statewide survey of illinois residents...survey respondents came from a third-party online survey...

0

Statewide Survey of Illinois Residents

for the Illinois Association of Park Districts

Conducted by Market Probe

November, 2013

1

Methodology

➢ These findings are based on a statewide online survey of Illinois residents who live in communities served by a local Park District, and/or countywide Forest Preserve or Conservation District

➢ Survey respondents came from a third-party online survey panel called ResearchNow, and the survey was conducted “blind” (IAPD was not identified as the survey sponsor) to avoid self selection bias and to ensure more objective feedback on park and forest preserve districts

➢ Data collection began on August 30th and ended on September 23rd, 2013

➢ A total of 1,420 Illinois residents completed the survey. The sample was stratified to ensure a sufficient number of respondents from key regions in order to report on regional differences with confidence:

▪ n=250 respondents from Chicago▪ n=250 from suburban Cook County ▪ n=300 from suburban collar counties ▪ n=220 from north downstate counties ▪ n=200 from central downstate counties▪ n=200 from south downstate counties

A map defining these regions is provided on the next page.

➢ For data analysis, the sample was weighted to reflect the actual distribution of the Illinois population by gender, age, race and region (based on US Census data)

➢ Comparisons are made throughout to responses from the 2002 IAPD statewide survey of residents, which was conducted by telephone▪ Despite the difference in the two data collection methods (phone in 2002, online survey panel in 2013), the survey

responses are generally consistent across most questions

2

Region

Chicago

Cook County

Collar Counties

North Downstate

Central Downstate

Southern Downstate

Urban Downstate County

Regions

3

Sample Profile (total n=1,420 respondents)

Region

Chicago 25%

Suburban Cook Co. 21

Collar Counties (Lake, McHenry, Kane, DuPage, Kendall, Will Co.)

25

North Downstate 9

Central Downstate 11

South Downstate 9

Metro Areas

Chicago Metro (City and suburbs) 71%

Urban downstate counties 18

Rural downstate counties 11

Gender

Male 49%

Female 51

Children (under 18) in Household

No children 64%

One or more children 36

Age

18-34 31%

35-44 18

45-59 28

60+ 23

Employment Status

Employed 62%

Not currently employed 11

Retired 13

Homemaker/Student (non-labor force) 14

Race

White/Caucasian 70%

Black/African American 17

Asian American 6

Other 7

Hispanic Ethnicity

Yes 9%

No 91

HH Income

<$25K 17%

$25K-$49.9K 25

$50K-$74.9K 20

$75K+ 32

Refused 6

Education

High School (HS) degree or less 17%

Some college 37

BA degree 30

Post graduate 16

Weighted results to reflect Census data on region, gender, age, and race

4

Summary: Key Findings

Overall, Illinois Residents Hold Park and Forest Preserve Districts in High Regard

➢ Compared to other local taxing bodies, both park districts (PDs) and forest preserve districts (FPDs*) receive the most favorable overall esteem ratings

▪ The ratio of favorable-to-unfavorable responses is roughly 8:1 for both PDs and FPDs

▪ Average esteem ratings on a 0-10 scale are 7.2 for PDs, and 7.0 for FPDs – both considered very positive

➢ The very favorable opinions of these agencies have held steady since 2002 (virtually no change), while public opinion for other levels of government has clearly dropped over time

▪ Local governments are now rated only slightly positive (6.1 average, down from 6.6 in 2002)

▪ County governments receive nearly neutral ratings (5.6, down from 6.0) and state government is held in negative esteem (4.2, down from 5.3)

* Including Conservation districts

PDs Represent Good Value for One’s Property Tax Dollars

➢ The vast majority believe that PDs are good stewards of their tax dollars

▪ Two-thirds believe their PD spends tax dollars wisely▪ Slightly more (seven in ten) believe the portion of their property

taxes going to their PD represents an excellent or good value given the level of service it provides in return

➢ In addition, nearly nine in ten agree that parks and open space help improve local property values

<pg. 23>

<pp. 41-42>

<pp. 41-42>

<pg. 25>

5

Local PD Parks, Facilities, Programs and Events Are

Widely Used by Illinois Residents

➢ More than four out of five Illinois households report using a local PD park, program, or facility in the past year

▪ In addition, nearly one in five took advantage of age-specific programs that PDs offer (e.g., youth sports, adult sports, before- and after-school or early childhood programs)

▪ Programs for seniors are used by about 12% overall

➢ Participation and usage of PD offerings tends to be higher among Chicago area residents, more affluent households (higher incomes), and those with children

➢ Most (62%) feel at least somewhat informed about PD programs and services (consistent with 2002 responses)

▪ Still, one in five remain uninformed (especially Chicago and southern downstate households, and lower income residents)

In Addition to Wide Usage, PD Facilities, Programs and Staff

Earn High Scores

➢ A majority (at least 65%) of recent PD visitors and program participants are satisfied with the maintenance, safety, staff support, and the range of facilities and programs available to them

▪ No more than 15% express dissatisfaction with any area▪ Satisfaction is highest among the most prevalent users

(suburbanites, upper income households in general) ▪ Even the less satisfied tend to be somewhat happy with these

offerings (Chicagoans, downstate residents, lower income households, African Americans)


<pg. 27>

<pp. 28-30>

<pg. 28>

<pp. 32-33>

<pg. 34>

6

Those Visiting Local Forest Preserve Districts Report

Much Higher Satisfaction Over Time

➢ Overall, half of residents who live within a FPD report visiting a District property in the past year

▪ This level of self-reported visits is identical to the 2002 survey

▪ Satisfaction with one’s FPD experience has improved significantly in all areas since 2002, especially with the number and variety of FPD acres and properties

▪ Satisfaction is clearly highest in the suburban collar counties (where a great deal of open space acquisition and improvements have occurred over the past several years), as well as among older residents

▪ Residents in Cook County and north downstate counties tend to be only slightly less satisfied (but still give very strong scores)

Awareness of Local FPDs Is Much Improved

➢ Nearly two thirds of residents in these counties (63%) feel at least somewhat informed about their FPD’s properties, programs, and services

▪ This is significantly higher compared to the 24% who felt this way in 2002

▪ In that earlier survey, half (50%) felt not at all informed about their FPD; today that percentage is just 15%


<pg. 36>

<pg. 39>

<pp. 37-38>

7

Residents Are Most Satisfied With Parks, Recreation, and Environmental Qualities of

Their Community, but Other Issues are More Important

➢ From a list of local issues, residents statewide are most satisfied with the availability of parks, open spaces, and recreational activities in their area, along with the quality of drinking water

▪ These strong satisfaction scores have held steady since 2002

➢ However, other local issues over time have worsened, and nowrepresent higher priorities

▪ The biggest concern is the level of crime in the community, followed closely by the quality of schools, jobs and economic growth, local government services, and property taxes

▪ All of these are considered more important to maintaining or improving the quality of life in their community compared to parks, recreation, or open space

Connecting the Benefits of PDs and FPDs to These

Concerns Is Critical

➢ Positioning the importance that PD programs and facilities represent and how they can help address some of these local issues is a key IAPD opportunity

▪ Examples: PD before- and after-school programs, youth sportsand non-sports programs, etc. provide a safe environment for young people and provide an alternative to gangs and/or drugs

▪ Partnering/coordinating with other agencies (local government, public schools) to deliver recreation and family services and great value for one’s tax dollar

▪ Offer seasonal or part-time employment opportunities to residents,including high school students and young adults, represent a source of jobs, income, and involvement


<pp. 15-16>

<pp. 12-13, 17-18>

8

Jobs and Economic Growth Are More Important than

Overdevelopment

➢ In general, Illinois residents today feel less threatened by the prospect of too much growth or overdevelopment than they did in 2002

▪ By nearly 3:1, those who report “growth/development” is one oftheir top local concerns feel that the current rate of development is too slow (29%) as opposed to too fast (11%)

➢ Two-thirds believe their area has plenty of open space currently and are not worried about overdevelopment (up from 58% in 2002)

▪ Similarly, 66% report that their area faces more pressing issues than the parks or open space protection (up from 56% in 2002)

➢ And only 39% statewide now believe that the current rate of development poses a serious threat to the quality of life in their community

➢ Consistently, downstate and non-white adults express less concern about parks and open space in the face of needing more jobs and economic growth


<pg. 19>

<pg. 19,pg. 43>

9

Strong Willingness to Pay for Certain PD

Priorities/Initiatives


➢ A majority of residents statewide would support paying more inproperty taxes to:

▪ Improve and maintain existing PD facilities (69%)▪ Acquire more open space for trails (60%) or to restore and protect

natural areas and habitats (57%)

➢ Consistently, these supporters tend to be younger, more affluent, and current PD users and visitors

▪ Suburban collar county residents are less likely to support paying more for these initiatives, reflecting their stronger-than-average anti-tax sentiments, and/or the possibility that their districts already meet these demands

➢ By comparison, residents are less supportive of paying for new or expanded PD facilities, or buying open land to develop sports fields

➢ Opponents of these initiatives tend to be older adults, have no children in their household, and are most likely to vote

▪ Similarly, those who are undecided on their willingness to pay are older and retired adults, and also least likely to use or visit PD facilities

▪ As a result, undecided would more likely oppose rather than support these improvements

<pp. 44-46>

<pp. 20-21>

<pp. 45-46>

<pp. 44-46>

10

Local Issues and Importance of Parks/Open Space/Recreation

11

➢ While a majority rate their community “very good” (55%), nearly one in five are less than satisfied (including 10% who consider it “poor”)▪ The average 0-10 rating of 7.3 (considered “very good”) is virtually identical to the 2002 response

➢ Those in suburban Chicago and the most affluent households rate their quality of life highest▪ Those in the downstate regions (especially central and southern counties) are slightly less satisfied (though their

ratings are still positive)

Higher than Average

• Collar Cos. (8.0)

• Upscale: BA degree or higher (7.7), HH income $50K+ (7.7)

• Suburban Cook Co. (7.5)

• Two or more children (7.5)

• Currently employed (7.5)

Lower than Average

• Central and Southern Downstate counties (6.7)

• Urban Downstate counties (6.7, vs. 7.1 among rural Downstate cos.)

• HH Income <$25K (6.4)

• Unemployed (6.3)Avg. = 7.2 Avg. = 7.3

Most and Least Satisfied with Quality of Life

Q1. On a zero through ten scale, how would you rate the overall quality of life in your community?NOTE: Average ratings of 6.0 or higher are considered positive, and scores of 7.0 or higher are very positive.

Illinois Residents Are Generally Satisfied with the Quality of Life in Their Community

6% 10%

17% 8%

24%27%

53% 55%

2002 (n=1,202) 2013 (n=1,420)

Overall Quality of Life in Your Community (0-10 Scale):

Average Rating = 7.3

Very Good (8-10)

Somewhat Good (6-7)

Average (5)

Poor (0-4)

12

6%

6%

8%

8%

9%

9%

13%

25%

29%

No Issues/Problems

Schools

High Cost of Living

Poor Government/Local Services

Taxes

Community Issues

Neighborhood Qualities

Crime

Local Economy Including High unemployment (16%); Poverty/ homelessness (4%); Lack of businesses (4%); Poor local economy (4%)

General crime (13%); Gangs (6%); Violent crimes (5%); Drugs (5%)

Lack of activities/nothing to do (3%); Too crowded/over-growth (2%); Too far from stores, restaurants, transportation (2%); Loud/noisy (2%); Unfriendly people (2%); Prejudice (2%)

Traffic congestion (6%); Local environment concerns (2%); Flooding (1%); Water quality (1%)

High taxes, general (6%); High property taxes (3%)

Corrupt government (3%); Budget issues (3%); Poor local services (e.g., streets, police -- 2%)

High cost of living, general (3%); High housing prices (3%); Food prices/food desert (1%)

Poor quality (3%); Behavior problems (2%); Lack of funding (1%)

➢ Connecting the benefits of parks, recreation, and open space to these issues (crime especially) is a key opportunity ▪ Examples: Safe parks; Activities and programs for families and youth involvement; Events that bring people into the

community; Passive recreation in natural areas, etc. ➢ Very few volunteer open space, recreation, or environmental issues as their top local concern

▪ Examples: Lack of activities (3%); Poor local environment (2%); Water quality (1%); Local flooding (1%); Few public parks (<1%)

The Local Economy (Jobs) and Crime Are the Top Local Issues Concerning Illinoisans

Biggest Local Issue/Concern: Most Frequent Responses

Q2. What is the biggest issue or problem facing your community? (open-ended responses)

13

Local Issue/Concern Tend to Be Reported By:

Local Economy (29% Overall)

• Downstate (42%), especially southern Downstate (46%) and northern Downstate (43%), along with rural downstate counties (50%)

• Older adults, age 60+ (36%) and retirees (44%)• Most likely to vote (34%)

Crime (25% Overall)

• Chicago residents (49%), as well as those in urban downstate counties (26%, vs. 17% of those in rural counties)• Women (28%, vs. 12% of men), and younger adults (36% of those age 18-34)• African Americans (43%) and Hispanics (41%)• Currently employed (27%, vs. 19% of the unemployed), lower income households reporting <$50K annually (32%)

Neighborhood Qualities (13%)

• Downstate residents overall (17%) and collar counties (15%)• NOTE: Those in rural counties (8%) and in the central downstate region (6%) tend to report lack of things to

do such as events, festivals, etc. (vs. 3% overall)• Ages 35 to 44 (17%), and those with one child (19%)• Newer local residents, living there less than ten years (17%)

Community Issues (9%) • Collar counties (14%) and older adults age 60+ (14%)

Taxes (9%)

• Residents in the collar counties (18%) and suburban Cook Co. (11%)• NOTE: Very few downstate residents (only 3%) or Chicago residents (2%) are most concerned about taxes

• Men (11%, vs. 7% of women), and older adults age 60+ (14%), and most likely to vote• Upscale, reporting incomes over $50K (13%), and those employed (11%)

Local Government/Services (8%)

• Older, age 60+ (12%) and retirees (12%), no children in the household (9%)• Most likely to vote (12%)• Upscale, earning over $75K a year (10%)

High Cost of Living (8%) • Chicago residents (11%)

➢ Illinois residents differ significantly by region, age, and income on the local issues that concern them most➢ Note also that men and older voters (who are most likely to vote) tend to be among the most focused on tax issues

Downstate Residents Tend to Focus on Jobs and Lack of Activities as Top Issues; Chicagoans Worry Most About Crime; Suburbanites Are More Focused on Neighborhood Quality of Life

14

11%

12%

17%

12%

15%

16%

19%

21%

Low taxes, cost of living

Location/Close to work, transportation

Park/Recreation/Environment

Quiet (no traffic, peaceful)

Restaurants/Stores/Amenities

Friendly/Civic-Minded

Safe/Little Crime

Quality of Schools

IncludingPlenty of parks/open space (8%); Recreational programs/facilities (4%); Nearby lake/river/beaches (3%); Rural areas nearby (2%); Good air/water quality (<1%)

➢ Overall, 17% report that people are drawn to their community because of park- and recreation-related amenities▪ Upscale residents (those earning over $75K, reporting post-graduate degrees) and likely voters tend to mention local

parks and recreation as being important to making their community attractive▪ Recreation tends to be more important to suburbanites (Cook and collar counties) as well as those with the highest

incomes and education

➢ Another 12% cite a quiet environment as being most important in their community▪ Mentioned most often by those in the Chicago suburbs (Cook and collar counties), north downstate, and middle age

adults (ages 45-59)

While Good Schools and Public Safety Contribute Most Often to Making Communities Desirable, One in Five Also Volunteer that Parks, Open Space and Recreation are Needed

Factors Making Your Community a Desirable Place to Live (open-ended responses)

Q3. What factors make your community a desirable place to live; that is, why do people move to your community and stay there? (multiple open-ended responses)

15

5.0

5.4

6.5

6.2

7.0

7.3

6.7

6.7

7.0

7.3

4.4

4.9

5.5

5.9

6.4

6.4

6.7

6.7

6.9

7.0

7.4

Property Taxes

Jobs/Local Economy

Lack of Crime (gangs/drugs)

Rate of Development

Amount/Frequencyof Flooding

Quality of Schools

Local Gov't Services(streets/police/fire)

Availability of RecreationPrograms/Facilities

Amount of Open Space

Quality of Drinking Water

Number of Public Parks

Satisfaction with Local Issues: Avg. 0-10 Ratings

2013

2002

➢ From a list of local issues, those related to parks, open space, and environmental quality continue to receive the strongest satisfaction scores (consistent with 2002 results)

▪ Virtually all groups are satisfied with these local issues (scores of 6.0 or higher)

▪ The lowest scores come from Downstate residents for the availability of recreational programs (5.9 average – still nearly positive)

➢ By comparison, Illinois adults have become less satisfied with virtually every other local issue tested over time

▪ They are especially unhappy with property taxes and poor local economies/job markets

➢ The biggest drop in satisfaction is with local crime rates

▪ While survey respondents gave generally positive ratings for crime rates in 2002 (6.5 average score), they now give more neutral scores (5.5 average)

Residents Remain Most Satisfied with Parks, Recreational Opportunities, and Access to Open Space in Their Communities

Q4. Below are some issues facing many communities. Please indicate how satisfied you are with each. (0-10 satisfaction scale)NOTE: Average ratings of 6.0 or higher are considered positive, and scores of 7.0 or higher are very positive.

= park/recreation/ environment-related issues

16

Local Issue/Concern Less Satisfied than Average More Satisfied than Average

Number of Public Parks (7.4)

• Central and southern Downstate (7.0), Chicago residents (7.2)

• HH income <$25K (6.8); High school education or less (6.9); unemployed (6.4)

• African Americans (6.9)

• Collar counties (7.7) and suburban Cook Co. (7.6)• HH income $75K+ (7.8)• College degree or more education (7.6)

Quality of Drinking Water (7.0)

• Downstate residents (6.4), especially north Downstate (5.9)

• HH income <$25K (6.2); High school education or less (6.2); unemployed (6.3)

• African Americans (6.1)

• Chicago and local suburbs (7.2)• HH income $75K+ (7.6); college degree or more (7.5)• Asian Americans (7.5)• Always vote (7.3)• Men (7.3, vs. 6.7 from women)

Amount of Open Space (6.9)

• Chicago residents (6.2)• HH income <$25K (6.0); High school education or

less (6.4)• African Americans (6.4)• Lived in city/town 31+ years (6.1)

• Collar counties (7.5) and rural downstate counties (7.2, vs. 6.7 from urban downstate counties)

• HH income $25K+ (7.1); college degree or more (7.2)• Lived in city/town less than 5 years (7.1)

Availability of Recreational Programs/Facilities (6.7)

• Downstate (5.9) and Chicago residents (6.4)• High school education or less (5.9)

• Collar counties (7.4) and suburban Cook County (7.3)• HH income $50K+ (7.1); college degree or more (7.2)

Frequency of Flooding (6.4) • North downstate counties (6.0) • Central downstate (6.6), suburban collar counties (6.6)

➢ Consistently, lower income households and African Americans are less satisfied than average with these community attributes▪ Despite lower scores, they almost always still rate these amenities favorably (6.0 or higher)

➢ Chicago residents are less satisfied with the number of local parks ▪ Along with downstate households, Chicagoans are also less happy with the amount of recreational programs nearby

➢ North downstate adults tend to be less satisfied with flooding and the quality of drinking water

On Park and Open Space Benefits, Suburban Chicago Residents and Upscale Households Are Consistently Most Satisfied

17

2%

3%

6%

6%

7%

8%

9%

13%

14%

15%

18%

1%

2%

3%

4%

6%

6%

10%

11%

14%

19%

24%

Amount/Frequency of Flooding

Quality of Drinking Water

Rate of Building/Development

Number of Parks

Amount of Open Space

Availability of Recreation Programs/Facilities

Property Taxes

Local Gov't Services (streets/police/fire/etc.)

Jobs/Economic Growth

Quality of Public Schools

Amount of Crime

2nd Most Important Most Important

= 42% Top Two Issues

= 34%

= 28%

= 24%

= 19%

= 14%

= 13%

= 10%

= 9%

= 5%

= 3%

= park/recreation/environment-related issues

➢ Of the issues tested, nearly half (42%) report that low crime in their area (including gangs and drugs) is one of the top twofactors that make a community desirable (followed closely by schools, jobs, local services, and property taxes)▪ Controlling crime is a priority for all regions (see table on next page)

➢ Beyond those issues, responses drop off to include recreational opportunities, open space, parks, and environmental concerns (water quality, flooding)▪ Of these, recreational opportunities and open space contribute most to making a community desirable, cited by about

one in seven as among their top two factors ▪ Note that fewer than one in ten (9%) feel the rate of development has much impact on their community’s attractiveness

Local Issues That Register Lower Satisfaction Tend to Be More Important than Parks, Recreation, and Open Space

Importance of Local Issues: Top Two Concerns

Q5/Q6. In your opinion, which one of these issues is most important in making your community a desirable place to live? Second most important?

18

Sharp Regional Differences in the Factors That Make Communities Desirable Places to Live

Top Two Issues Making Community Desirable Mostly Likely to Mention

Amount of Crime (42%)• African Americans (55%)• NOTE: Consistently mentioned across all regions (38% or higher)• Non-PD users/visitors (52%)

Quality of Schools (34%)• Collar counties (43%)• HH income $75K+ (44%), currently employed (34%)• With children in HH (46%, vs. 27% of households without children)

Jobs/Economic Growth (28%)• Chicago (33%), Downstate (34%) especially central Downstate (39%)• HH income <$25K (35%)• African Americans (38%)

Local Government Services (24%)• Suburban Cook Co. (27%)• Age 60+ (28%)• Post college graduates (27%)

Property Taxes (19%)• Suburban Cook Co. (23%), Collar counties (24%)• Age 60+ (23%)• Non-PD users/visitors (24%)

Availability of Recreation (14%) • North Downstate (17%)

Amount of Open Space (13%) • (no meaningful differences)

Number of Parks (10%) • Chicago (15%) and north Downstate (16%)

Rate of Building/Development (9%)• Chicago (15%)• Age 35-44 (13%)• Unemployed (13%)

Quality of Drinking Water (5%) • (no meaningful differences)

Amount/Frequency of Flooding (3%) • (no meaningful differences)

➢ Note that Cook County residents tend to report that both property taxes and local services matter most to their community

19

29%

60%

11%

2013 (n=122)

Current Rate of Growth/Development in Your Community

Too Fast

About Right

Too Slow

Those Who Believe the Rate of Development Contributes to Making Their Community Attractive Tend to Favor More Growth, Not Less

➢ Residents citing growth and development as important local issues are nearly three times as likely to say things are growing too slowly (29%) vs. too quickly (11%)

• This is especially true in downstate Illinois (55% “too slowly”), particularly in central downstate counties (67%)

Q6A. (IF “RATE OF GROWTH/DEVELOPMENT “IS FIRST OR SECOND FACTOR FOR MAKING COMMUNITY A DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE): Do you think that the rate of building and development in your community is too fast, about right, or too slow?

20

Tax-Related Question/Topic Anti-Tax Response Anti-Tax Score

Q2. Biggest Issue/Problem Facing Community• Property taxes (or)• Taxes in general

+1

Q4. Satisfaction with Local Issues• 0-4 rating (dissatisfied) for

property taxes+1

Q5/Q6. Most Important/Second Most Important Issue Making Your Community a Desirable Place to Live

• Property Taxes +1

Q8. Value Represented by Property Taxes Going Toward Local Park District • 0-4 rating (poor value) +1

Q19. Agree/Disagree: Park District Spends Our Tax Dollars Wisely with Little Waste • Disagree +1

Q20: Willing to Pay Higher Taxes for:

A. Maintaining/Improving Existing PD Facilities • Oppose +1

B. Acquiring Open Space for More Walking/Biking Trails • Oppose +1

C. Acquiring Open Space to Restore/Protect Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats • Oppose +1

D. Building/Expanding New PD Facilities • Oppose +1

E. Acquiring Open Space for More Sports Fields • Oppose +1

➢ To gauge the level of anti-property tax sentiment and profile those most vs. least concerned about property taxes (including their willingness to pay higher taxes for parks, recreation, and open space), an Anti-Tax scale was created based on the following responses

• For each anti-tax response below, a respondent received a score of +1 on this scale. Respondents can range from scores of “0” (not at all concerned about taxes/consistently willing to pay) through “10” (consistently anti-tax and opposed to paying more for parks/recreation/open space)

Anti-Tax Scale

21

• Age 60+ (2.6)

• Retired (2.4) and/or unemployed (2.4)

• Age 45-49 (2.3)

• Collar counties (2.3)

• Most likely to vote (2.3)

• White residents (2.1)

OVERALL AVERAGE = 2.0

• Age 35-44 (1.8)

• Chicago residents (1.8) and rural downstate counties (1.8)

• Households with 1-2 children (1.6)

• Age 18-34 (1.6)

• Asian Americans (1.4)

Most Anti-Property Tax

Least Anti-Property Tax

➢ Using this scale, the overall average score is 2.04, which indicates that on average, respondents took an anti-tax position on two of the ten questions tested

➢ Based on this scale, the most anti-tax Illinois residents tend to be older, collar county residents, and white (higher than average anti-tax scores)

• Similarly, those who report voting in every election tend to express anti-tax sentiments more than average

➢ Conversely, the least anti-tax residents (including those willing to pay more for improved parks, recreation, and open space opportunities) tend to be:

• The youngest adults and those with children

• As well as Chicago residents and households in rural downstate areas

Profiles of Most and Least Anti-Tax Residents

22

Opinions of Local Park Districts and Forest Preserve Districts

23

2002 Mean

rating*:

2013 Mean

rating*:

2013 %

Unfamiliar

7.4 7.2 4%

6.9 7.0 9%

n.a. 6.3 5%

n.a. 6.2 9%

6.6 6.1 3%

6.0 5.6 6%

5.3 4.2 3%

➢ At least two in three residents express favorable ratings for their local Park and Forest Preserve District, with fewer than onein ten dissatisfied▪ The average ratings for both agencies (7.2 and 7.0, respectively) are considered very positive, and are consistent with

2002 scores

➢ Other local taxing districts (schools, townships, cities/towns) receive somewhat positive scores, though esteem for local government has slipped in the past ten years

➢ Satisfaction with one’s county government has also dropped (barely favorable on average), while residents now give strong negative scores to state government (4.2 average, more than a full point lower than 2002 ratings)▪ Half (50%) of Illinoisans hold their state government in negative esteem

Park and Forest Preserve Districts Continue to Receive The Strongest Esteem Ratings; Opinion of Other Taxing Bodies Is on the Decline

* As a rule of thumb, a mean rating of 5.5 or higher is considered favorable and anything over 6.0 is very favorable. Scores of 4.9 or lower are unfavorable.

Q7. Please indicate your overall opinion of each on a 0 through 10 scale (zero means you completely dislike that agency; ten means you hold it in the highest regard; five is a neutral score. If you are unfamiliar, please indicate as such.

32%

49%

58%

57%

60%

69%

76%

18%

22%

21%

25%

18%

22%

15%

50%

29%

21%

18%

22%

9%

9%

State Government(n=1,393)

County Government(n=1,353)

Local Government(n=1,389)

Township Government(n=982)

Local school district(n=1,370)

Local Forest PreserveDist. (n=1,082)

Local Park District(n=1,169)

Favorable (6-10) Neutral (5) Unfavorable (0-4)

Esteem Ratings: Government Agencies

24

PD / FPD 0-10 Esteem Lower Scores than Average Higher Scores than Average

Your Local Park District(Overall Average = 7.2)

• Chicago residents (6.9), north downstate (6.9) and south downstate (6.8) counties

• Age 45-59 (6.9)• HH income <$25K (6.7), unemployed (6.2)• Retirees (6.8)

• Collar counties (7.8)• Age 35-44 (7.6)• HH income $50K+ (7.4), currently employed (7.4)

Your County Forest Preserve/ Conservation District(Overall Average = 7.0)

• Chicago residents (6.6), north downstate (6.6) and south downstate (6.6) counties

• Age 45-59 (6.6)• HH income <$25K (6.3), HS education or less (6.5),

unemployed (6.1)• Retirees (6.6)• African Americans (6.2)

• Collar counties (7.5)• Age 35-44 (7.1)• HH income $75K+ (7.3), college degree (7.4), currently

employed (7.2)

➢ In addition, the most favorable ratings tend to come from more affluent households (higher incomes, higher levels of education) and adults age 35 to 44

➢ Lower scores (though still favorable) are most likely to come from lower income households and older adults

Park and Forest Preserve Districts Receive Highest Marks from Collar Counties, Less Favorable Scores from Chicago and Downstate Residents

25

Q8. As you may know, your property taxes go toward several local services. On average in Illinois, about 4% of one’s property taxes goes to their local park district. This means that for every $1,000 that a homeowner pays in property taxes, on average $40 of that goes to the park district.

Assuming that 4% of your property taxes each year goes to your local park district, how would you rate the overall value of the park district’s services, facilities, and programs? Please use a zero through ten scale, where zero means it represents a poor value, ten means it represents an excellent value, and five is average.

17%

14%

44%

26%

Excellent (9-10)

Good (6-8)

Neutral (5)

Poor (0-4)

➢ Seven in ten Illinois adults believe that their park district represents at least a good value for the property taxes they pay▪ Including one in four (26%) who say it is an “excellent”

value

➢ By comparison, fewer than one in five (17%) say their park district represents a poor value

➢ On average, residents rate the value favorably (6.7 on a 0-10 scale)

➢ Those most satisfied with the overall value are:▪ Residents in the collar counties (7.2 average) and suburban

Cook County (7.0)▪ Upscale households earning $50K+ (7.1) and those with a

BA degree or higher (7.1)▪ Adults age 35-44 (7.0)▪ Asian Americans (7.3)

➢ By comparison, those reporting less perceived value (though still positive) for their taxes to the park district include:▪ Chicago residents (6.4) and those in north downstate

counties (6.2)▪ Lower income households (6.3 from those earning under

$25K) and those with a high school degree or less (6.2)▪ African Americans (6.3)

Most Residents Believe the Park District Portion of One’s Property Taxes Represents a Good Value for the Services Provided

Average Rating = 6.7

n = 1,184

26

Recent Usage of Park District Facilities and Programs

27

Yes, 83%No, 17%

Visited Local Park/Used Local PD Program Facility in Past Year?

➢ Regardless of region or population segment, a majority report taking advantage of their local park district’s offerings

➢ Among recent Park District users/visitors:▪ Three in four went to a local park, especially southern downstate residents (82%), the most affluent households

(including 83% of those earning over $75K), and the most likely voters (80%)▪ Just over half used a park district facility, most often those in the collar counties (61%), younger residents (60% of

those under age 45), households with children (65%), and white residents (57%, vs. 46% of African Americans)▪ Half (51%) have attended a District festival or event, especially those in suburban Cook County (55%),

households with children (59%), and the most frequent voters (55%)

Four in Five Illinoisans Report Household Visits or Usage of a Local Park District Facility or Program in the Past Year

Which has your household used/ attended?

(n=1,184)

Q9. Please indicate if you or anyone in your household has been involved in the following activities offered by your local park district in the past year. (ASKED OF THOSE LIVING WITHIN PARK DISTRICT)

Facility/Park/Program/Event (n=994)%

“Yes”

# of visits/programs in past 12 months

Mean Median

Visited a Local Park 75% 18.9 6

Used PD Facility (fitness center, golf course, pool, etc.) 54% 13.2 4

Attended PD Festival or Event 51% 2.8 2

Attended PD Arts Program 22% 3.9 2

Participated in PD Youth Sports 21% 8.4 2

Participated in PD Wellness/Fitness Program 20% 6.8 2

Participated in PD Adult Sports 18% 6.3 2

Attended PD Before/After School Program 17% 5.6 2

Attended PD Early Childhood Program 15% 4.3 1

Attended PD Seniors Program/Event 12% 2.6 2

Participated in other PD programs 30% n.a. n.a.

28

Yes, 83%No, 17%

Visited Local Park/Used Local PD Program Facility in Past Year?

➢ Non-park district users include roughly one in five older adults (age 60 or older and retirees), lower income households, and African Americans statewide

➢ Conversely, nearly nine in ten households with children, higher incomes, and adults age 35 to 44 report making use of their park district facilities and/or programs in the past year ▪ Those who report voting most often are also more likely to use or visit their park district

➢ There are no regional differences in park district usage ▪ At least 81% of residents throughout the state report recent park district visits and participation

Profiles of Park District Users and Non-Users

(n=1,184)

Q9. Please indicate if you or anyone in your household has been involved in the following activities offered by your local park district in the past year. (ASKED OF THOSE LIVING WITHIN PARK DISTRICT)

Less Likely to Visit/Use PD

▪ Ages 60+ (21%), retirees (23%)▪ HH income <$25K (24%) ▪ High school education or less (31%)▪ Unemployed (29%) ▪ Never vote/not registered (24%)▪ African Americans (22%)

More Likely to Visit/Use PD

▪ Ages 35-44 (87%)▪ HH income $75K+ (91%),▪ College degree or post-grad (89%)▪ Most frequent voters (87%)▪ With children (88%)▪ Asian Americans (92%)

29

Profiles of Park District Users/Visitors: Facilities, Programs, and Events

➢ Full profiles of Illinois residents who are most likely to report using and participating in local park district programs, facilities, and events are provided on the next page

➢ Some key findings:

▪ Among all Illinois households, at least 61% of every segment reports visiting a local park district park in the past year

▪ Not surprisingly, visitors and users tend to be younger adults and those with children. However, nearly half of those age 60 or older report using a park district facility recently

▪ Still, only 13% of adults age 60 or older report taking part in park district senior programs

▪ Statewide, at least one in four households with children report participating in a park district early childhood program (27%), a before- or after-school program (28%), or a youth sports program (37%)

▪ Park district festivals and events are especially popular in suburban Cook County, and among families along with younger adults

▪ Chicago residents and Hispanics statewide are most likely to report taking part in adult sports programs

➢ In a separate question, 30% of adults statewide paid a fee to their park district to take part in a program or to use a facility(e.g., pool pass, membership, rental fee, etc.)

▪ Especially residents in the collar counties (37%) and suburban Cook County (35%)

30

Profiles of Park District Users/Visitors: Facilities, Programs, And Events

Local Issue/Concern Most Likely to Use/Participate

Visited Local Park (75%)

A majority of all segments and regions, especially:• Affluent households earning over $75K (83%), college degree (78%) or post-grad (84%); employed (80%)• Southern downstate households (82%) and rural downstate residents (82%, vs. 76% of urban downstate)• Most likely to always vote (80%)

Visited PD Facility (54%)

• Collar counties (61%)• Younger adults age 18-34 (61%) or 35 to 44 (59%), compared to 47% of those age 45+• Children in the household (65%, vs. 48% of those without children)• Affluent with incomes over $75K (65%), BA degree (60%) or post grad (64%), employed (59%, vs. 40% of retirees)• White respondents (57%, vs. 46% of African Americans)

Attended PD Festival/ Event (51%)

• Suburban Cook Co. residents (55%, vs. 45% of downstate residents)• HH income $75K+ (59%)• Households with children (59%, vs. 46% of those with no children)• White respondents (53%, vs. 42% of African Americans)

Participated in PD Arts Program (22%)

• Chicago residents (26%)• Younger adults (27% of those age 18-44) and households with children (29%, vs. 18% of those without children)• HH income $75K+ (25%)

PD Youth Sports (21%)• Collar counties (24%) and southern downstate counties (24%)• Ages 35 to 44 (31%) and 37% of households statewide with children

PD Wellness/Fitness Program (20%)

• Chicago residents (26%, vs. half as many – 13% -- in downstate counties)• Ages 18-44 (26%, vs. 14% of those over age 45)• African Americans (27%)

PD Adult Sports (18%)• Chicago adults (25%)• Ages 18-34 (28%)• Hispanics (30%)

PD Before/After School Program (17%)

• Chicago residents (20%)• 28% of households with children statewide

PD Early Childhood (15%)• Chicago residents (19%, vs. 10% of those downstate)• 27% of households statewide with children

PD Seniors Program (12%)• Chicago residents (16%, vs. 8% of those downstate)• 13% of those age 60+ statewide• Non-white respondents, including 21% of African Americans, 23% of Hispanics, and 23% of Asian Americans

31

7%

2%

4%

7%

10%

15%

28%

38%

Other improvement

Events

More awareness

Lower costs

More/new sports facilities

Programs, classes

Maintain/improve facilities

Everything is OK; no improvements

Types of Improvements Tended to Be Reported By:

Maintain/improve facilities (28% Overall) • Downstate (34%); Those aged 18-34 (33%), 35-44 years (37%)

Program, classes (15%)

• Women (20%), vs. men (11%)• Under 25K HH Income (19%) • One child HH (21%), vs. None (13%) • African Americans (27%)

More/new sports facilities (10%)• Downstate (13%), especially Southern Downstate (15%)• 75K+ HH Income (14%)

Lower costs (7%)

• African Americans (10%)• Women (10%), vs. Men (4%)• Less than 50K HH Income (10%)• Some College Education (11%)

More awareness (4%)• Not in labor force (8%)• African Americans (10%)

Events (2%) • Those 60+ years of age (3%)

Requests for PD Improvements Most Often Focus on Maintaining Existing Facilities

Q11. What type of improvements would you like made to your local park district’s services, programs or facilities?

(Most often: Cleaner facilities, better maintenance ; Make safer, less crime; Better playground equipment )

(Most often: Increasing the variety/types of classes and programs; Offering more/ different times for classes/programs)

(Most often:: Swimming pools, more facilities (e.g. tennis courts, golf, etc.))

(Most often: Increase advertising/communication on Park Districts)

(Examples: Acquiring more land; Getting community input on decisions

32

12%13%8%6%7%

14%13%20%10%9%

46%44%42%

47%47%

28%30%30%37%37%

Variety of PDFacilities

Number of PDFacilities

Helpfulness of StaffPersonal SafetyCleanliness of PDFacilities

Completely Satisfied (9-10) Somewhat Satisfied (6-8) Neutral (5) Dissatisfied (0-4)

11%15%13%11%13%14%13%

17%15%15%13%22%14%11%

39%40%40%38%

35%38%

37%

33%30%32%36%30%34%39%

Quality of PDPrograms

Number/Variety of PDPrograms

Variety of PDFacilities

Number of PDFacilities

Helpfulness of StaffPersonal SafetyCleanliness of PDFacilities

Park District Users Are Consistently Very Satisfied with Current Facilities, Programs, and Staff

➢ Nearly two thirds (65%) or more express satisfaction with each aspect of their Park District experience (consistent with 2002scores)

7.7 7.6 7.1 7.0 7.0

n.a. n.a.

7.3 7.0 6.8 7.2 7.0 6.9 7.1Avg. Score

Avg. Score

2013

2002

Satisfaction with Park District Facilities, Staff, and Programs (among recent users)

Q12. Please rate your satisfaction with the facilities and services provided by your park district. (0-10 scale)

33


Cleanliness (7.3)

• Chicago (6.5), North downstate (6.6)• Age 18-34 (7.0)• HH income <$25K (6.5), HS education or less (7.0)• African Americans (6.3)

• Collar Counties (8.1), Suburban Cook Co. (7.7)• Age 60+ (7.7)• HH income $75K+ (7.6), college degree (7.6)

Personal Safety (7.0)

• Chicago (6.2) and North downstate (6.6)• Urban downstate counties (6.7)• HH income <$25K (6.1), HS education or less (6.5)• African Americans (5.9), Hispanics (6.7)

• Collar Counties (8.0) and Suburban Cook Co. (7.5)• Rural downstate counties (7.3)• HH income $75K+ (7.5), BA or higher education (7.4)• White respondents (7.4), Asian Americans (7.5)

Staff Helpfulness (6.8)• Chicago (6.5), Downstate counties (6.4), especially

north downstate (6.0)• HS education or less (6.3), unemployed (5.9)

• Suburban Cook and collar counties (7.4 each)• College education or higher (7.1)

Number of Facilities (7.2)

• Chicago (6.9), southern (7.1) and northern downstate counties (6.6)

• HH income < $25K (6.4), HS education or less (6.4)• African Americans (6.2)

• Collar counties (7.7) and suburban Cook Co. (7.5)• HH income $50K+ (7.5), BA or advanced degree (7.5)• Asian Americans (7.5)

Variety of Facilities (7.0)

• Chicago (6.3) and downstate (6.5), especially north (6.3) and southern (6.4) downstate counties

• HH income <$25K (6.1), HS education or less (6.6), unemployed (6.2)

• African American (6.2)

• Suburban Cook and collar counties (7.5 each)• HH income $50K+ (7.3), BA or advanced degree (7.3)• Asian Americans (7.4)

Number/Variety of Programs (6.9)

• Chicago (6.5) and downstate (6.3), especially southern (6.0) and northern downstate counties (6.3), as well as rural downstate counties (6.0)

• HH income <$25K (6.2), HS education or less (6.4)

• Suburban Cook and collar counties (7.4 each)• HH income $75K+ (7.2), College degree (7.2)

Quality of Programs (7.1)• Chicago (6.7) and downstate counties (6.7)• HS education or less (6.6), unemployed (6.3)• African Americans (6.5)

• Collar counties (7.8) and Suburban Cook Co. (7.4)• BA or advanced degree (7.4)• Asian Americans (7.5)

Satisfaction with Park District Experience is Stronger in Suburbs and Among Affluent Households

➢ Chicago residents, downstate households (especially those in the north region), African Americans and lower income adults tend to be “somewhat satisfied” with their park district facilities, programs and staff (average ratings between 6.0 and 7.0)

34

20% 20%

20% 18%

32% 41%

28%21%

2002 (n=1085) 2013 (n=1,420)

Extremely Informed (9-10)

Somewhat Informed (6-8)

Neutral (5)

Not Informed (0-4)

While Most Feel Informed about the Park District Offerings,At Least One in Five Remain Unaware

➢ Knowledge of local park districts remain virtually consistent from 2002 to 2013 (60% vs. 62% feel at least somewhat informed)

➢ One in five (20%) feel poorly informed about what their district has to offer, and another 18% gave only neutral scores

➢ The overall average rating is 6.2 (somewhat informed), with suburban and more affluent residents feeling most informed:▪ Suburban Cook (6.7) and collar county residents (6.8), those reporting incomes over $75K (6.5), ages 18-44 (6.4), and

households with two or more children (6.8)

➢ Those feeling least informed tend to reflect those less satisfied with their District’s programs and facilities, specifically:▪ Chicago residents (5.7) and downstate households (5.7), especially those in the southern downstate region (5.3)▪ Households earning under $25K (5.4), those with no more than a high school education (5.7), or unemployed (5.1)▪ African Americans (5.5)

Q13. How well informed do you feel about what your local park district has to offer in programs and services? (0-10 scale)

Level of Knowledge of Park Districts Program/Services

35

Recent Usage of Forest Preserve District

Facilities and Programs

36

Yes, 50%

No, 50%

(n=1082)

➢ Overall, half of those who live in a county with a Forest Preserve/Conservation District* report visiting one of these facilities in the past year (identical to 2002 responses)▪ Suburban voters, men, and households both with children and the highest levels of income tend to be FPD/CD visitors▪ On average, these visitors report three to four FPD/CD visits per year (at least half as many visits as reported in 2002)

➢ Conversely, residents who are least likely to have visited are less affluent (incomes under $25K and no more than a high school education, unemployed) and those who have no children at home

▪ Of note, only 41% of Chicago residents report going to a local forest preserve in the past year; suburban Cook County residents reflect the statewide average (52% have visited)

Half of Illinois Adults Report Household Visits or Usage of a Local Forest Preserve/Conservation District Recently*

Most Likely to Visit Forest

Preserve District

Q15. Have you or others in your household visited a local forest preserve/conservation district facility or area in the past year? * Asked of residents in Cook, Lake, Kane, McHenry, DuPage, Will, Boone, Champaign, Clark, DeKalb, Franklin, Kankakee, Kendall, Macon, Ogle, Putnam, Rock Island, Vermilion and Winnebago counties, all of which have a Forest Preserve District (FPD) or Conservation District (CD)

Visited County Forest Preserve/Conservation District in Past Year?

More Likely to Visit FPD/CD

▪ Suburban collar county (59%) residents▪ Men (54%, vs. 46% of women)▪ Ages 45-59 (54%), those with three or more children (65%)▪ College educated adults (56%)▪ Those reporting over $50K in income (57%), and currently

employed (54%)

37

13%13%11%9%9%

22%14%

29%

14%11%

48%48%

38%

52%53%

17%25%22%25%27%

Variety of FPD/CD PropertiesNumber of FPD/CD AcresAvailable

Helpfulness of StaffPersonal SafetyCleanliness of FPD/CD Areas

Completely Satisfied (9-10) Somewhat Satisfied (6-8) Neutral (5) Dissatisfied (0-4)

4%5%9%7%6%10%8%

19%10%7%

44%42%

35%43%

44%

42%46%37%40%43%

Variety of FPD/CD PropertiesNumber of FPD/CD AcresAvailable

Helpfulness of StaffPersonal SafetyCleanliness of FPD/CD Areas

Recent FPD/CD Visitors Are Especially Satisfied with These Facilities, Especially the Number of Acres Protected

➢ Satisfaction with these districts is very strong; at least a third are extremely satisfied (no more than ten percent are unhappy)▪ Satisfaction is also higher across the board since 2002, especially with the number and variety of FPD/CD properties

now available

7.3 7.2 6.5 6.9 6.5

Avg. Score

Avg. Score

2013

2002

Satisfaction with Park District Facilities, Staff, and Programs (among recent users)

Q17. Please rate your satisfaction with the facilities provided by your local forest preserve/conservation district. (0-10 scale)

7.9 7.7 7.2 8.0 7.8

38


Cleanliness (7.9)• Suburban Cook Co. (7.6), north downstate (7.5)• Men (7.7)• Age 45-59 (7.7)

• Collar counties (8.2), central downstate (8.5)• Women (8.1)• Age 35-44 (8.3)

Personal Safety (7.7) • Suburban Cook Co. (7.3) • Collar counties (8.1)

Staff Helpfulness (7.2) • Suburban Cook Co. (6.9), northern downstate (6.9) • Collar counties (7.5), central downstate (7.5)

Number of Acres Protected (8.0)• Chicago residents (7.6)• Ages 18-34 (7.7)

• Collar counties (8.3)• Age 60+ (8.5)

Variety of Properties (7.8)• Chicago residents (7.6), northern downstate (7.3)• Ages 18-34 (7.4)

• Collar counties (8.2)• Age 60+ (8.2)

➢ While all segments express strong satisfaction with their county forest preserve/conservation district, residents in Cook County (both in Chicago and the suburbs) are slightly less satisfied in general

➢ Likewise, residents in northern downstate who live in these districts tend to be only somewhat satisfied with some key areas (cleanliness, staff, types and variety of properties protected)

➢ Note that older residents tend to be most satisfied with the number and variety of district properties

Collar County Residents are Consistently Most Satisfied with their Forest Preserve/Conservation Districts; Cook County Households Slightly Less So

39

Residents in Forest Preserve/Conservation Districts Feel About as Informed About These Agencies as They Do About Their Park District

➢ Nearly two thirds (64%) feel at least somewhat informed, including one in five (20%) who are extremely informed ▪ By comparison, 15% feel essentially uninformed overall (about one in seven)

➢ Knowledge of one’s Forest Preserve/Conservation District’s properties, programs, and services has improved dramatically since2002 to 2013 (from 24% to 63% feeling at least somewhat informed)

➢ On average, residents rate their knowledge level a moderate 6.4, which is generally consistent by region and subgroup ▪ Adults age 35 to 44 tend to feel slightly more informed (6.9 average) than those age 45 to 59 (6.0)

Q18. How well informed do you feel about what your (forest preserve/conservation) district has to offer in the way of properties, programs , and services? (0-10 scale)

50%

15%

26%

21%

17%

43%

7%20%

2002 (n=774) 2013 (n=537)

Extremely Informed (9-10)

Somewhat Informed (6-8)

Neutral (5)

Not Informed (0-4)

Level of Knowledge of Local Forest Preserve/Conservation District Program/Services

40

Open Space and Recreation:

Priorities and Initiatives

41

2%

5%

6%

8%

13%

9%

29%

28%

26%

48%

60%

48%

51%

56%

30%

29%

18%

15%

10%

9%

Parks/Open Space Help Improve Property Values

My Area Has More Important Issues Than Parks orProtection of Open Space

Plenty of Open Space Nearby, Not Worried about Too MuchGrowth/Overdevelopment

Park District Spends Tax Dollars Wisely with Little Waste

If Current Rate of Development Continues, It WillPose Serious Threat to Quality of Life in My Area

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Q19. Please indicate if your strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements.

61% : 39%

34% : 66%

34% : 66%

34% : 66%

11% : 89%

Total Disagree : Agree

Strong Consensus that Parks and Open Space Improve Property Values, but Far Fewer See Current Rate of Local Development as a Threat to their Quality of Life

➢ At least three in five respondents (61%) disagree that continued development will hurt the quality of life in their area▪ Little change since 2002, when 59% disagreed

➢ Similarly, nearly two-thirds (66%) believe their area:▪ Has enough open space already and are not concerned about too much growth (up from just 58% in 2002)▪ Has more important issues to focus on than parks or open space (likewise, up from 56% in 2002)

➢ On the other had, residents almost universally agree that parks and open lands improve property values (89%, virtually the same as 92% who felt that way in 2002)▪ And two thirds (66%) believe local park districts are good stewards of their tax dollars and spend wisely (not asked in

2002)

Agree/Disagree: Park District and Open Space Perspectives

42

Local Issue/Concern Most Likely to Disagree Most Likely to Agree

Parks/Open Space Help Improve Property Values

(11% Total Disagree)

• Non-PD users/visitors (23%)

(89% Total Agree)

• At least 77% of all subgroups and regions agree

Park District Spends Tax Dollars Wisely with Little Waste


• Chicago residents (44%)• HH income <$25K (39%), unemployed (46%)• African Americans (44%)• Non-PD users/visitors (48%)

(66% Total Agree)

• Suburban Cook Co. (72%) and collar counties (72%)• HH income $50K-$74.9K (73%)• Asian Americans (75%)• Recent PD users/visitors (69%)

Pro-Park District/Open Space Sentiments: Profiles

➢ At least 77% of all Illinois residents (including non-users of park districts) agree that having parks and open space nearby improves their property values

➢ Likewise, a majority of all subgroups agree that their local park district spends their tax dollars responsibly

▪ Strongest agreement tends to come from the Chicago suburbs and more affluent households, along with recent users and visitors of park districts

▪ However, disagreement comes from nearly half of Chicago residents, African Americans statewide, and non-users of park district facilities or programs on how well their district spends money

43

Local Issue/Concern Most Likely to Disagree Most Likely to Agree

If Current Rate of Development Continues, It Will Pose a Serious Threat to the Quality of Life in My Area


• Central downstate counties (66%)• Age 60+ (66%), retirees (71%)• Post-graduate degree (66%)• White respondents (64%)

(39% Total Agree)

• Chicago residents (45%)• Age 18-34 (44%)• HS education or less (45%)• Hispanics (52%), Asian Americans (53%)

Plenty of Open Space Nearby, NotWorried about Too Much Growth or Overdevelopment


• Chicago residents (45%)• HH income <$25K (42%), unemployed (40%)• African Americans (40%)

(66% Total Agree)

• Downstate residents (72%), especially northern counties (75%)

• HH income $50K+ (69%)

My Area Has More Important Issues Than Parks or Protecting Open Space


• Suburban collar counties (39%) and Cook Co. (37%)

(66% Total Agree)

• Downstate (71%), especially central counties (74%)• Retirees (75%)• Hispanics (54%), African Americans (70%)

Anti-Park District/Open Space Sentiments: Profiles

➢ Nearly half of Chicago residents and younger adults statewide believe that the quality of life in their area will decline if thecurrent rate of development continues

▪ Still, most Illinois disagree or seem less concerned (61% overall), especially older residents and central downstate households

➢ Similarly, downstate residents in general believe there is sufficient open space nearby, and that more pressing issues take priority over parks or land protection

▪ Chicagoans tend to disagree that there is plenty of open space, and express concerns about overdevelopment

44

29%

19%

15%

16%

9%

34%

33%

28%

24%

22%

26%

32%

34%

37%

43%

11%

16%

23%

23%

26%

Acquire Open Space for Sports Fields

Build/Expand New PD Facilities

Acquire Open Space To Restore/Protect Natural Areas, Wildlife Habitats

Acquire Open Space for Trails

Maintain/Improve Existing PD Facilities

Total Oppose (somewhat+strong) Undecided Somewhat Support Strongly Support

Q20. Below are some goals that your local park district might have. Please indicate if you would support or oppose paying more in property taxes for each goal, using the scale below.

69%

60%

57%

48%

37%

Total Support (Somewhat+Strong)

Residents Are Most Willing to Pay for Upkeep of Existing Park District Facilities, More Trails, and Open Space Protection

➢ A majority of Illinois households support facility maintenance and open space acquisition, knowing that property taxes would increase ▪ No more than one in six residents would be opposed▪ In fact, each of these three initiatives registers more “strong” support (23% to 26%) than total opposition (9% to 16%)

➢ Residents would also be willing to pay more for new Park District facilities by a 2.5:1 margin (48% total support, vs. 19% opposed)

➢ However, they are more divided over the need to pay more for additional sports fields▪ Only about one in ten (11%) strongly support higher property taxes for this initiative

Level of Support/Opposition to Paying Higher Property Taxes for Park District Initiatives

45

While Illinoisans Tend to Support These Initiatives, the Undecideds Look More Like Opponents Than Supporters

Profiles of those most likely to support and oppose these initiatives are summarized on the next page. The key takeaways are:

➢ Those who are consistently opposed to each initiative tend to be older adults (age 60+), retirees, and those without children in the household. They also tend to be the most likely to vote.

➢ Similarly, residents who are undecided on each measure also tend to be older, retired, and without children at home.

▪ In addition, people who have not used nor visited a Park District facility or program recently tend to be undecided on their willingness to pay.

➢ Supporters of these initiatives are consistently younger, have children in the household, are more affluent, and are recent PD facility and program users.

▪ Opportunities for more open space and new facilities are especially supported by Chicago residents as well.

➢ Other important regional differences worth noting are:

▪ Suburban collar county households tend to oppose or remain undecided on most of these issues, including acquisition of open space for trails, sports fields, or protecting nature/wildlife, as well as building new park district facilities.

▪ This may reflect anti-tax sentiments (which tend to be stronger in these regions), or possibly that demand has largely been met in these areas (given recent improvements and successful acquisition efforts).

46

Local Issue/Concern Most Opposed Undecided Most Supportive

Maintain/Improve Existing PD Facilities

(9% Total Opposed)

• Urban downstate (11%, vs. 6% rural downstate)

• Age 60+ (14%)• HH income <$25K (14%),

unemployed (13%)

(22% Total Undecided)

• Suburban Cook Co. (25%)• No children in HH (23%)• Never vote (31%), lived in area <5

years (28%)• Non-PD users/visitors (42%)

(69% Total Support)• At least 66% of all regions are supportive• Age 35-44 (75%), one child (77%)• HH income $50K+ (72%), post grads

(76%), employed (72%)• Most frequent voters (72%)• Recent PD users/visitors (73%)

Acquire Open Space for Walking/ Biking Trails

(16% Total Opposed)

• Collar counties (20%) and north downstate region (21%)

• Age 60+ (23%), no children in HH (18%)

• Most frequent voters (18%)


• Suburban Cook Co. (29%)• Age 45+ (27%)• Retirees (34%)• Non-PD users/visitors (39%)

(60% Total Support)• Chicago residents (68%) and central

downstate households (63%)• Ages 18-44 (67%), children in HH (67%)• College degree (65%), employed (64%)• Hispanic (69%)• Recent PD users/visitors (64%)

Acquire Open Space to Restore/ Protect Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats

(15% Total Opposed)• Suburban Cook Co. (17%) and

collar counties (18%)• Men (17%, vs. 12% of women)• Age 60+ (21%), retirees (19%)

(28% Total Undecided)• Southern downstate (38%)• Ages 35+ (31%), no children in HH

(30%), retirees (37%)• Non-PD users/visitors (51%)

(57% Total Support)• Chicago residents (62%)• Ages 18-34 (66%), children in HH (61%)• Currently employed (59%)• Hispanics (64%)• Recent PD users/visitors (61%)

Build/Expand New PD Facilities

(19% Total Opposed)• Collar counties (25%), urban

downstate (21%, vs. 15% rural downstate)

• Age 60+ (30%), retired (25%) or unemployed (27%), no children in HH (23%)



• Age 60+ (40%), no children in HH (35%)

• HS education or less (39%), retired (41%)

• Non-PD users/visitors (52%)

(48% Total Support)

• Chicago residents (57%)• Ages 18-44 (59%), children in HH (61%)• College degree (54%), employed (53%)• Recent PD users/visitors (54%)

Acquire Open Space for More Sports Fields

(29% Total Opposed)

• Collar counties (32%) and downstate counties in the north (35%) and central regions (36%)

• Ages 45-59 (33%) and 60+ (37%), retirees (37%), no children (32%)


(34% Total Opposed)

• Southern downstate (39%)• Ages 45-59 (38%) and 60+ (41%),

no children in HH (36%)• Post grad degrees (41%)• Vote sometimes (38%)• Non-PD users/visitors (48%)

(37% Total Support)• Chicago residents (50%)• Age 18-44 (50%), with children in HH

(48%) • College educated (43%), employed (41%)• African Americans (48%) and Asian

Americans (56%) • Recent PD users/visitors (42%)

Supporter, Undecided and Opponent Profiles: Willingness to Pay for PD Initiatives

47

62% 33% 5%

Active Passive Other/DK

Favorite Recreational Activity

Favorite Recreational Activity: Active Activities Outweigh Passive Activities Nearly 2:1

Most Frequent (Others 2% or Less)

More Reported By:

▪ Hiking/walking (20%)▪ Swimming (6%)▪ Biking (5%)▪ Running/jogging (5%)▪ Golf (5%)▪ Basketball (4%)▪ Baseball/softball (3%)▪ (All others mentioned by

2% or less)

• Collar counties (70%)• 75K+ HH Income (70%)• Those with degrees (71%)• Park district users (68%)

vs. non- user (45%)

Most Frequent(Others 2% or Less)

More Reported By:

▪ Reading (5%)▪ Fishing (4%)▪ Watching sports (4%)▪ Watching TV, movies (3%)▪ (All others mentioned by 2%

or less)

• Northern Downstate (40%) and Central Downstate (39%) residents

• Ages 45-59 (39%)• 25-50K HH Income (41%)• African Americans (46%)

Q34. What is your favorite recreational activity? (open-ended)

➢ When asked “What is your favorite recreational activity?” respondents listed more “active” pastimes twice as often as more “passive” activities

➢ When looking at those who have used a park district vs. those who have not, this relationship is further pronounced.

48

Appendix:

statewide survey of illinois residents...survey respondents came from a third-party online survey...

Documents