55.7 55.6 54.1 -13.8 -12.2Uncontainerized trash collection 7.5 30 40.0 54.7 64.0 66.7 -14.7 -26.7

Calculation: Willing to pay more divided by rating~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX

Phoenix residents continue to rate the quality of life in Phoenix quite highly, with over two out of threeresidents (69%) indicating it is either excellent (16%) or good (53%). In comparison, 26 percent of residentsrate the quality of life as fair, while five percent rate it in negative terms (poor/very poor). The current levelof positive response has remained relatively consistent since 2004.

When residents' attitudes about the quality of life in Phoenix are analyzed based on demographicsubgroup, we find a couple of interesting differences between subgroups. For example, as in the past,positive impressions tend to increase with age, and white residents reveal a more positive impression aboutthe quality of life in the City than do minority residents (72% vs. 64%).

TABLE 12: QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX

"On the whole, would you say that the quality of life in the City of Phoenix isexcellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?"

Excellent/Good Fair

Poor/Very Poor

NotSure

2012 69% 26% 5% *%2010 64 26 10 *2008 67 28 5 *2006 70 24 5 12004 70 25 5 *


GENDERMale 70% 26% 4% *%Female 68 27 5 *

AGEUnder 35 55 38 7 035 to 49 72 25 3 050 to 64 72 22 6 *65 or over 82 14 4 *

ETHNICITYWhite 72 24 4 *Minority 64 30 6 0

LENGTH OF RESIDENCEUnder 10 64 25 11 010 or over 70 26 4 *





Residents were next asked to indicate the single most important problem the City should be workingon to solve in their neighborhood. As Table 13 indicates, crime-related issues (26%) continue to lead theresponses followed by transportation issues (13%). Each of these issues is little changed from 2010. Noother problems register a two-digit reading.

TABLE 13: MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEMS

CITY SHOULD BE WORKING TO SOLVE

"Next, what do you feel is the single most important problem the City should be workingto solve in your neighborhood?" (IF CRIME MENTIONED, PROBE). "And what is thenext most important problem?"

2012 2010 2008 2006 2004

CRIME 26% 22% 32% 33% 34%

Crime, too much 7 3 9 11 9Robberies 6 6 5 5 8Need more police 5 2 3 3 3Drugs 3 4 4 7 6Gangs 3 4 2 3 5Car theft/jacking 1 1 1 2 3Other responses 2 2 8 5 3

TRANSPORTATION 13 15 20 23 26

Street/road conditions 4 5 3 4 2Traffic congestion 3 3 4 7 9Lack of public transit 3 2 5 4 6Bad drivers, red light

runners 1 3 1 4 6Other responses 2 4 8 5 4

Lack of social services 6 4 3 4 3Economy/jobs/unemployment 5 10 2 2 3Education 5 5 3 3 4Trash/litter/graffiti 3 8 5 8 5Environment/pollution 3 2 4 4 5Illegal immigration 2 6 7 7 1Neighborhood maintenance 2 2 2 4 4Parks and recreation 1 2 2 1 1Uncontrolled growth 1 1 1 2 2All other responses 5 4 3 3 6

No problems 19 12 10 11 8Not sure 6 8 8 9 7

Totals exceed 100% due to multiple responses

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



In a related question, residents were asked if each of 10 issues was a major, a minor, or not a problemin their neighborhood. As may be seen, air pollution is viewed as the primary problem facing neighborhoodswith 33 percent of residents rating it a major problem. Two additional problems are rated as major problemsby roughly one out of four residents – drug activity (28% ) and graffiti (24%).

TABLE 14: EVALUATION OF SELECTED


"Next, would you say the following things are major problems, minor problems,or not problems in your neighborhood?"

Major MinorNot A

ProblemNotSure

Air pollution 33% 30% 35% 2%Drug activity 28 26 40 6Graffiti 24 38 38 *Juvenile crime 21 38 37 4Traffic congestion 19 34 46 1Houses and yards that are not

well maintained 17 38 44 1Traffic cutting through neigh-

borhood streets 16 34 49 1Vacant lots 13 32 54 1Signs on utility poles for things

like yard sales or model homes 9 31 58 2Interference from industrial or

commercial operations 5 30 63 2


When the current readings are compared to those recorded in 2010, we find positive (albeit notstatistically significant) improvement in three areas – air pollution, graffiti and juvenile crime.



TABLE 15: EVALUATION OF SELECTED

NEIGHBORHOOD PROBLEMS – DETAIL

% "MAJOR" PROBLEM

2012 2010 2008 2006 2004‘10 - ‘12CHANGE

Air pollution 34% 38% 49% 46% 42% -4Drug activity 28 28 32 38 29 0Graffiti 24 29 32 31 19 -5Juvenile crime 21 27 31 34 26 -6Traffic congestion 19 20 28 37 31 -1Houses and yards that are not

well maintained 17 20 24 21 22 -3Traffic cutting through neigh-

borhood streets 16 16 19 24 20 0Vacant lots 13 12 12 14 9 +1Signs on utility poles for things

like yard sales or model homes 9 12 13 13 11 -3Interference from industrial or

commercial operations 5 8 9 9 8 -3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



STEPS CITY COULD TAKE TO MAKE PHOENIX MORE LIVEABLE

Similar to prior years, the main thing residents believe the City could do to make Phoenix a moreliveable community is to improve the transportation system (18%) followed by improving the economy (14%)and reducing crime (12%).

TABLE 16: STEPS CITY COULD TAKE

TO MAKE PHOENIX MORE LIVEABLE

“What do you feel the City could do to make Phoenix a more liveable city inthe future? (PROBE) What else?”

2012 2010 2008 2006 2004

IMPROVE THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 18% 18% 26% 24% 23%

Public transit/light rail – extend 10 11 14 11 11Freeways 3 1 2 4 5Fix roads – pot holes 2 3 2 1 1Traffic congestion 2 2 4 5 4Other responses 2 4 4 5 5

Improve the economy/jobs 14 16 9 5 6Reduce crime 12 12 16 17 18Protect environment – air pollution, conserve

water 8 8 12 6 8Improve social services 7 4 2 4 5Improve parks/recreation 6 6 4 4 4Improve education 4 5 3 3 4Better government – listen to the people 3 7 3 3 2Reduce illegal immigration 3 7 4 5 2Lower taxes 3 3 2 1 2Improve city services 2 3 1 2 1Revitalize – downtown, vacant lots, run down

areas 2 2 * 4 7Slow growth – control 2 3 6 6 9Expand cultural opportunities 1 1 2 1 1Miscellaneous 2 3 1 3 5

Nothing – doing fine 17 8 10 8 5Not sure 11 12 14 20 17

Totals exceed 100% due to multiple response*Indicates % less than .5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



ATTITUDES ABOUT COMMUNITY-BASED POLICING AND OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES

Residents were next read a description of community-based policing and asked to evaluate the jobthe Phoenix Police Department is doing operating the philosophy in their neighborhood. As Table 17 reveals,residents are very favorable in their evaluation with 66 percent rating the Police Department either excellent(22%) or good (44%) and only 11 percent rating it poor (7%) or very poor (4%). The positive readings forcommunity-based policing have remained relatively constant since 2000.

TABLE 17: ATTITUDES ABOUT COMMUNITY-BASED POLICING

"Next, for the past several years the Phoenix Police Department has been operatingunder a community-based policing philosophy. Under community-based policing,the Department, in partnership with other City departments, residents andbusinesses, assists the community in enhancing the quality of life. Such programsas Block Watch are a result of this effort along with in-school programs for children.As far as you're concerned, is the Phoenix Police Department doing an excellent,good, fair, poor or very poor job of operating this philosophy in your neighborhood?"

Excellent/Good Fair

Poor/Very Poor

NotSure

2012 66% 18% 11% 5%2010 64 18 12 62008 66 20 8 62006 68 19 7 62004 70 19 4 7


GENDERMale 68% 15% 13% 4%Female 63 20 11 6




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Continuing with this line of questioning, we find that 30 percent of residents have had contact with aPhoenix police officer in the past 12 months and that 75 percent of these residents rate their contact aspositive.

TABLE 18: CONTACT WITH

PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT

“During the past 12 months, have you had any contact with a Cityof Phoenix police officer?”

2012 2010

Yes 30% 35%No 70 65

100% 100%

(AMONG THOSE HAVING CONTACT)

“Would you rate your last contact with a City of Phoenix policeofficer as very positive, positive, negative or very negative?”

Very positive 37% 29%Positive 38 52Negative 18 13Very negative 7 6

100% 100%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Residents also were asked about safety in their neighborhood. Here we find that 44 percent ofresidents believe their neighborhood is safer than other neighborhoods in Phoenix, while an equal percentage(44%) believe safety in their neighborhood is on par with other Phoenix neighborhoods. In comparison, only11 percent of residents believe their neighborhood is not as safe as other Phoenix neighborhoods. Comparedto 2010, a decrease of nine points is recorded in the “safer” reading (44% vs. 53%) and a compensatingincrease of nine points is recorded in the “about same” reading (44% vs. 35%). Of particular interest is thefact that the “not as safe” reading has remained relatively constant over the past three study cycles.

Demographically, white residents and those 50 or over offer the highest “safer” readings.

TABLE 19: ATTITUDES ABOUT

NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY

“From what you know or have heard, is your neighborhood safer than otherneighborhoods in Phoenix, about the same as other neighborhoods inPhoenix, or not as safe as other neighborhoods in Phoenix?”

SaferAboutSame

Not asSafe

NotSure

2012 44% 44% 11% 1%2010 53 35 11 12008 49 37 10 42006 40 41 16 32004 46 39 11 4

2012 READING – DETAILGENDERMale 42% 45% 12% 1%Female 47 42 10 1




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



In a related question, 42 percent of residents indicate their neighborhood participates in a Block Watchor similar crime prevention program which is down from 50 percent in 2010. Seven out of 10 residents (73%)participating in crime prevention programs feel they are effective in reducing crime, up seven points from 66percent in 2010.

TABLE 20: PARTICIPATION IN BLOCK WATCH

“Does your neighborhood participate in a Block Watch or other similar crimereduction program?”

% YES

2012 2010 2008 2006 2004

TOTAL 42% 50% 51% 45% 46%

AGEUnder 35 27 48 49 27 3635 to 49 43 49 49 51 4750 to 64 51 54 59 52 5165 or over 55 48 48 59 54

ETHNICITYWhite 47 53 54 58 48Minority 36 46 46 29 42

(AMONG THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE)

“Do you feel it is effective in reducing crime in your neighborhood?”

Yes 73% 66% 80% 78% 70%No 15 26 14 15 19Not sure 12 8 6 7 11

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The most commonly relied on source of information about the City of Phoenix is the Internet with an“a lot” reading of 49 percent – up from only 16 percent in 2004. This marks the first time in this series ofstudies that the Internet outpaces local television (42% a lot) as the primary source. This year’s readings alsoreveal the continuing decline of newspapers as a source of City information (40% a lot in 2004, 25% today).Also note that some major variations exist between the various demographic subgroups.

TABLE 21: SOURCES OF INFORMATION

"Next, do you rely a lot, some, only a little or not at all on each of the followingfor information about the City of Phoenix?"

2012 READING – % A LOT

A LOTA

Lot SomeOnly

A LittleNot

At All 2010 2008 2006 2004

The Internet 49% 22% 10% 19% 39% 36% 22% 16%Television programs 42 21 19 18 45 44 48 48Newspapers 25 19 17 39 28 30 32 40Radio news programs 23 27 17 33 22 30 30 29

*Indicates percent less than .52012 READING – % A LOT

InternetTele-vision

News-papers Radio

TOTAL 49% 42% 25% 23%





~~~~~~~~~~~~



USE OF CITY’S WEB SITE

Forty-seven percent of residents indicate they have used the City’s web site – up from 44 percent in2010. The data also reveals that the City’s web site receives positive readings from users with 73 percentgiving it a rating of seven or more on a 10-point scale.

TABLE 22: USE OF CITY’S WEB SITE

"Have you ever used phoenix.gov, the City’s web site, to obtain information orconduct business with the City?" (IF YES): "On a 10 point scale where 1 meanspoor and 10 means excellent, how would you rate the City’s web site?"

AMONG USERS

%USING

Low(1-4)

Mod-erate(5-6)

High(7-8)

VeryHigh

(9-10)NotSure

MEANRATING

2012 47% 11% 16% 51% 22% *% 7.12010 44 9 18 45 27 1 7.42008 51 4 28 40 26 2 7.32006 36 6 22 45 26 1 7.32004 34 9 23 51 16 1 7.0

2012 READING – % USING





*Indicates % less than 1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



The research also reveals that residents’ main reason for visiting the site is to get water bill informationor pay a water bill (19%). This reading is little changed from 21 percent in 2010. Ninety-four percent ofresidents indicate they were able to find what they were looking for the last time they visited the City’s website – up sharply from 83 percent in 2004.

TABLE 23: REASONS FOR VISITING

CITY’S WEB SITE

“For what purpose did you last visit the City’s web site?”

2012 2010 2008 2006 2004

Water bill information/pay bill 19% 21% 12% 9% 12%Request trash pickup 11 10 10 7 12Employment information 7 7 12 14 14Parks and recreation 7 2 6 4 3Entertainment – concerts, theatres, arts 6 8 8 2 2Tax forms/information 6 6 3 5 4Phone numbers/addresses 5 1 * 1 1Building permit 4 4 3 7 3Neighborhood services 4 3 1 2 2Court records/jury duty 4 1 4 6 7Police information 3 6 3 3 1Social services 3 1 4 6 1Property/zoning 2 4 2 2 5Public transit 2 1 3 2 1Business license 2 * 2 1 2Library information 1 4 * 3 5City elections 1 2 1 4 3Report repairs need 1 2 * * 0Graffiti cleanup 1 1 * 1 2Animal control 1 1 * * *Schools/education 0 0 2 0 3

All others with mentions 12 12 14 12 14Don’t recall 7 9 12 13 14

Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses* Indicates % less than .5

“Were you able to find what you were looking for on your last visit?”

Yes 94% 97% 90% 92% 83%No 6 3 10 8 17

100% 100% 100% 100% 100%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



AWARENESS OF AND ATTITUDES TOWARD NEIGHBORHOOD ORDINANCES

Residents were queried about their awareness of a City ordinance designed to help neighborhoodsfight blight and require owners to keep up their property. Fifty-two percent of residents indicate they are awareof the ordinance, which is unchanged from 51 percent in 2010.

Those aware of the ordinance were asked a follow-up question regarding how well they felt theordinance is working in their neighborhood. Here we find that more than eight out of 10 residents (84%)believe the ordinance is working either very well (36%) or fairly well (48%), while 11 percent believe it is eithernot working too well (5%) or not at all (6%). The percent of residents who believe the ordinance is workingwell (very/fairly) has increased from 77 percent in 2008.

TABLE 24: AWARENESS OF AND ATTITUDES

TOWARD NEIGHBORHOOD ORDINANCES

"Next, were you aware that the City of Phoenix has an ordinance to helpneighborhoods reduce blight and require owners to keep up their property, ornot?"

"How well would you say these ordinances are working in your neighborhood –very well, fairly well, not too well or not well at all?"

EVALUATION AMONG THOSE AWARE

PERCENTAWARE

VeryWell

FairlyWell

NotTooWell

Not WellAt All

NotSure

TOTALWELL1

2012 52% 36% 48% 5% 6% 5% 84%2010 51 43 41 11 4 1 842008 64 30 47 15 6 2 772006 64 33 48 12 6 1 812004 55 29 46 15 6 4 75

2012 READING – % AWARE





1Very Well + Fairly Well~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



EVALUATION OF SKY HARBOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

The 47 percent of residents who have visited Sky Harbor International Airport in the past 12 monthswere asked to evaluate the airport on 11 different factors using a one-to-ten scale. As may be seen on thenext table, Sky Harbor receives a very positive reading with an overall rating of 8.4 with 83 percent of residentsoffering a rating of seven or higher. The specific factors receiving the highest positive readings are convenientairport location (8.5), clean and well-supplied restrooms (8.5) and overall cleanliness of airport terminals (8.4).On the flip side, Sky Harbor receives its lowest ratings on high quality food and beverages at reasonableprices (6.0) and quality retail merchandise at reasonable prices (6.0).

The 2012 readings are not comparable to those from the 2010 study since the 2010 readings wereof all residents, not just those who had visited in the past 12 months.

TABLE 25: EVALUATION OF SKY HARBOR

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

"Next, on a 10-point scale where 1 means you think the airport is doing a poorjob and 10 means you think the airport is doing an excellent job, how would yourate Sky Harbor International Airport for. . .?"

Low(1-4)

Mod-erate(5-6)

High(7-8)

VeryHigh

(9-10)NotSure

MEANRATING

A convenient airport location 5% 9% 27% 56% 3% 8.5Clean/well-supplied restrooms 2 8 37 50 3 8.5Overall cleanliness of Airport

terminals 4 10 27 58 1 8.4Overall rating of Sky Harbor

International Airport 3 8 37 50 2 8.4Courteous and knowledgeable

airport employees 5 6 37 47 5 8.2Availability of taxis, limousines

and shuttle services 3 9 34 39 15 8.2Frequency and quality of shuttle

bus service betweenterminals, parking lots andthe rental car center 7 7 33 33 20 7.9

Clear and understandabledirectional signs on theairport roadway system 15 10 27 46 2 7.5

Ease and availability of parkingfacilities at reasonable prices 13 21 32 25 9 6.8

Quality retail merchandise atreasonable prices 24 25 22 16 13 6.0

High quality food and bever-ages at reasonable prices 24 30 20 22 4 6.0

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



PERCEPTIONS OF DOWNTOWN PHOENIX

Two out of three Phoenix residents (66%) believe downtown Phoenix has become either much better(31%) or a little better (35%) over the past few years. The overall change for the better reading of 66 percentis up from 62 percent in 2010.

The downtown area receives its highest better readings from residents 35 to 64.

TABLE 26: CHANGES IN DOWNTOWN PHOENIX

"Do you think downtown Phoenix is much better now than it was a few yearsago, a little better, about the same, or worse?"

MuchBetter

LittleBetter

AboutThe Same Worse

NotSure

TOTALBETTER1

2012 31% 35% 20% 6% 8% 66%2010 23 39 18 12 8 622008 32 34 17 5 12 662006 30 34 17 9 10 642004 33 31 16 9 11 64

2012 READING – % BETTER





1Much Better + Little Better~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



AWARENESS OF CITY’S SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS

Seven out of 10 Phoenix residents (68%) are aware of the City’s sustainability efforts with 20 percentindicating they know “a lot.” These figures are little changed from 2010.

TABLE 27: AWARENESS OF CITY’S

SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS

“Would you say you know a lot, a little or nothing at all about the City’s effortsto establish sustainability programs? That is, programs to reduce energy andgreenhouse gases, use of alternative fuel vehicles, design of city-ownedgreen buildings, water reuse and conservation, recycling, restore blightedland for reuse and preserve desert and open spaces?”

ALot

ALittle Nothing

TOTAL – 2012 20% 48% 32%– 2010 14 56 30– 2008 15 54 31

2012 READING – % A LOT/A LITTLE

TOTAL 68%

GENDERMale 64Female 72




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



APPENDIX

METHODOLOGY

The information contained in this report is based on 700 in-depth telephone interviews conducted withCity of Phoenix heads of household. Respondent selection on this project was accomplished via a computer-generated random digit dial telephone sample which selects households based on residential telephoneprefixes and includes all unlisted and newly listed households. This methodology was selected because itensures a randomly-selected sample of households proportionately allocated throughout the sample universe.This method also insures that all unlisted and newly listed telephone households are included in the sample.Both residential landlines (68%) and cell telephones (32%) were included in the study.

The questionnaire used in this study was designed by Behavior Research Center (BRC) in conjunctionwith the City (see appended questionnaire). After approval of the preliminary draft questionnaire, it was pre-tested with a randomly-selected cross-section of five Phoenix residents. The pre-test focused on the valueand understandability of the questions, adequacy of response categories, questions for which probes werenecessary and the like. Following the pre-test, the final form was approved by the City and a Spanish versionof the questionnaire was prepared.

During the course of this study, only the male or female head of household was interviewed. Thismethodology was utilized because prior studies of this nature have shown that these are the individuals withineach household that have the knowledge and background to respond to the topics under consideration. Inaddition, the sample was selected so that an equal proportion of male and female household heads fell intothe sample.

This survey utilized a "split" sample methodology. Using this methodology, selected survey questionswere designated core questions and asked of all survey respondents while other survey questions were askedof only one-half of the survey respondents. This methodology is commonly used when the volume ofinformation desired is particularly extensive and the number of interviews to be conducted is of adequate sizeto justify splitting. Questions 1 to 4, 6 to 7 and 18 to 21 were designated core questions for the purpose ofthis survey and asked of all study respondents. The remaining questions were asked of one-half of the studyrespondents.

All of the interviewing on this project was conducted during December 2012 at the Center's centrallocation computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) facility where each interviewer worked under thedirect supervision of BRC supervisory personnel. All of the interviewers who worked on this project wereprofessional interviewers of the Center. Each had prior experience with BRC and received a thorough briefingon the particulars of this study. During the briefing, the interviewers were trained on (a) the purpose of thestudy, (b) sampling procedures, (c) administration of the questionnaire, and (d) other project-related factors.In addition, each interviewer completed a set of practice interviews to ensure that all procedures wereunderstood and followed.

Interviewing on this study was conducted during an approximately equal cross-section of evening andweekend hours. This procedure was followed to ensure that all households were equally represented,regardless of work schedules. Further, during the interviewing segment of this study, up to five separateattempts, on different days and during different times of day, were made to contact each selected resident.Only after five unsuccessful attempts was a selected household substituted in the sample. Using thismethodology, the full sample was completed, and partially completed interviews were not accepted norcounted toward fulfillment of the total sample quotas.

One hundred percent of the completed interviews were edited and any containing errors ofadministration were pulled, the respondent re-called and the errors corrected. In addition, 15 percent of eachinterviewer's work was randomly selected for validation to ensure its authenticity and correctness. Noproblems were encountered during this phase of interviewing quality control.



When analyzing the results of this survey, it should be kept in mind that all surveys are subject tosampling error. Sampling error, stated simply, is the difference between the results obtained from a sampleand those which would be obtained by surveying the entire population under consideration. The size ofsampling error varies, to some extent, with the number of interviews completed and with the division of opinionon a particular question.

An estimate of the sampling error range for this study is provided in the following table. The samplingerror presented in the table has been calculated at the confidence level most frequently used by socialscientists, the 95 percent level. The sampling error figures shown in the table are average figures thatrepresent the maximum error for the sample bases shown (i.e., for survey findings where the division ofopinion is approximately 50%/50%). Survey findings that show a more one-sided distribution of opinion, suchas 70%/30% or 90%/10%, are usually subject to slightly lower sampling tolerances than those shown in thetable.

As may be seen in the table, the overall sampling error for this study is approximately +/- 3.8 percentwhen the sample is studied in total (i.e., all 700 cases). However, when subsets of the total sample arestudied, the amount of sampling error increases based on the sample size within the subset.

Sample Sampling Error At A Size 95% Confidence Level

700 3.8%500 4.5300 5.8100 10.0

SAMPLE PROFILE


100%AGEUnder 35 29%35 to 49 3150 to 64 2465 or over 16

100%ETHNICITYWhite 61%Hispanic 27Black 7Asian American 3American Indian 2

100%LENGTH OF RESIDENCEUnder 10 21%10 or more 79

100%~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2012078\QUE Phx Community Opinion Survey.wpd **FINAL** March 6, 2013 (12:05pm)Copyright © 2012. All rights reserved. For information: Behavior Research Center (602) 258-4554. Page: 552012078/RPT PHX Community Opinion Survey-2012.wpd

BEHAVIOR RESEARCH CENTER, INC. JOB ID 201207845 East Monterey WayPhoenix, AZ 85012(602) 258-4554 December 2012

Hello, my name is and I'm with the Behavior Research Center of Arizona. We'reconducting a survey among Phoenix residents on city services and I'd like to speak with youfor a few minutes.

A. Is your residence located within the Phoenix city limits?

IF YES: CONTINUE IF NO: THANK AND TERMINATE

B. And are you the (male/female) head of your household?

IF YES: CONTINUE IF NO: ASK TO SPEAK WITH MALE/ FEMALEHEAD, RE-INTRODUCE YOURSELF ANDCONTINUE. IF NONE AVAILABLE,ARRANGE CALLBACK.

Male...1Female...2

Throughout this interview I will be asking you questions which deal ONLY with the City of Phoenix -- NOTthe overall metropolitan area which includes Scottsdale, Tempe, Glendale and other Valley cities. Please keepthis in mind when answering the questions.

1. To begin, would you say you strongly agree, agree, disagree or stronglydisagree with the following statement, "Overall, Phoenix is a good place to live."

Strongly agree...1Agree...2

Disagree...3Strongly disagree...4

Not sure...5

2. On the whole, would you say that the quality of life in the City of Phoenix isexcellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?


Fair...3Poor...4


3. Next, what do you feel is the single most important problem the City should beworking to solve in your neighborhood? (IF CRIME MENTIONED, PROBE).And what is the next most important problem?

________

________

________

4. What do you feel the City could do to make Phoenix a more liveable city in the future?(PROBE:) What else?

________

________

________


5. (SQ) As you know, the City of Phoenix provides various services to the community ranging from fireprotection to street maintenance. On a scale of one to ten where one means you think the city is doinga poor job and ten means you think the city is doing an excellent job, how would you rate the City ofPhoenix on each of the following? Remember, one means a poor job and ten means an excellent job.(ROTATE)

5a. (SQ) Now I’d like to quickly read the list again, but this time please tell me if each service is oneyou would or would not be willing to pay more for to improve. (ROTATE)

Q5aQ5 Pay More

Service Would NotCity Service Rating Would Not Sure

A. Police protection in your area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3B. Fire protection in your area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3C. Enforcing traffic laws on city streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3D. Crime prevention efforts in your area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3E. Garbage and recycling collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3F. Collection frequency of uncontainerized trash such

as yard clippings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3G. Preventing illegal dumping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3H. Providing drinking water which meets health and

safety standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3I. Operating wastewater plants in a way that protects

the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3J. Street repair and maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3K. Keeping our streets clean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3L. Preserving our mountains and deserts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3M. Providing City bus service in your area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3N. Handling street flooding during rains in your area . . . . . . 1 2 3O. Providing parks and recreation programs in your area . . . 1 2 3P. Providing services and housing for the poor and

homeless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3Q. Providing programs for youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3R. Attracting new employers to the community and helping

existing employers to grow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3S. Requiring property owners to maintain their properties to

minimum standards and enforcing cleanup ordinances . . 1 2 3T. Emergency medical response by the fire department . . . . 1 2 3U. Preserving residential neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3V. Providing art and cultural events and programs . . . . . . . . 1 2 3W. Providing services for the elderly such as housing and

meals at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3X. Providing job training and placement services for the

unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3Y. Countering gang activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3Z. Controlling cut-through traffic in your neighborhood . . . . . 1 2 3AA. Maintaining traffic signals and signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3BB. Library services in your area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3CC. Preserving historic Phoenix houses and other

historic buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____ 1 2 3DD. Keeping the parks in your area clean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ____ 1 2 3


6. Would you say that you are very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or verydissatisfied with the overall performance of the City in providing servicesto Phoenix residents?

Very satisfied...1Satisfied...2

Dissatisfied...3Very dissatisfied...4

Not sure...5

6a. As you are probably aware, over the past few years the UnitedStates and the City of Phoenix have faced the worst economy sincethe Great Depression in the 1930s. Do you feel the City has donean excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job of managing itsfinances during this period?


Fair...3Poor...4


7. Next, would you say the following things are major problems,minor problems, or not problems in your neighborhood?(ROTATE)

Not A NotMajor Minor Problem Sure

A. Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4B. Juvenile crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4C. Air pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4D. Traffic cutting through neighborhood streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4E. Houses and yards that are not well maintained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4F. Traffic congestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4G. Signs on utility poles for things like yard sales or model homes . . . . 1 2 3 4H. Drug activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4I. Interference from industrial or commercial operations . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4J. Vacant lots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

8. (SQ) During the past 12 months, did you contact any city employee, officialor department to seek service or information, or to make a complaint?


8a. (SQ) Was your most recent contact conducted in person, over thephone, by mail, or over the Internet?

In person...1Phone...2

Mail...3Internet...4

8b. (SQ) What was the reason for your most recent contact?

________

________

________

________

8c. (SQ) Thinking about your last contact with theCity, would you strongly agree, agree, disagree,or strongly disagree with each of the followingstatements (ROTATE)

Strongly Dis- Strongly NotAgree Agree agree Disagree Sure

A. I was treated in a professional and courteous manner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

B. My needs were handled in a timely fashion . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5C. I was promptly directed to the individual who

could best respond to my needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

9. (SQ) Next, have you visited Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airportin the past 12 months?


Not sure...3


9a. (SQ) On a ten point scale where 1 means you think the Airport is doing a poorjob and 10 means you think the Airport is doing an excellent job, how wouldyou rate Sky Harbor International Airport for. . . (ROTATE A-J) RATING

A. Clear and understandable directional signs on the airport roadway system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Frequency and quality of shuttle bus service between terminals, parking lots

and the rental car center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Ease and availability of parking facilities at reasonable prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Quality retail merchandise at reasonable prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. High quality food and beverages at reasonable prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. Clean and well-supplied restrooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. Overall cleanliness of Airport terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. Courteous and knowledgeable Airport employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Availability of taxis, limousines, and shuttle services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. A convenient Airport location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K. Overall rating of Sky Harbor International Airport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10. (SQ) Next, for the past several years the Phoenix Police Department has beenoperating under a community based policing philosophy. Under community basedpolicing, the Department, in partnership with other City departments, residents andbusinesses, assists the community in enhancing the quality of life. Such programsas Block Watch are a result of this effort along with in-school programs forchildren. As far as you're concerned, is the Phoenix Police Department doing anexcellent, good, fair, poor or very poor job of operating this philosophy in yourneighborhood?


Fair...3Poor...4


10a. During the past 12 months have you had any contact with a Cityof Phoenix police officer?

(GO TO Q10b) Yes...1(GO TO Q10c) No...2

10b. Would you rate your last contact with a City of Phoenix policeofficer as very positive, positive, negative or very negative?

Very positive...1Positive...2

Negative...3Very negative...4

Not sure...5

10c. Next, do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagreewith each of the following statements about the Phoenix PoliceDepartment? Here is the first one... (ROTATE)

Strongly Dis- Strongly NotAgree Agree Agree Disagree Sure

A. The Phoenix Police Department uses appropriate force in performing their duties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

B. The Phoenix Police Department is honest and open with the public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

C. I trust the Phoenix Police Department to do the right thing . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5D. The Phoenix Police Department treats all residents with respect . 1 2 3 4 5E. The Phoenix Police Department has a difficult job protecting

the community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5F. I have confidence in the Phoenix Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5G. The Phoenix Police Department treats all residents fairly

regardless of race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5H. The Phoenix Police Department cares about people like me . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

11. (SQ) Next, were you aware that the City of Phoenix has anordinance to help neighborhoods reduce blight and requireowners to keep up their property, or not?


Not Sure...3


11a. (SQ) How well would you say these ordinances are working inyour neighborhood -- very well, fairly well, not too well, or notwell at all?

Very well...1Fairly well...2

Not too well...3Not well at all...4

Not Sure...5

12. (SQ) From what you know or have heard, is your neighborhood saferthan other neighborhoods in Phoenix, about the same as otherneighborhoods in Phoenix, or not as safe as other neighborhoods inPhoenix?

Safer...1About the same...2

Not as safe...3Not sure...4

13. (SQ) Does your neighborhood participate in a Block Watch,neighborhood association or other similar crime reduction program?


Not Sure...3

13a. (SQ) Do you feel it is effective in improving your neighborhoodand reducing crime?

Yes...1 No...2

Not Sure...3

14. (SQ) Do you think downtown Phoenix is much better now than it was a few yearsago, a little better, about the same, or worse?

Much better...1Little better...2

About the same...3Worse...4

Not sure...5

15. (SQ) Have you ever used Phoenix dot Gov, the City’s web site to obtaininformation or conduct business with the City?


Not sure...3

15a. (SQ) On a 10 point scale where 1 means poor and 10 means excellent,how would you rate the City’s web site? RATING: / / /

15b. (SQ) For what purpose did you last visit the City’s web site?______________________________________________________

15c. (SQ) Were you able to find what you were looking for on your last visit?Yes...1No...1

16. (SQ) Next, do you rely a lot, some, only a little, or not at all on each ofthe following for information about the City of Phoenix? (ROTATE)

A Only A Not NotLot Some Little At All Sure

A. Newspapers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5B. Television news programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5C. Radio news programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5D. The Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4 5

17. (SQ) Would you say you know a lot, a little or nothing at all about theCity’s efforts to establish sustainability programs. That is, programs toreduce energy and greenhouse gases, use of alternative fuel vehicles,design of city-owned green buildings, water reuse and conservation,recycling, restore blighted land for reuse and preserve desert and openspaces?

A lot...1A little...2

Nothing at all...3


18. Now before I finish, I need a few pieces of information about yourselffor classification purposes only. First, which of the following categoriescomes closest to your age? (READ EACH EXCEPT REFUSED)

Under 25...125 to 34...235 to 49...350 to 64...4

65 or over...5(DO NOT READ) Refused...6

19. How many years have you lived in the City of Phoenix? YEARS___________

20. And finally, which of the following categories best describes your ethnicorigin? (READ EACH EXCEPT REFUSED)

White...1Black...2

Hispanic...3American Indian...4

Asian American...5(DO NOT READ) Refused...6

Thank you very much, that completes this interview. My supervisor may want to call you to verify that I conducted thisinterview so may I have your first name in order that he/she may do so? (VERIFY PHONE NUMBER)

NAME: PHONE #: ______

FROM SAMPLE: ZIP CODE ______


City Council Report

Date: 7/11/2019, Item No. 3

Citizen Request: Mr. John Harrington

This report provides the City Council with information in response to comments made by Mr. John Harrington at the June 26, 2019 Formal City Council meeting.

THIS ITEM IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY.

SummaryMr. Harrington expressed his concerns regarding Termination of Lease notices he has received from the Housing Department in reference to his residence at a City-owned senior housing property. Mr. Harrington's lease is with the Housing Department, which serves as the Public Housing Authority for the City of Phoenix.

In March 2019, an incident documented by the Phoenix Police Department involving Mr. Harrington occurred at the housing property where Mr. Harrington resides. Based on the seriousness of the incident, Mr. Harrington was issued a 30-Day Notice of Termination of Lease, in accordance with the Dwelling Lease and Rules & Regulations signed by the resident. Upon the resident's request, both an informal grievance meeting and Formal Hearing were granted. Both processes resulted in the decision to terminate the lease being upheld. Concurrently, Mr. Harrington was served with orders of protection on behalf of three residents of the property for separate incidents.

Following the comments at the June 26, 2019 Formal City Council meeting, Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua conducted a phone meeting with Mr. Harrington to further hear his concerns. The meeting provided an additional forum for Mr. Harrington to communicate his grievances, however it was made clear to him that the decision to terminate the lease stands. Mr. Harrington subsequently provided an unrequested apology letter to Housing Department staff.

Staff followed all procedures in accordance with the Housing Department’s Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy. Mr. Harrington currently resides in the unit, however the Law Department has filed the necessary paperwork to proceed with an eviction by court action.

Date: 7/11/2019, Item No. 3

Location2936 N. 36th St.Council District: 8

Responsible DepartmentThis item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Housing Department.

general information packet thursday, july 11, 2019 phoenix council meeting files/7-11... ·...

Documents