NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES SURVEY
FINAL REPORT 

Public Opinion and Marketing Research
Jennifer D. Franz, Ph.D.

January, 1999
(Survey conducted in 1998)

1. INTRODUCTION
   
   
2. RESEARCH METHODS
   
   
3. FINDINGS
   
   
4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
    

INTRODUCTION

The research findings presented in this report derive from a telephone survey of residents of the City of Santa Monica that was commissioned by the City and conducted by JD Franz Research of Sacramento. Encompassing 405 completed interviews, it was implemented between August 17 and September 3, 1998. The margin of error for the research is + 4.9 percent. The final report was prepared for presentation to City Council and the community in January, 1999.

The primary purpose of the survey was to include Santa Monica in the nationwide study and comparison of American cities sponsored by the International City Managers Association (ICMA). Specific areas of inquiry included the following:

• Assessments of the cleanliness of neighborhood streets
• Assessments of the condition of neighborhood streets
• Assessments of the condition of neighborhood sidewalks
• Assessments of the condition of neighborhood alleys
• The extent to which various nuisances are a problem
• What the specific problems are where there is a big problem with nuisances
• Assessments of the garbage collection service
• Reasons why the garbage collection service was rated fair or poor
• Use of the City’s parks and recreation programs and facilities
• Assessments of the City’s recreation opportunities
• Reasons why recreation opportunities were rated fair or poor
• Ratings of various aspects of the City’s parks and recreation facilities
• Use of the City’s public libraries and library services
• Availability of desired materials in the library
• Assessments of the City’s public library services
• Reasons why the library services were rated fair or poor
• Feelings of safety in various locations at various times of day
• The extent to which police patrols are seen in various locations at various times of day
• Assessments of the enforcement of traffic laws in the City
• The extent to which respondents had been victims of crime
• Nature of the crime or crimes
• Whether or not the crime or crimes were reported
• The extent to which respondents had called the police or 911 in an emergency
• How quick the emergency response was
• The extent to which respondents had had any contact with the police
• Assessments of the way the police handled the contact
• Nature of the contact with the police
• Assessments of the job the police are doing in addressing neighborhood concerns
• Assessments of the job the police are doing overall
• What the Police Department could do to improve its services
• Sources of information about what the City is doing
• What the City could do to improve the quality of its services
• Probability of being willing to share the cost of sidewalk repair with the City
• Amount those willing to share would be willing to pay
• Respondent demographics, including Zip Code of residence, location within the 90405 Zip Code, type of residence, numbers of adults and children in the household, age, ethnicity, income, and gender

Following this Introduction, the report is divided into three additional sections. Section II contains a detailed discussion of the Research Methods used in conducting the survey, while Section III presents and discusses the Findings. Finally, Section IV contains the research firm’s Conclusions and Recommendations.

 

 

RESEARCH METHODS

The survey instrument that was used in conducting this research was provided by the ICMA. Minor modifications were made on the basis of research firm recommendations and a pretest, but no changes were made that would materially alter the meaning or context of the ICMA questions. The City also added three questions to the survey that were designed and pretested by the research firm. The pretest was conducted among a random sample of respondents selected in the same manner as the survey sample would be selected.

 Sample Selection

The sample for the survey was a computer-generated random digit dialing sample designed to obtain responses from a representative cross-section of residents of the City. Random digit dialing, the most sophisticated and accurate method of telephone interview sample selection, has the advantage over directory sampling of including households with unlisted, too new to be listed, or inaccurately listed numbers. This approach permits the results to be generalized to all telephone-owning households in the designated area.

The prefixes (the first three digits of a telephone number) for the sample were designed to represent all assigned phone numbers in the city and were identified by Survey Sampling, Inc. (SSI), the nation’s leading supplier, on the basis of Zip Codes provided by the City. SSI then randomly assigned the remaining four digits of a telephone number by computer. The resulting ten-digit numbers were printed out onto call record sheets designed to facilitate interviewers’ recording of their progress toward full sample implementation.

Potential respondents at the numbers thus selected were further screened for being 18 years old or older and for residing within the city limits. Within households, the youngest male adult/youngest female adult technique was used to select the individual to be interviewed.

 Interviewer Training

All of the interviewers who administered the survey underwent intensive training and briefing prior to conducting any actual interviews. Training included instruction in interviewing techniques, orientation to the mechanics of sample selection and recording, and extensive practice with survey instruments as well as with a systematic approach to answering respondents’ inquiries. The briefing specific to this particular survey was conducted by the President of JD Franz Research.

 Survey Implementation

Calling for the survey was conducted from a centralized and fully monitored facility under the ongoing oversight of full-time supervisors. Interviewing commenced on August 17, 1998, and was completed on September 3.

Upon completion of each interview, a supervisor immediately checked it for accuracy, clarity, and completeness so that any problem areas could be discussed with the interviewer while the conversation was still remembered. In the event a problem could not be resolved by recall, the respondent was called back for clarification or amplification.

In order to ensure that working people were adequately represented, calling took place only during the evening hours (5 to 9 p.m.) and on weekends (10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Saturdays and 2 to 9 p.m. on Sundays). Up to four attempts were made to reach an eligible individual at each number in the sample.

 Data Coding, Tabulation, and Analysis

Coding of the survey’s closed-ended questions was accomplished by the interviewers as they conducted the interviews. Coding of most of the survey’s open-ended questions was then undertaken in four stages. (One open-ended question had such a diversity of answers that coding would not have been possible. In this case, the responses were transcribed verbatim in their entirety.)

First, the Project Coordinator at JD Franz Research selected a random sample of ten percent of the completed interviews and reviewed all of the open-ended responses in these documents in order to develop a codebook. A coding team comprised of supervisors and specially trained supervisory and interviewing staff then used the codebook to code the survey’s open-ended questions, setting aside any responses that failed to conform to the coding scheme for the possible addition of new codes. In order to achieve consistency, the coding team worked in pairs and as a group, checking each others’ work and fully discussing any debatable responses prior to coding them.

Once all of the interviews that failed to conform to the initially established coding scheme had been identified, the Project Coordinator reviewed the uncoded answers and added new codes as appropriate. This approach ensures that there is a minimal percentage of "other" responses to the open-ended questions. Finally, as a check on the integrity of the coding as a whole, the Project Coordinator reviewed a ten percent random sample of the coded interviews.

The resulting data were then key-entered into the data analytic software SPSS for Windows using SPSS Data Entry and computer-checked for accuracy, adherence to the pre-established coding scheme, and internal logic. In addition, preliminary tabulations were reviewed manually to check for errors in areas that could not be programmed. Finally, tabulations, means, and other analyses were prepared using SPSS for Windows.

 

 

FINDINGS

Findings from the survey are presented here in the same order in which the questions were posed to respondents. Readers who are interested in the precise phrasing of the inquiries are invited to consult the copy of the survey instrument that can be found in Appendix A.

Streets, Sidewalks, and Alleys

As shown in Figure 1, most respondents (57 percent) said the streets in their neighborhoods were fairly clean. In addition, over a third (36 percent) said they were very clean. When these figures are summed without rounding, they total 92 percent.

 

Figure 2 indicates that almost half of respondents (49 percent) reported that the streets are in good condition all over. In addition, over two-fifths (42 percent) said they are in mostly good condition with a few bad spots here and there. When these figures are summed, they total 91 percent.

As Figure 3 illustrates, the largest group of respondents (46 percent) indicated that the sidewalks are in good condition all over. The second largest group (40 percent) said they are in mostly good condition with a few bad spots here and there. When these figures are summed, they total 86 percent.

Figure 4 shows that over a quarter of respondents (29 percent) indicated that the alleys are in mostly good condition with a few bad spots here and there, while almost as many (29 percent) said they have many bad spots. Less than one in five (18 percent) said they are in good condition all over.

 

Nuisances

As Figure 5 indicates, the majority of respondents (57 percent) said that "things like weed lots, junk lots, graffiti, abandoned automobiles, and dilapidated houses or buildings" are not a problem at all in their neighborhood. In addition, close to a third (30 percent) said they are only a small problem. When these figures are summed, they total 87 percent.

Only two percent of respondents (n=8) said that the nuisances mentioned in the questionnaire are a big problem in their neighborhood. The problems they were referring to are displayed in Table 1. Most prominent among these were a property or properties needing clean-up and graffiti needing to be cleaned up.

Table 1 NATURE OF BIG PROBLEMS WITH NUISANCES
	Frequency	Percent
Neighborhood Has Property(ies) Needing Clean-Up	4	50.0
Graffiti Needs to Be Cleaned Up	3	37.5
Sidewalks Need Repair	1	12.5
Condition of Houses/Apartments Packed Together	1	12.5

 

Garbage Collection

As Figure 6 illustrates, close to half of respondents (49 percent) indicated that the garbage collection service their household receives is good. In addition, 39 percent reported that it is excellent. When these figures are summed, they total 88 percent.

One in ten respondents (10 percent) said that their garbage collection service is fair or poor. The reasons they gave for these assessments are portrayed in Table 2. Most likely to be given as reasons were that the trash collectors are messy (45 percent of these respondents) and that there is a need for more frequent trash pick-up (26 percent).

Table 2 REASONS WHY THE GARBAGE COLLECTION SERVICE IS FAIR OR POOR
	Frequency	Percent
Trash Collectors Messy	19	45.2
More Frequent Trash Pick-Up	11	26.2
More Trash Containers	4	9.5
More Recycle Pick-Up Times	3	7.1
More Recycle Bins	3	7.1
Quieter Pick-Up	3	7.1
Trash Collectors Rude	2	4.8
Other	5	11.9
Don’t Know	1	2.4

 

Parks and Recreation

As shown in Figure 7, about three-fifths of respondents (61 percent) reported that someone in their household had used a Santa Monica park, recreation facility, or recreation program during the year preceding the survey. Figure 8 indicates that half of respondents (50 percent) evaluated the City’s recreation opportunities as good, while over a quarter (29 percent) evaluated them as excellent. When these two figures are summed, they total 79 percent. The next largest group (12 percent) said they had no opinion.

 

Among those who said the City’s recreation opportunities are fair or poor (close to one in ten, or 9 percent), the reasons were quite diverse, as Table 3 illustrates. The most common answers were lack of safety (26 percent of these respondents), the need for more activities (23 percent), the need for more maintenance or landscaping (20 percent), and a desire for more parks (17 percent).

Table 3 REASONS WHY RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES ARE FAIR OR POOR
	Frequency	Percent
Parks Not Safe	9	25.7
Expand Park and/or Recreation Center Activities and/or Resources	8	22.9
More Park Maintenance and/or Landscaping	7	20.0
More Parks	6	17.1
More Dog/Pet Parks	2	5.7
No Park Fees	1	2.9
Other	5	14.3
Don’t Know	1	2.9

 

Figure 9 portrays mean evaluations of various aspects of the City’s parks and recreation facilities on a four-point scale, where one equals poor and four equals excellent. As this display indicates, the facilities averaged somewhat above good on ease of getting to them and slightly above good on appearance. On safety, on the other hand, they averaged slightly below good.

Public Libraries

As Figure 10 illustrates, about two-thirds of respondents (67 percent) reported that they or someone in their household had used a Santa Monica public library or library service during the year preceding the survey. Figure 11 indicates that close to half of these respondents (48 percent) rated the availability of the materials they wanted as good, while another about a third (32 percent) rated it as excellent. When these two figures are summed, they total 80 percent.

 

Assessments of the City’s public library services are portrayed in Figure 12. As this display indicates, close to half of respondents (46 percent) said that they are good. In addition, over a quarter (29 percent) reported that they are excellent. When these figures are summed, they total 75 percent.

Less than one in ten (6 percent) said the public library services are fair or poor. The reasons these respondents gave for their assessments are portrayed in Table 4. As this display indicates, the only reason given by a sizable proportion of this group of respondents (68 percent) is that either the reference facilities or the library facilities in general need to be expanded.

Table 4 REASONS WHY PUBLIC LIBRARY SERVICES ARE FAIR OR POOR
	Frequency	Percent
Reference/Research Facilities/Library Need to Be Expanded	17	68.0
Dirty	4	16.0
Expand Hours Open	3	12.0
None/Nothing	1	4.0
Other	3	12.0
Don’t Know	1	4.0

 

Safety

Figure 13 displays the mean degree of safety respondents said they feel under various circumstances on a scale of one to four, with one being very unsafe and four being very safe. Both in their neighborhoods and downtown during the day, respondents indicated that they feel quite safe (mean ratings of 3.55 and 3.56, respectively). After dark, however, they were to inclined say they feel somewhat safe (3.01 in their neighborhoods and 3.02 downtown).

 

Police Services

Figure 14 portrays the mean extent to which respondents reported that they see police patrols under various circumstances on another four-point scale, where one equals very seldom and four means very frequently. In respondents’ neighborhoods, they said that police patrols are generally seen somewhat frequently (mean values of 2.36 during the day and 2.23 at night). In the downtown business district, on the other hand, they reported seeing police patrols slightly more than somewhat frequently (mean values of 3.14 and 3.21, respectively).

As shown in Figure 16, half of respondents (50 percent) said that enforcement of traffic laws in Santa Monica is good. In addition, slightly more than one in five (22 percent) said that it is excellent. When these two figures are summed, they total 72 percent. In addition, another fairly sizable group (17 percent) said that enforcement is fair.

 

Please note: There is no Figure 15 in this report.

Figure 17 indicates that the vast majority of respondents (90 percent) said neither they nor anyone else in their household had been a victim of a crime in Santa Monica during the year preceding the survey. Of those who had, as shown in Table 5, the largest groups were victims of assault (26 percent), larceny-theft (26 percent), and burglary (21 percent). Most victims of the crimes (55 percent) reported them, as Figure 18 illustrates, but a full third (33 percent) did not.

  

Table 5 NATURE OF THE CRIMES
	Frequency	Percent
Assault	11	26.2
Larceny-Theft	11	26.2
Burglary	9	21.4
Vandalism	8	19.0
Non-Vehicle Theft	4	9.5
Robbery	2	4.8

 

 

Figure 19 shows that by far the majority of respondents (85 percent) said they had not called the police or 911 in an emergency in the year preceding the survey. Among those who had, as indicated in Figure 20, the majority (60 percent) said that emergency personnel responded very quickly. In addition, close to a quarter (24 percent) said they responded somewhat quickly. When these figures are summed, they total 84 percent.

Figure 21 illustrates that about two-thirds of respondents (65 percent) reported that they had not had any contact with the Santa Monica police in the twelve months preceding the survey. Among the somewhat over a third (35 percent) who said they had, as shown in Figure 22, the largest group (44 percent) said the way the police handled the contact was excellent, and the second largest group (33 percent) said it was good. When these figures are summed, they total 77 percent.

 

The nature of the contacts respondents said they had with the police is displayed in Table 6. Over half (55 percent) said that they needed assistance other than being a victim of a crime or that they were a witness to a crime. The second largest group (20 percent) indicated that they were a crime victim, and the third largest group (12 percent) said they were suspected of a traffic violation.

Table 6 NATURE OF THE CONTACTS WITH THE POLICE
	Frequency	Percent
Needed Other Assistance or Witness to a Crime	79	55.2
Victim of a Crime	29	20.3
Suspected of a Traffic Violation	17	11.9
Suspected of Breaking a Law	10	7.0
Other	9	6.3
Refused	1	.7

 

 

Figure 23 indicates that close to half of respondents (48 percent) said the Santa Monica police do a good job of addressing neighborhood concerns. In addition, over a quarter (28 percent) indicated that they do an excellent job in this regard. When these figures are summed, they total 76 percent.

As Figure 24 illustrates, the majority of respondents (55 percent) said that the police do a good job overall. In addition, close to a third (32 percent) said they do an excellent job. When these figures are summed, they total 87 percent.

Table 7 displays respondents’ suggestions as to what the Santa Monica Police Department could do to improve its service. By far the most prominent answer (27 percent) was more patrols in respondents’ neighborhoods. This was followed, however, by nothing (18 percent). No other answer was given by ten percent or more of respondents.

Table 7 WHAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT COULD DO TO IMPROVE ITS SERVICE
	Frequency	Percent
Frequent Patrols in My Neighborhood	110	27.2
Get Rid of Panhandlers	34	8.4
Friendlier Police Behavior	26	6.4
Employ More Officers	20	4.9
Faster Response Time	18	4.4
Better, More Traffic Enforcement, Includes Parking	14	3.5
More Police Meetings in Community/Neighborhood	12	3.0
Enforce All Laws Equally (Excluding Traffic)	8	2.0
Less Traffic Enforcement, Includes Parking	7	1.7
Provide Education, Training Regarding Victims, Culture, Race	5	1.2
Neighborhood Watch Program	3	.7
None/Nothing	73	18.0
Other	15	3.7
Don’t Know	107	26.4

 

Sources of Information

Figure 25 portrays the extent to which respondents reported getting information about what the City is doing from various sources on a four-point scale, with one being never and four being always. Most likely to be sources of information, although still at the level of halfway between rarely and sometimes, were the City’s newsletter Seascape (2.52) and the newspaper (2.59). Least likely to be attended to, and both between rarely and never, were the City’s Web site (1.41) and the City’s cable station (1.87).

 

Displayed in Table 8 are respondents’ answers when they were asked where else they get information about what the City is doing. Word of mouth was the most prominent answer here (35 percent), but this was followed by nowhere (31 percent). Miscellaneous printed sources such as mailing, flyers, newsletters, posters, and bulletin boards followed at somewhat over ten percent (12 percent).

Table 8 OTHER SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE CITY IS DOING
	Frequency	Percent
Word of Mouth, Friends and Family	142	35.1
Special Mailings or Flyers or Newsletters, Posters, Bulletin Boards	48	11.9
Other Public Organizations (Public Schools, Colleges, Civic Clubs)	34	8.4
Radio	29	7.2
Library	9	2.2
Broadcast TV	9	2.2
Contact City Government/City Hall	8	2.0
Driving/Walking Around City and Seeing Information	4	1.0
Nowhere	127	31.4
Other	7	1.7
Don’t Know	10	2.5

 

Service Improvements

Table 9 portrays respondents’ answers to the question, "Now thinking about the city overall … What do you feel the City of Santa Monica could do to improve the quality of its services?" It is well worth noting that the most frequently given answer (19.5%) was "nothing", which could be interpreted as high satisfaction with the current quality of services. As the table illustrates, other respondents had a wide variety of suggestions, and little consensus emerged. The only suggestion that was offered by more than ten percent of respondents (13 percent) was to provide more resources for the homeless. If one adds to this the encouragement to reduce homelessness or get homeless off the streets (9 percent), however, this issue is clearly on the minds of more than one in five respondents (22 percent).

Table 9 WHAT THE CITY COULD DO TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF ITS SERVICES
	Frequency	Percent
Nothing	79	19.5
More Resources for the Homeless	51	12.6
Reduce Homelessness	37	9.1
Alleys, Sidewalks, Streets, Traffic Controllers: Clean (Graffiti, Debris), Maintain, Repair	36	8.9
More Police Patrols in Public Areas	19	4.7
More Business and/or Public Parking	15	3.7
More Garbage/Recycling Pickup	15	3.7
More City Government Communication, Accessibility (Internet, Newsletters, Postcards, Radio, TV)	15	3.7
More Rent Control	14	3.5
Keep Public Areas (Beaches, Parks) Clean and Maintained	13	3.2
Police Enforce Laws, Especially Vandalism and Traffic Violations (Use New Technologies)	12	3.0
Better/More Public Landscaping (Parks, Streets, Beaches)	11	2.7
Less Traffic Density on Streets or Better Traffic Regulation	10	2.5
More Community Meetings, Public Events, Activities, Festivals, Fund-Raisers	10	2.5
More Street Lighting	9	2.2
More Residential Parking	9	2.2
Parking Meters: Enforcement, Expense, Time	9	2.2
More Police Patrols in Residential Areas	8	2.0
Need Local Newspaper Providing Local News (Like Evening Outlook)	8	2.0
Safer Parks: More Police Presence	7	1.7
Enforce Building, Property Codes	7	1.7
More Business/Housing Construction/Development	6	1.5
Less Business/Housing Construction/Development	6	1.5
City Government: Better Meetings, Better Representation, Better Listeners, Better Efficiency	6	1.5
Water: Expense, Drinkability, Maintenance	5	1.2
Public Servants: Hiring More and Training Appropriately, Ongoing Training	5	1.2
No Rent Control	3	.7
Safer Parks: More Maintenance	3	.7
Improve Public Transportation: On Time	3	.7
Table 9 (Continued) WHAT THE CITY COULD DO TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF ITS SERVICES
	Frequency	Percent
Libraries: More Funding, Resources	3	.7
Pollution: Water, Bay, Air, Beach	3	.7
More Parks for People and/or Pets	3	.7
Electric Power: Underground Power Lines, Appropriate Response Time to Emergencies	3	.7
Public Schools: Improve Quality and Safety	3	.7
Improve Public Transportation: Ease of Use	2	.5
Quieter Garbage/Recycling Pickup	2	.5
Less or No Fees for Public Access to Public Venues	2	.5
Other	28	6.9
Don’t Know	72	17.8

 

Sidewalk Repair

As shown in Figure 26, close to half of respondents (47 percent) indicated that they would definitely not be willing to share the cost of sidewalk repair with the City. In addition, approaching one in five (16 percent) said they probably would not. When these figures are summed, they total close to two-thirds (63 percent).

Among those who would be willing to share the cost of sidewalk repair with the City (slightly over a quarter, or 27 percent), as Figure 27 illustrates, somewhat over half would be willing to pay a one-time cost of $100. Only small proportions of respondents expressed a willingness to pay any more than this.

Respondent Demographics

Table 10 displays respondents’ Zip Code of residence, while Figure 28 portrays the extent to which residents of Zip Code 90405 live east or west of Lincoln. The largest groups reported that they live in 90405 (42 percent), 90403 (24 percent), and 90404 (19 percent). Among those who live in 90405, somewhat over half (55 percent) live west of Lincoln and somewhat under half (44 percent) live east of it.

Table 10 ZIP CODE OF RESIDENCE
	Frequency	Percent
90401 Downtown	22	5.4
90402 North of Montana	35	8.6
90403 Wilshire-Montana	99	24.4
90404 Pico & Mid-Cities	76	18.8
90405 55% West of Lincoln – Ocean Park 44% East of Lincoln – Sunset Park	168	41.5
Don’t Know	3	.7
Refused	2	.5

 

As shown in Table 11, the majority of respondents (55 percent) reported that they live in an apartment. Somewhat over a quarter (29 percent) said they live in single family residences.

Table 11 RESIDENCE TYPE
	Frequency	Percent
Apartment	224	55.3
Single-Family Home	116	28.6
Condominium	39	9.6
Townhouse	15	3.7
Trailer/Mobile Home	1	.2
Other	9	2.2
Refused	1	.2

 

Table 12 portrays the numbers of adults in responding households, while Table 13

displays the numbers of children under the age of 18 in these households. Most respondents’ households contain two (48 percent) or one (44 percent) adults. By far the majority (74 percent) contain no children, although somewhat more than one in ten (13 percent) contain one child and slightly less than one in ten (9 percent) contain two children.

Table 12 NUMBERS OF ADULTS IN RESPONDING HOUSEHOLDS
	Frequency	Percent
1	178	44.0
2	196	48.4
3	20	4.9
4	5	1.2
5	2	.5
Refused	4	1.0

 

Table 13 NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNDER 18 IN RESPONDING HOUSEHOLDS
	Frequency	Percent
0	299	73.8
1	54	13.3
2	37	9.1
3	7	1.7
4	2	.5
5	1	.2
6	2	.5
Refused	3	.7

 

Respondents’ ages are portrayed in Table 14. The majority (54 percent) are between the ages of 25 and 44, and about three-quarters (76 percent) are under 55. Only somewhat more than one in ten (13 percent) are 65 or older.

Table 14 AGE
	Frequency	Percent
18 to 24	14	3.5
25 to 34	105	25.9
35 to 44	113	27.9
45 to 54	76	18.8
55 to 64	28	6.9
65+	54	13.3
Refused	15	3.7

 

As shown in Table 15, almost three-quarters of respondents (74 percent) are white. The second largest percentage (12 percent) said they are "other." Six percent are Asian or Pacific Islander, four percent are African-American, and six percent, as indicated in Figure 29, consider themselves Hispanic. It should also be noted in this regard that the way the race/ethnicity questions were structured, Hispanics could be of any racial/ethnic group.

 

Table 15 RACE/ETHNICITY
	Frequency	Percent
Caucasian/White	298	73.6
African-American	17	4.2
Asian/Pacific Islander	24	5.9
Other	49	12.1
Refused	17	4.2

 

 

Respondents’ household incomes are displayed in Table 16. The largest groups have incomes of $60,000 ore more (27 percent) or $35,000 to $59,999 (17 percent). It is also worth noting in this regard, however, that a quarter of respondents (25 percent) refused to answer the question, which is unusually high.

Table 16 HOUSEHOLD INCOME
	Frequency	Percent
Under $20,000	41	10.1
$20,000 - $34,999	55	13.6
$35,000 - $59,999	67	16.5
$60,000 or More	110	27.2
Don’t Know	30	7.4
Refused	102	25.2

 

Finally, the gender of respondents is shown in Figure 30. Somewhat over half (54 percent) are female and somewhat under half (46 percent) are male.

 

 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Assessing the meaning of customer satisfaction scores is always a somewhat arbitrary enterprise. One formulation we have found useful, however, is to assert that any service with 90 percent or more positive ratings is excellent and needs no further attention. Services with favorable ratings between 85 and 89 percent are very good but may merit a cursory review, while services with favorable ratings between 80 and 84 percent are good but may warrant some investigation. Finally, services with positive ratings of less than 80 percent are problematic and suggest the need for serious consideration.

Under this formulation, we can divide Santa Monica’s services into four categories on the basis of the survey responses. This division yields the following information for the first three categories.

 

Excellent - Needs No Attention

• Cleanliness of the streets
• Condition of the streets

 

Very Good - May Merit Cursory Review

• Condition of the sidewalks
• Nuisance abatement
• Garbage collection
• Job the police are doing overall

 

Good - May Warrant Investigation

• Availability of library materials
• Police response times

The fourth category, being the one we are saying suggests the need for serious consideration, merits more than simply being listed. Here we have the following survey evidence for the City’s consideration.

 

Problematic - Needs Serious Consideration

Condition of alleys. Less than half of respondents reacted favorably to the condition of the City’s alleys. (This represents 62 percent of those who said they have alleys.) If the City wants its residents to approve of the way the alleys are maintained, it will probably need to do more work in this area.

 

Parks and recreation opportunities. Close to four-fifths of respondents had positive reactions to the parks and recreation opportunities offered by the City. While this figure could be said to be somewhat offset by a larger than average percentage of don’t know responses, it may also call for action. Specifically, people said they want more parks, more recreation opportunities, and more maintenance and landscaping. They also said, in response to two different questions, that they feel the parks are less than safe. In the final analysis, this last may be the most important piece of information to act upon.

 

Library services. Three-quarters of respondents reacted positively to library services, and this figure may also be distorted by a high proportion of don’t know responses. Need for Library expansion was a significant factor for those who reacted negatively to library services.

We note with interest that the residents of Santa Monica are using their parks and libraries to a considerable degree. Specifically, three-fifths reported using a park or recreation facility or program and two-thirds reported using a library facility or service in the year preceding the survey. Thus, even though residents may be somewhat constrained in their reactions to these types of service, they are definitely taking advantage of them.

 

Police services. Although the police are viewed as doing an excellent or good job overall, they achieve less strong approval for their enforcement of traffic laws, attention to neighborhood concerns, and interactions with citizens. Suggestions for improvement yield few clues as to the specifics involved here. This area may therefore merit further investigation.

Finally, we note that there is little enthusiasm for sharing the cost of sidewalk repair and even less enthusiasm for contributing a sufficient sum of money. For the time being, then, it would appear that the City will need to look elsewhere in the event sidewalks need to be fixed.