city of alamosa customer satisfaction & residents priorities survey by: dr. melissa l. freeman...

City of Alamosa Customer Satisfaction & Residents’ Priorities Survey

By: Dr. Melissa L. FreemanAssistant ProfessorAdams State College

Description

Future planningResident prioritiesResident satisfaction with city services

Survey of registered voters in the citySurvey developed in consultation with

members of Council and the City Manager

Methodology

Telephone surveyCost efficienciesTime efficienciesConducive to brief, straightforward data

collectionHigh response rate

Margin of error +/- 5%

Four of five interviewers were bilingual

Table 1

Respondent MetricsNumber

Registered voters 4,447Registered voters with no telephone 1,032Telephone numbers recovered from Alamosa directory 182Cases deleted due to no telephone number 850Registered voters in final population 3,597Sample drawn 1,470Invalid telephone numbers called 352Refusals 241No answers 336Respondents 400Total in sample not called 141

*First survey response 9/15/ 2008. Last survey response 9/28/2008

Methodology—Sample

According to Suskie (1996) a sample size of 400 is sufficient to ensure +/-5% margin of error.

In social science research and political polls, 5% is an acceptable margin.

Figure 1

1 x 100% (where n=sample size)

n

Sample Size Formula

Limitations

Population of interest—registered votersMissing telephone numbersInvalid telephone numbers

Voters not required to provide or update telephone numbers

Younger voters and cell phonesSome households may not have a

telephone

Results—Demographics

Respondents' Gender

36%

64%

Male

Female

Results—Demographics

Respondents' Age Range

9% 9%

16%

28%

38%

1%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

18-30 yrs 30-40 yrs 40-50 yrs 50-60 yrs 60+ yrs Refused

Results—Demographics

Respondents' Intent to Vote in the Next Election

98.0%

0.8%

1.0%

0.3%

Yes

No

Don't Know

Refused

Results—Demographics

Respondents' Race/Ethnicity

70.0%

24.5%

0.3%

1.0%

1.8%

2.5%

Caucasian/white

Hispanic/Latino

AmericanIndian/Alaskan Native

Asian/AsianIndian/Pacific Islander

Other

Refused

Results—Demographics

Number of Years Respondents Have Lived in Alamosa

6.0% 8.3% 10.0%15.8%

59.5%

0.5%0.0%

10.0%

20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%

60.0%70.0%

< 2 yrs 2-5 yrs 6-10 yrs 11-20 yrs > 20 yrs Refused

Results—Demographics

Respondents' Household Income Range Per Year

13.5%

6.8%9.5% 10.8% 8.3%

20.0%

31.3%

0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%

Results—Demographics

Number of Children Under the Age of 18 Living with Respondents

76.3%

10.8%

8.5%

2.3%

1.8%

0.5%

No Children

1 Child

2 Children

3 Children

4+ Children

Refused

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with Police Services

1.8%8.0%

28.5%

42.5%

19.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

62%

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with Crime Prevention

1.8%

11.8%

37.8% 38.8%

10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with Traffic Enforcement

7.8%13.3%

29.5%

38.3%

11.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with Fire Services

0.5% 1.0%

15.8%

41.5% 41.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

83%

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with Emergency Preparedness

3.3%7.0%

29.6%

39.1%

21.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

60%

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with Street Repair

26.9%30.2%

23.9%

16.3%

2.8%

0.0%

5.0%10.0%

15.0%20.0%

25.0%30.0%

35.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

57%

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with Street Cleaning

7.5%

17.8%

31.1%

8.5%

35.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with Sidewalk Maintenance

14.0%

20.0%

30.8% 31.0%

4.3%

0.0%

5.0%10.0%

15.0%20.0%

25.0%30.0%

35.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

1/31/3

1/3

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with Garbage Collection

1.0% 3.0% 6.3%

52.0%

37.7%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

90%

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with Recycling Services

4.5%

16.5%

29.8%32.3%

17.0%

0.0%

5.0%10.0%

15.0%20.0%

25.0%30.0%

35.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

49%

Results—Satisfaction

Recycling Services—Open-ended Results Improvement of Services in 3 ways

Recycle class, other materialsCurbside pickupClean up the recycling center located on Ross

Avenue.

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with Water Services

12.8% 14.5%

22.6%

35.8%

14.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

50%

Results—Satisfaction

Initial reaction was a laughResidents were especially satisfied with

the way in which the city handled the water emergency last spring

Suggestions for improvementLower the chlorine levels

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisifaction with Sewage Services

2.0%8.3%

23.8%20.8%

45.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

66%

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with City Parks

0.8% 3.3%

12.3%

29.6%

54.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

84%

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with Recreation Programs and Facilities

1.8%7.0%

28.4%

41.7%

21.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

63%

Results—Satisfaction

Recreation Programs and FacilitiesComments to offer more adult programming

aside from sportsCooking

Recreation center (walking track) is not disability friendly

ElevatorDifficulty getting to the recreation center

Location

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with Land Use: Zoning and Planning

3.8%11.5%

25.3%

6.5%

52.9%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%

40.0%50.0%60.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with Code Enforcement

7.0%

17.0%

25.6%

7.0%

43.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

Results—Satisfaction

Citizen Satisfaction with Public Library Services.

1.8%

19.0%

29.3%

7.3%

42.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Poor Fair Neutral Good Excellent

72%

Results—City Employees

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

Poor Fair

Neutra

lGoo

d

Excelle

nt

Citizen Satisfaction with City Employees

Knowledge

Responsiveness

Courtesy

Overall

Results—City Employees

High level of satisfactionKnowledge 56%Responsiveness 58%Courtesy 69%Overall impression 64%

Large number of neutralsDependent upon which department being

ratedWorthwhile to explore individual

departmental employees

Results—Recreational Facilities & Opportunities

Rank Ordered Recreational Facilities/Opportunities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%Least important

Fourth important

Third important

Second important

Most important

Results—Recreational Facilities & Opportunities

Public swimming pool most important item to citizens 55% ranked as 1 13% ranked as 2 12% ranked as 3 Thus, 80% of respondents indicated the importance

of a public swimming pool Awful our kids do not have a public swimming pool

to go to in the summer An entire generation of Alamosa children will never

learn to swim Children need something to do

Results—Recreational Facilities & Opportunities

Level of Support of a New Public Swimming Pool

56.1%

16.0% 13.8%7.8% 6.3%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%

StronglyAgree

Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree

72%

Results—Recreational Facilities & Opportunities

Likelihood to Support a Tax and/or User Fee for a New Public Swimming Pool

40.1%

9.8% 8.3%

25.1%

12.3%

22.3%

32.1%

8.0%

23.1%19.0%

62.8%

4.0%7.8%5.0%

20.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Very Likely SomewhatLikely

SomewhatUnlikely

VeryUnlikely

Don't Know

Property Tax

Sales Tax

User Fee

Results—Recreational Facilities & Opportunities

Likelihood to support a property tax, sales tax or user fee for a new public swimming pool.Overwhelmingly agreeable to all three

User fee (63% very likely and 21% somewhat likely) = 84%

Sales tax (40% very likely & 19% somewhat likely) = 59%

Property tax (32% very likely & 22% somewhat likely) = 54%

Results—Land Use and Management & the Alamosa Ranch

Familiarity with the Alamosa Ranch

23.5%

23.5%

53.0%

Very Familiar

Somewhat Familiar

Not Familiar

Results—Land Use and Management & the Alamosa Ranch

More than one-half of respondents (53%) were not familiar with the Alamosa Ranch

Of the 23.5% who indicated “somewhat familiar” they weren’t familiar enough to answer certain questions

Results of what to do with the Ranch should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of respondents

Results—Land Use and Management & the Alamosa Ranch

Of the 47% who indicated knowledge about the ranchA majority wanted the ranch to be left alone

as open space43% most important and 23% second most

importantRecreational Opportunities 20-45%Educational Opportunities 10-45%Little support for economic development

Results—Land Use and Management & the Alamosa Ranch

Respondents were not willing to support any taxes relevant to the ranch, regardless of what was planned for it.

Open-ended QuestionCitizens had a lot to say Appreciated the opportunity to provide feedback “should do

this more often” Need more in-depth questions related to specific issues in the

citizen satisfaction section Deer population is a problem Issues with police responsiveness Issues related to ADA—crosswalks, recreation center,

library, sidewalks Roads need repair Support of economic development in the city—downtown—

not the ranch Many felt that, overall, the city is doing a fairly good job

Thank you for this opportunity!

Questions?