city of ridgefield engagement and priority assessment
Post on 16-Jan-2022
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM© 2019 CobaltCommunityResearch2018015
December 2019
City of Ridgefield Engagement and Priority Assessment
Supporting Decisions | Inspiring Ideas
2 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 2
Background on Cobalt Community Research
501c3 not for profit research coalition Mission to provide research and education Developed to meet the research needs of
schools, local governments and nonprofit organizations
3 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 3
Measuring Where You Are: Why Research Matters
Understanding community values and priorities helps you plan and communicate more effectively about City decisions
Perception impacts behaviors you care about
Understanding community perception helps you improve and promote the City
Community engagement improves support for difficult decisions
Reliable data on community priorities aids in balancing demands of vocal groups with the reality of limited resources
Bottom line outcome measurement of service and trust: Good administration requires quality measurement and reporting
4 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 4
Study Goals
Support budget and strategic planning decisions Explore service assumptions to ensure baseline service
measures are understood Identify which aspects of community provide the greatest
leverage on citizens’ overall satisfaction – and how satisfaction, in turn, influences the community’s image and citizen behaviors such as volunteering, remaining in the community, recommending it to others and encouraging businesses to start up in the community
Benchmark performance against a standardized performance index regionally and nationally
Compare performance to 2015 Citizen survey
5 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 5
Bottom Line City is outperforming benchmarks in most areas, but scores softened from 2015 2019 ACSI Score = 65 (70 in 2015)
Washington (5,001-10,000 residents) = 65 Washington Overall = 59 West = 57 National (5,001-10,000 residents) = 58 National Overall = 61
2019 Local Government Management Score = 68 (69 in 2015) Washington (5,001-10,000 residents) = 53 Washington Overall = 51 West = 50 National (5,001-10,000 residents) = 55 National Overall = 56
6 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 6
Bottom Line There are several areas where improvement can have the most significant impact
on engagement (in green):
2019 Drivers 2015 Drivers
City Government Management City Government Management
Economic Health Economic Health
Community Events Community Events
Police Parks and Recreation
Ridgefield 2015
Ridgefield 2019
WA 5,001-10,000
WA Overall West Overall US 5,001-10,000
US Overall Change
Transportation Overall 63 56 60 55 53 52 56 -7Utility Services Overall 74 73 82 79 71 68 73 -1Police Department Overall 83 84 80 74 72 74 75 1Property Taxes Overall 64 60 62 54 52 53 58 -4Shopping Opportunities Overall 29 27 65 70 70 64 70 -2Local Government Overall 69 68 53 51 50 55 56 -1Community Events Overall 71 74 67 61 60 52 59 3Economic Health Overall 60 57 51 52 49 53 55 -3Parks and Recreation Overall 74 74 72 72 67 61 68 0Community Satisfaction Overall 70 65 65 59 57 58 61 -5
7 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 7
Bottom Line Walking and biking trails thread through many sections of the
survey and in the comments. Residents want more walking and biking trails, and they would like them integrated with downtown
Parks remain very important, but role as a driver of outcomes has diminished Themes include more walking, biking trails; more river access
Downtown is a major element in the quality of life for residents Would like more restaurants, such as quality casual, Chinese, and seafood Would like more stores/shops, including grocery, a bakery, deli, and coffee
shops Parking and curb appeal are significant concerns
Residents interested in more communication on future development, new amenities, and the City’s plan to manage growth and infrastructure (especially traffic) Email, US post, social media (Facebook), and newsletters are the most
preferred mechanisms
8 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 8
Schools
Transportation
Fire/Emergency
Utility
Police
Citizen Engagement Model
Citizen Experiences CitizenSatisfaction=Value
Outcome Behaviors
Where to improveWhere to invest next
Remain
Recommend
CSI
Taxes
Shopping
Local Government
Events
Overall SatisfactionCompared to expectationsCompared to ideal
Economy
Parks/Rec
Library
Volunteer
Encourage Businesses
Support Admin
Community Image
9 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 9
American Customer Satisfaction Index: Sample of Private Sector Companies Measured
Allstate
Albertsons
Apple, Inc.
Bank of America
Bell South (U.S.)
Best Buy (U.S.)
Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Charter Communications
Citibank
Coca-Cola (U.S.)
Comcast
Dell
DIRECTV
FedEx
Ford Motor Company
General Electric
General Motors
Hilton
Home Depot
Kellogg
McDonald’s
Microsoft
MillerCoors
Netflix
Nike
Sears Roebuck and Co.
Southwest Airlines
Sprint
Starbucks
Target
Verizon
Wal-Mart
Yahoo!
View more: www.theacsi.org
10 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 10
American Customer Satisfaction Index: Sample of Public Sector Agencies Measured
Department of Education, Federal Student Aid
Department of Energy
Federal Emergency Management Administration
Federal Trade Commission
General Services Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Municipal-owned Utilities
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Weather Service
National Recreation Reservation Service
Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation
Small Business Administration
Veterans Affairs
View more: www.theacsi.org
11 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 11
Available Tools
Detailed questions and responses broken by demographic group and “thermal mapped” so lower scores are red and higher scores are blue
Comparison scores with local governments in Washington, the West and across the nation
Comparison scores with non-local government comparables (industries, companies, federal agencies)
12 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 12
Preserving Voice: Looking Into Detail
Consistent Scores Regardless of Demographics
Checkered Scores that Vary by Demographics
Tran
spor
tatio
n O
vera
ll
Stre
et m
aint
enan
ce/r
epai
r
Road
sign
age
Traf
fic fr
ee o
f con
gest
ion
Publ
ic tr
ansp
orta
tion
optio
ns
Acco
mm
odat
ion
for b
icyc
le tr
affic
Ease
of f
indi
ng p
arki
ng
Acco
mm
odat
ion
for f
oot t
raffi
c
Stre
et lig
htin
g
Polic
e Dep
artm
ent O
vera
ll
Resp
ectf
ul tr
eatm
ent o
f citi
zens
Fair/
equi
tabl
e enf
orce
men
t
Com
mun
ity in
volv
emen
t/ed
ucat
ion
Resp
onse
tim
e to
emer
genc
ies
Nei
ghbo
rhoo
d pa
trol
s
Com
mun
ity se
rvic
es (f
inge
rprin
ting,
vaca
tion
chec
ks)
Traf
fic en
forc
emen
t
63 64 73 69 39 40 62 50 69 83 85 83 79 85 72 79 7856 61 71 54 27 33 64 63 70 84 86 85 85 83 71 81 71
1 year or less 63 66 75 66 29 30 73 72 76 90 91 91 88 84 73 83 771-5 years 57 64 72 56 25 32 65 66 70 84 86 87 85 85 70 82 73
6-10 years 53 57 65 51 30 32 63 62 68 87 89 84 89 85 76 84 7110+ years 53 57 70 48 29 34 58 59 69 81 82 82 82 80 69 79 69
Own 56 61 71 55 28 32 64 63 70 84 86 85 85 84 70 80 72Rent/Lease 57 63 72 51 20 29 65 64 66 88 90 85 93 72 73 92 64
Yes 53 61 66 51 29 35 57 57 67 87 89 87 88 78 72 83 71No, a different community 58 64 74 56 29 32 65 64 69 85 86 85 87 84 71 80 72
I am not currently employed 64 62 76 72 9 32 77 77 69 74 73 67 78 64 78 100 87I am retired 53 57 67 51 26 32 63 63 72 83 85 87 82 86 69 82 69
City of Ridgefield Core ACSI Scores
Scale = 0 to 100
Overall Satisfaction - 2015Overall Satisfaction - 2019
Years of resience
Own/Lease
Employment
13 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 13
Methodology Random sample of 1500 residents drawn from utility billing
records Utilized www.random.org, a well-respected utility used
internationally by many universities and researchers to generate true random numbers
Conducted using two mailings in October-November 2019 Valid response from 393 residents (396 in 2015), providing a
solid response rate of 26 percent, and a conventional margin of error of +/- 5 percent in the raw data and an ACSI margin of error of +/- 2 percent. In addition, 106 residents participated who were not part of the sample (and who were analyzed separately). Total response 499. Note: National surveys with a margin of error +/- 5% require a sample
of 384 responses to reflect a population of 330,000,000 Respondent pattern consistent with 2015.
14 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 14
Results
15 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 15
Outcome Behaviors to Benchmarks(High score = 100)
16 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 16
Community Image to Benchmarks(High score = 100)
17 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 17
Understanding the Charts: Community Questions – Long-term Drivers
High scoring areas that do not currently have a large impact
on engagement relative to the other areas. Action: May show
over investment or under communication.
High impact areas where the City received high scores from
citizens. They have a high impact on engagement if
improved. Action: Continue investment
Low scoring areas relative to the other areas with low
impact on engagement. Action: Limit investment unless pressing
safety or regulatory consideration.
High impact on engagement and a relatively low score.
Action: Prioritize investment to drive positive changes in
outcomes. Perc
eive
d Pe
rfor
man
ce
Impact
18 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 18
Drivers of Satisfaction and Behavior:
Strategic PrioritiesHigher Impact,Higher Satisfaction
Lower Impact,Lower Satisfaction
19 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 19
Drivers of Satisfaction and Behavior:
Strategic Priorities Compared to 2015Higher Impact,Higher Satisfaction
Lower Impact,Lower Satisfaction
20 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 20
Drivers of Satisfaction and Behavior:
Government Management
21 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 21
Drivers of Satisfaction and Behavior:
Customer Service
22 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 22
Recent Contact with City Employees/ Officials
Never Fewer than 6 times a
year
6-12 times a year
More than 12 times a
year
Overall 7.8 7.6 7.8 9.1Helping you to feel valued as a citizen - 7.6 7.2 8.8
Level of knowledge - 7.8 7.4 9.8Level of professionalism - 7.9 8.0 9.7
Effectiveness in meeting your needs - 7.5 6.7 9.2Overall impression - 7.7 7.7 9.8
23 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 23
Drivers of Satisfaction and Behavior:
Economic Health
24 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 24
Drivers of Satisfaction and Behavior:
Police Department
25 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 25
Drivers of Satisfaction and Behavior:
Community Events
26 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 26
City Services and Programs
27 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 27
City Services and Programs Satisfaction Public Safety (Scale = 1 to 10)
28 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 28
City Services and Programs Satisfaction Other City Services (Scale = 1 to 10)
29 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 29
Community Planning
30 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 30
Community Planning
Most Important Characteristics for Growth
31 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 31
Community Planning
What is Liked Best
32 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 32
Community Planning
What to Change
33 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 33
Parks Planning
34 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 34
Parks
Importance of Parks for Quality of Life
35 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 35
Parks
Use of Parks
36 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 36
Parks
Main Reasons for Visiting
37 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 37
Parks
Playgrounds, lawn areas, restrooms
38 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 38
Parks
Walking/hiking trails
39 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 39
Parks
Sport fields and sport courts
40 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 40
Parks
Picnic areas and shelters
41 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 41
Parks
Children’s activities
42 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 42
Parks
Community events
43 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 43
Parks
Youth activities
44 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 44
Parks
Potential future park amenities
45 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 45
Parks
Condition of park facilities (10=excellent)
46 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 46
Parks
47 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 47
Downtown Planning
48 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 48
Downtown
Frequency of visits
49 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 49
Downtown
Why visiting
50 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 50
Downtown
What would encourage more visits?
51 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 51
Downtown
Most likely time to visit
52 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 52
Downtown
Most likely day to visit
53 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 53
Downtown
Shopping compared to benchmarks
54 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 54
Word Cloud:What new businesses, stores or restaurants you would like to see open downtown?Top Themes:Restaurants – Quality restaurant, Chinese, seafoodStore – Grocery store, boutiques, variety of storesBakery – Bakery/deli, coffee shop, bistro
Note: See full list of comments for context
55 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 55
Word Cloud:What improvements you would like to see in downtown?
Top Themes:Parking – More parking, parking for people with disabilities, traffic flowBusinesses – More local businesses, businesses that attract families, improve storefrontsWalking – More integrated walking access, more walking trails
Note: See full list of comments for context
56 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 56
DowntownTransportation infrastructure compared to benchmarks
57 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 57
Communications
58 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 58
How do you prefer to receive information from the City?
59 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 59
Preference Varies by Age
New
spap
er
Util
ity b
ill in
sert
Emai
l
City
web
site
New
slett
er
Snap
chat
Soci
al m
edia
Text
mes
sage
Mai
l to
my h
ome
Mob
ile ap
p/te
xt
Radi
o
Publ
ic m
eetin
g
25 to 34 14% 19% 46% 22% 27% 3% 54% 11% 59% 5% - -35 to 44 6% 18% 57% 37% 27% - 45% 11% 49% 17% 1% -45 to 54 13% 24% 47% 35% 39% - 35% 8% 50% 8% - 10%55 to 64 17% 17% 51% 37% 42% 1% 32% 7% 44% 4% 1% 10%
65 or over 20% 30% 40% 34% 41% - 13% 10% 46% 4% 2% 11%
60 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 60
Social Media Used
61 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 61
Local News Source Preference
62 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 62
TV Station Preference
63 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 63
Radio Station Preference
64 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 64
Newspaper Preference
65 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 65
Word Cloud:What are you most interested in hearing more about?
Top Themes:Growth – Major growth, plans for managing growth, ensuring responsible growth, adapting infrastructureDevelopment – Future development, development of port/waterfront, proposed developmentCommunity – Community activities, events, new openings, opportunities
Note: See full list of comments for context
66 CobaltCommunityResearch.org Page 66
Questions
top related