Sudbury     Toronto     Montreal
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 71

2003 State of the Community Survey Results Prepared for PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 74 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Sudbury Toronto Montreal. 2003 State of the Community Survey Results Prepared for The Corporate Strategy and Policy Office of the CAO. Robert C. Sinclair , Ph.D. Paul A Seccaspina, Ph.D. Vice President President.

Download Presentation

2003 State of the Community Survey Results Prepared for

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


2003 state of the community survey results prepared for

Sudbury Toronto Montreal

2003

State of the Community Survey Results

Prepared for

The Corporate Strategy and Policy Office of the CAO

Robert C. Sinclair, Ph.D. Paul A Seccaspina, Ph.D.

Vice President President


2003 state of the community survey results prepared for

Team Members

  • Oraclepoll Research:

    Paul SeccaspinaBob Sinclair

  • City of Greater Sudbury

    Carlos Salazar


2003 state of the community survey results prepared for

  • CORPORATE PROFILE

    • We are a national research firm based in Sudbury with offices in Toronto and Montreal.

    • Our staff include 3 senior analysts, 8 support staff, and 40 research staff.

    • The company was founded in 1995 and has experienced consistent annual growth since then.

    • Our call centre is equipped with state of the art Voxco Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) software.

    • Our experience ranges from client satisfaction to program evaluation to advertising / product testing & tracking.


2003 state of the community survey results prepared for

  • PARTIAL CLIENT LIST

    • BCE (Télébec, Sympatico, Lino, Northern Telephone, Northwestel, Nortel & Télébec Mobility)

    • CTV National Sales and Marketing

    • Domtar

    • Durham Regional Police

    • General Motors / Saturn Corporation

    • Inco Ltd.

    • Johnson & Johnson

    • Northwest Territories Power Corporation

    • OMERS

    • Sudbury Regional Hospital

    • Toronto Public Health

    • World Wildlife Fund


2003 state of the community survey results prepared for

  • Paul A. Seccaspina, President

  • Honours B.A., 1986, Laurentian University

  • M.A, 1988, University of Western Ontario

  • Ph.D., 1997, University of Warwick

  • Lecturer, Department of Political Science, Laurentian University, 1988-1993

  • Lecturer, Civic Education Project / Yale University, Moldova, 1993-1994

  • After a career in banking, the securities industry and academia, Dr. Seccaspina founded Oraclepoll in 1995.

  • Since that time he has built a national client base that spans government, the private sector (including several Fortune 500 firms) and not for profit organizations.

  • He has built the company by offering a quality product and excellent service to the corporation’s clients.

  • He regularly deals with media inquires and has been cited in all major Canadian news outlets.


2003 state of the community survey results prepared for

  • Robert C. Sinclair, Vice President

  • Honours B.A., 1981, University of Western Ontario

  • M.Sc., 1984, The Pennsylvania State University

  • Ph.D., 1988, The Pennsylvania State University

  • Professor, Department of Psychology, Central Michigan University, 1987-1991

  • Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Alberta, 1991-2001

  • Dr. Sinclair is listed among The 2000 Outstanding Scientists of the 21st Century.

  • He is listed among The 2000 Eminent Scientists of Today.

  • He has approximately 100 scientific publications / presentations / invited talks.

  • He was a member of the Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council of Canada Grant Adjudication Committee.

  • He has appeared on national and international television networks including CBS, ABC, CNN, BBC, CTV, CBC, and Global.

  • He has been interviewed by the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, National Post, Globe and Mail, and numerous other newspapers.

  • Dr. Sinclair has extensive experience consulting in the areas of Organizational Development, Organizational Culture, and Program Evaluation, both nationally

  • and internationally.


Methodology logistics

Methodology & Logistics

  • Random Sample Survey

  • 1200 residences

  • 100 businesses


Rationale for survey research

Rationale for Survey Research

  • Informational Benefits

  • Importance of Public Opinion / Community Involvement

  • Internal Benchmarking

  • Development of Action Plan


Residential survey results

Residential Survey Results


Overview of descriptive data

Overview of Descriptive Data

  • Satisfaction levels among those residents who have had contact with the City are low as comments reveal citizen discontent over reaching the appropriate person and having their needs, issues and concerns dealt with.

  • Discontent among residents is most evident with respect to infrastructure including roads.

  • There remains an “in” and “out” divide as residents of the Greater Sudbury Area (GSA) are more likely to be concerned with, infrastructure as well as fire and policing issues than those of the City core.


Quality of life

Quality of Life


Community pride

Community Pride


Top of mind issues

Top of Mind Issues


Economic confidence

Economic Confidence


Healthy community

Percent Agreement

2000

2001

2002

2003

The community provides quality post college education

Na

Na

Na

73%

The community provides quality post secondary university education

Na

Na

Na

70%

The community provides opportunities for healthy living

Na

71%

68%

67%

The community offers good cultural institutions

Na

53%

48%

54%

The community has a strong and viable arts and cultural community

44%

42%

43%

44%

The community provides seniors in our areas with quality care

32%

40%

30%

35%

The community provides quality health care services to residents

36%

34%

29%

35%

Healthy Community


Level of interest in local politics

Level of Interest in Local Politics


Budget issues

Percent Agreement

2000

2001

2002

2003

Rather than building new facilities or roads, the City should invest in maintaining and improving existing facilities and roads

78%

72%

78%

79%

Where appropriate the direct users of City services should pay for the cost of providing those services

38%

41%

36%

37%

The City should maintain current levels of service and increase taxes up to 5%

22%

37%

37%

32%

The City should reduce service levels by whatever is needed in order to hold the line on taxes

33%

21%

25%

23%

Budget Issues


Contact with city staff

Contact with City Staff


Top 5 issues in terms of importance

Top 5 Issues in Terms of Importance

  • Fire Protection

  • Winter Road Maintenance

  • Maintenance of Main Roads

  • Ambulance Services

  • Police Services


Bottom 5 issues in terms of satisfaction

Bottom 5 Issues in Terms of Satisfaction

  • Maintenance of Main Roads

  • Winter Road Maintenance

  • Economic Diversification

  • Providing Quality Land Development

  • Child Care Funding


Gap analysis

Gap Analysis


Time related changes in satisfaction

Time-Related Changes in Satisfaction


Time related changes in satisfaction1

Time-Related Changes in Satisfaction


Satisfaction with city services collapsed across time

Satisfaction with City Services Collapsed Across Time


Time related changes in satisfaction2

Time-Related Changes in Satisfaction


Ward related differences satisfaction importance performance indicators

Ward-Related Differences: Satisfaction & Importance Performance Indicators

Mean scores were computed based on the ratings of the performance indicators falling into each organizational unit of the City of Greater Sudbury, for both satisfaction and importance ratings

Reliability analyses were also conducted


Ward related differences satisfaction importance performance indicators1

Ward-Related Differences: Satisfaction & Importance Performance Indicators

7 (City Service) X 6 (Ward) mixed-model analyses of variance were conducted on the satisfaction and importance ratings based on the performance indicators

Tests:

  • Are there significant differences among the city services?

  • Are there differences among the wards?

  • Are there City Service X Ward interactions? (i.e., are there different patterns of ratings of city services in the different wards?)


Ward related differences satisfaction

Ward-Related Differences: Satisfaction


City services satisfaction

City Services: Satisfaction


Conclusions recommendations

Conclusions & Recommendations

  • Ensure that the GSA does not feel disenfranchised

  • People are most satisfied with Emergency Services and Public Health

  • People are least satisfied with Public Works and Economic Development & Planning

    • Target Public Works and Economic Development & Planning

    • Target Gaps in Public Works, Police Services, Emergency Services, and Economic Development and Planning


Problems solutions regarding performance indicators

Problems/Solutions Regarding Performance Indicators

Halo Error

  • On performance indicators involving multiple measures/categories (e.g., Economic Development & Planning), responses on one measure color responses on other performance indicators within category – addressing individual measures could be misleading – use mean responses

  • The general public does not always perceive performance indicators as representing the appropriate organizational unit in the city; thus, responses on one organizational unit can color responses on another (e.g., providing affordable housing can color responses on the Social Services indicators) – increase public awareness regarding the functions of the organizational units – use multiple indicators that map appropriately onto the organizational units – use mean responses


Problems solutions regarding performance indicators1

Problems/Solutions Regarding Performance Indicators

Single Indicators

  • Single indicators (e.g., Police Services, Public Health) are notoriously unreliable and lead to invalid inferences

  • Multiple indicators are needed in order to address each aspect of a particular organizational unit (e.g., measures of satisfaction with the various multifaceted aspects of Police Services would increase validity and provide more important information regarding the aspects of Police Services that need to be targeted [cf. On a scale from very poor to very good, please rate the level of Police Service that is currently provided]) – develop multiple indicators and use mean responses


Problems solutions regarding performance indicators2

Problems/Solutions Regarding Performance Indicators

Need for Transactional Data

  • Satisfaction measures on performance indicators on which respondents have no experience are extremely problematic (e.g., asking people to evaluate satisfaction with libraries, when they have not used a library can distort the data associated with libraries) – move toward transaction-based (i.e., experience-based) surveys involving multiple indicators and mean responses

  • Conduct focus groups


Business survey results

Business Survey Results


Top of mind issues1

Significant issues – Of respondents with an opinion

2000

2001

2002

2003

Jobs / Unemployment

15%

Taxes (high)

25%

Taxes (high)

21%

Roads

14%

Amalgamation / Municipal restructuring

11%

Jobs / Unemployment

13%

Economic diversification

14%

Jobs / Unemployment

14%

Economic diversification

11%

Economic diversification

10%

Business friendly environment

12%

Taxes

12%

Economy

8%

Business friendly environment

8%

Jobs / Unemployment

11%

Economic diversification

12%

Keeping youth here

8%

Restructuring (process)

7%

Service accessibility

10%

By-laws

12%

Taxes (high)

7%

Service accessibility

5%

By-laws

7%

Population decline

5%

Top of Mind Issues

(Excluding responses of Don’t Know)


Economic confidence1

EconomicConfidence


Budget issues1

Percent Agreement

2000

2001

2002

2003

Rather than building new facilities or roads, the City should invest in maintaining and improving existing facilities and roads

64%

76%

69%

78%

Where appropriate the direct users of City services should pay for the cost of providing those services

59%

48%

49%

47%

The City should reduce service levels by whatever is needed in order to hold the line on taxes

28%

31%

26%

22%

The City should maintain current levels of service and increase taxes up to 5%

16%

32%

28%

30%

Budget Issues


Satisfaction with contact with a municipal staff member

Satisfaction withContact with a Municipal Staff Member

  • 58% contacted a municipal staff member

  • Only 54% rated the experience as positive (a 10% decline from 2002)

  • A lack of response/action and poor service were cited as areas for improvement


Top 5 issues in terms of importance1

Top 5 Issues in Terms of Importance

  • Fire Protection

  • Maintenance of Main Roads

  • Winter Road Maintenance

  • Planning for the City’s Future

  • Ambulance Services


Bottom 5 issues in terms of satisfaction1

Bottom 5 Issues in Terms of Satisfaction

  • Maintenance of Main Roads

  • Developing Job Creation Initiatives

  • Child Care Funding

  • Economic Diversification

  • Winter Road Maintenance


2003 state of the community survey results prepared for

Gap Analysis


Satisfaction importance performance indicators

Satisfaction & Importance Performance Indicators

Mean scores were computed based on the ratings of the performance indicators falling into each organizational unit of the City of Greater Sudbury, for both satisfaction and importance ratings


Satisfaction importance

Satisfaction & Importance


2003 state of the community survey results prepared for

Gaps


Area related differences

Area-Related Differences


Type of business related differences

Type of Business-Related Differences

Businesses were categorized as:

1) Hospitality (tourism, restaurants, lodges, hotels, bars, motels, lodges, cottages, tent grounds, entertainment and recreation, movie theatres, etc.)

2) Retail (sell anything to the general public, except hospitality services)

3) Service (hair dressers, barbers, travel agents, couriers, etc.)

4) Other (communications/technology, government, manufacturing, nonprofit, professional, natural resources, transportation, wholesale, and other businesses that did not fall into the other categories)

Analyses tested for statistically significant differences on all measures as a function of Type of Business


Conclusions recommendations business

Conclusions & Recommendations: Business

  • Businesses were most satisfied with Citizen Services and Public Health

  • Businesses were least satisfied with Public Works, Economic Development & Planning, and Social Services

  • Largest Gaps in Public Works, Police Services, Economic Development & Planning, and Emergency Services

    • Target Infrastructure (Note: Businesses view EDP as their realm)

    • Conduct focus groups/detailed surveys to determine reasons


General conclusions recommendations

General Conclusions & Recommendations

  • Residents place a high priority on infrastructure issues followed by economic development issues.

  • Businesses most want their local government to deal with issues related to having a stable infrastructure so that they can conduct their business and are less concerned with economic development issues.

  • In summary, the City needs to reach out to the community and make people feel empowered (i.e., more a part of the process). As it stands, many residents feel left out. Interventions could include public consultation and reassurances over emergency services and road maintenance. Furthermore, providing the general public with details regarding plans to shore-up services will likely go a long way to increasing public confidence. Often, information is power.


General conclusions recommendations1

General Conclusions & Recommendations

  • Communication

  • Consultation

  • Inclusion

  • Visible Action


Benchmarking

Benchmarking

  • Quality of Life, Satisfaction with the Range of City Services, and Confidence in the Community’s Economic Future Ratings were Collected from Residents of:

    North Bay (n = 76)

    Timmins (n = 75)

    Sault Ste. Marie (n = 85)

    Thunder Bay (n = 76)

    Toronto (n = 74)

    Other (n = 242)

  • Statistical Tests were Conducted to Test for Differences in the Mean (Average) Ratings of Residents of These Cities Versus the Ratings of Residents of the City of Greater Sudbury


Benchmarking1

Benchmarking


Benchmarking2

Benchmarking

  • Sudbury Residents Rate Quality of Life as Significantly Lower than do the of Residents of:

    1) North Bay

    2) Timmins

    3) Other

  • Sudbury Residents do not Differ from the Residents of:

    1) Sault Ste. Marie

    2) Thunder Bay

    3) Toronto


Benchmarking3

Benchmarking


Benchmarking4

Benchmarking

  • Sudbury Residents Rate Satisfaction with the Range of City Services as Significantly Lower than do the of Residents of All Other Areas


Benchmarking5

Benchmarking


Benchmarking6

Benchmarking

  • Sudbury Residents have Less Confidence in the Economic Future of the Community than do Residents of:

    1) Toronto

    2) Timmins

    3) Other

  • Sudbury Residents do not Differ from Residents of:

    1) North Bay

  • Sudbury Residents have More Confidence than do Residents of:

    1) Sault Ste. Marie

    2) Thunder Bay


Benchmarking7

Benchmarking

Take Home Messages:

There are definitely issues to address!

Sudbury should be on top!

More broad-based benchmarking might be useful.


  • Login