HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979
I
i
p
i
4
p
I i
i
' u
I
1979 Denton Citizen Survey
s
1
I
h
I
rw4wwr
J
i
Introduction
A telephone survey of Denton residents was conducted by the Applied
Policy Research Program of North Texas State University during the
months of May and June 1979. The following report presents the results
of that survey. After comments on survey methodology and sample
characteristics the results are reportal under the headings of the
various services supplied by the city, service evaluations, contact
j with the city, and citizen attitudes on current issues.
Methodology
A systematic, random sample was selected as the most appropriate
sample design for the survey. A target of 400 completed interviews was
i
established. Taking into account refusals, non-working numbers, and
the total number of telephone numbers in Denton it was estimated that
i
i
740 numbers should be selected to assure attainment of the desired
4 number of completions.
The numbers were selected randomly from the 1979 edition of the
Denton Telephone Directory. The numbers then were evenly divided among
r seven trained interviewers who were given two weeks to complete their
interview assignmeot. Each interviewer was given a quota of 60 con- y
plated interviews that were to be obtained from the 10S telephone numbers
assigned. Since the numbers were randomly assigned to the interviewers
they could stop selecting numbers as soon as they finished 60 interviews. <4
a
w
T
M
re n¢~
2
At the end of the two week period 351 interviews had been obtained
At this point interviewing was terminated even though the desired 400
interviews were not completed. The decision to terminate interviewing
was based on two factors. First, it was necessary to begin the data
analysis phase of the project in order to have the report woplited on
time. Second, and more importantly, a sample of 351 respondents is
adequate to produce a reliable sample of the citizens of Denton.
The results that follow are reported with very little interpretation.
This was done in order to allow the reader to draw his or her own con-
clusions. Data analysis involved two stages. First, the marginal per-
centages for each question were obtained. Then a number of descriptor
characteristics (age, sex, length of residence etc.) were selected and
cross-tabulated with the responses to each of the survey questions. The
second step was undertaken to determine the extent to which the various
characteristics explained the observed responses. As will be seen, none
of the characteristics consistently served as a clarifying variable.
Sample Characteristics
Table 1 presents a summary of the socioecrnomic characteristics of
j the sample. These data are useful in that they present a description of }
the sample population. The characteristics, or variables, also were
compared across the responses to all survey questions to determine
whether any of them accounted for differences in responses.
s
i
s
Y e
Fr
r
J
w
3
Table 1
Sample Characteristics
Characteristic ercen
(N•349)
18-25 24.4
26-35 28.4
36-45 76.0
46-60 16.3 ?
61 and over 14.9
Sex
(N■351)
Male 40.6
Female 59.4
Race
(N■345)
White 87.2
Black 7.2
Hispanic 3.2 j
j Other 2.3
oom3~ership
• Own 60.2
Rent 39.8
(?a 331)
less than $5,000 14.2
5 000-$90999 1817
16,00014,999 20.5
15,000- 24,999 23.0
r MOM and over 23.6
Education
(N=348)
less than 8 s. 5.5
some hlgh school 4.6
high school grad. 18.7
some college 27.9
college (jrad. 19.3
some grad. school/ 24.1
graduate dearee
Length )of Residence
5
51
r 3-12 months 12.0 1
1-5 years 32.5
6-10 years 16.0 ri.
more than 10 years 39.6
i
w
{
~p~py
A
4
f
Survey Responses
A total of 34 questions seeking evaluations or Information were
asked. These questions have been grouped according to the service cate-
gory they represent (streets, recreation) or the type of information
requested (service evaluation, citizen opinions).
Streets
:j
Residents rated the condition of streets as follows:
Table 2
Condittgn of Streets
(N•348)
Ratina Percent
Good all over 2.0
Mostly good 40.8
j Many bad spots 57.2
4 When questioned about street lighting the following responses were ob-
tained:
Table 3
I Street Lighting i
(N■325)
Mina
Lighting about rigNt 72.6
1 More lighting needed 20.3
More lighting now than needed 7.1
None of the socioeconomic characteristics accounted for differences
in responses.
t
I
1
5
Recreation
A general question asking for a rating of recreational opportunities
in Denton produced the following responses:
Table 4
Ratings of Recreational Opportunities
_ ercent
Rating
Excellent 26.2
Good 55.5
Fair 15.1
Poor 3.2
i
The other questions that related to recreation dealt with library services.
The following ratings for public library services were obtained: q
Ratings ofTLibrary Service
(N•247)
z
- P~
_S lrcen
I Excellent 31.6
Good 50.6 k
1 Fair 13.8
i
Poor 4.0
Less than a maJority of respondents had a library card6 47.1 percent.
From those who had cards the following usage information was produced:
i
j
::w
I
6
Table 6
Library Use
(N■164)
Extent o Use ercen
More than once a month 34.8
At least once a month 2:.6
At least once every 3 months 26.2
At least once a year 11.6
r
Never 4,9
Age was a factor in library use. Those residents age 61 and over
were the least likely to have a library card and were also the least
likely to use the library.
Garbage and Brush Collection
Few residents had problems with regular garbage or brush pickup.
When asked about missed garbage collection 76.2 percent of the respondents
reported no missed days during the past year as can be seen in Table 7
x
t below,
Table 7
Garbage Collection Missed
0032)
mes ss ercen
Never 16,2
t
1.2 times 2012
3.4 times 0,3 R~
6 or more times 3,3
A
CYlJ
7
Problems with brush collection were even less numerous.
Table 8
Problem wit~NB3ush Collection
t
ro em ercen
Yes 15.3
Na 84.7 a
A question related to garbage and trash collection asked residents
4` 1
to rate the cleanliness of their neighborhood. The following responses
were obtained.
Table 9
Neighborh od Cleanliness
I ~
n ercen
very clean 35.1
Fairly clean 51.4
11.1 i
Fairly dirty
very dirty 2.3
r
f _
Water Service
One question was asked about water service and most people did not
have any problems with the service. k
J
r;
k~
N
I
I
8
Table 10
Number of Interruptions in Water Supply
(N•342)
Interruptions -percent
None 76.0
1-2 20.5
3.4 1.8
5 or more 1.8
Emergency Services: Police, Fire, Ambulance
The majority of residents, 82.6 percent, rated the police as being
fair in their ts,eatment of citizens.
` Table 11
Are Police Fair?
(N■288)
esoonse ercen
i
Fair 82.6 )
lfnfair 17.4
s
4
1 Most residents also felt very, or at least somewhat safe, walking
{ alone in their neighborhoods at night.
Neighborhood2Safety
9 (N=339) a
na ercen J
Very safe 46.0
Somewhat safe 29.8
a.
Somewhat unsafe 15.3
Very unsafe 8.8
9
Those residents who are 61 years of age and older, have low incomes
or are female feel the least safe walking in their neighborhoods at night.
Of those surveyed only 9.4 percent had a reason to call the Fire
Department in the past year. Those who had called the Fire Department
were asked to rate the service received. The ratings are reported In
Table 13.
Table 13
Fire Service Ratings
(N=33)
Rating Percent
Excellent 61.8
i
I
Good 20.6
Fair 14.7
Poor 2.9 {
Respondents were then asked if they had requested ambulance service
t
and 8.0 percent, or 28 people, had done so in the pa3t year. Their
ratings of the ambulance service were: j
Table 14
I Ambulance Service Ratings
(N=28)~
Rating ercen
Excellent 5562
Good 27.6
x
Fair 3.4
Poor 13.8
s l u
M
E
Service Evaluations, Taxes, and Reductions
Respondents were asked a series of questions about city services.
f First they were asked what services needed improvement, then wheerthey
would support a tax increase to improve those services, and finally if
they would favor reducing services in order to keep taxes at their present
level.
Respondents were first read a list of services and asked whether
In the table below, the
each needed much, some, or no improvement.
services are ranked from highest to lowest on the basis of the percentages
they received in the "much improvement" category,
Table 15
Service Improvement
uc ome o
11111 k ~ erv ce
48.1% 34.6% 17.3%
Street maintenance (N•347)
12.4 41.3 46.3
Traffic Control (N•322)
Electric Service (N•329) 7.6 22.8 69.6
Sewage Treatment 0405) 7.5 18.0 74.4
Recreation Facilities (N•331) 7.3 29.6 63.1
6.6 29.2 64.3
Police protection (N 322)
Garbage Collection (N■344) 3.8 28.8 67.4
3.5 25.3 71.2
Library Service (N•285)
Water Service (N•332) 3.3 16.9 79.6
!
Fire Protection (N*296) 2.7 18.9 78.4
I ~!I
a,
r
srt~
evm
11
individuals in the 61 and over age group tended to state services needed
no improvement more often than the other age groups.
After asking respondents what services were in need of improvement
they were then asked if they would favor a tax increase if that was the
only way of providing the necessary improvements. Respondents were only
asked if they favored or opposed a tax Increase for those services that
they said needed some or much Improvement.
Table 16
Favor or Oppose Tax Increase for Improving Services
Garbage Collection (Na114)8 37.7% 62.3%
k Street Maintenance (N%278) 67.6 32.3
60.9 39.1
Library Service (N■82)
t Police Protection (N•112) 58.0 42.0
a
Fire Protection (N■69) 65.2 34.8
Recreation Facilities (Nall3) 56.6 43.4
Water Service 040 46.7 53.3 E
Sewage Treatment 047) 50.6 49.4
Traffic Control (N•l67) 52.0 48.0
1
'
F aN varies because respondent was only asked about to pre-.
If he/she said it needed Improvement In response
vious question.
a
p
f
II
<a
•
The last question in this series asked all respondents whether they
would favor a reduction in service
level if leveleh p,9ajnucrespondents were
necessary to keep taxes at their present
asked about each service separately.
Table 17
Service Reduction to Maintain Present Tax Level
es a uce o of uce
err ce
17.0% 83,0%
~ Garbage Collection
(Nu335) 10.7 89.3
sStreet Maintenance
(N•337) 24.0 79.9 s I
Library Service 91.7
((N•329? 8,3 I
¢o11ce Protection
(8437) 6.g 93.2 x:
Fire Protection
336) 25.4 74.6
Zreation facilities
z (N•333 11.6 88.4
7 Zer ervlce ~,1
e (N•336) 11.1
Electric service
(8.333) 9.9 90.1 b
t sewage Treatment ,
(1_321) 18,2 81.8
raffic control
s1 (N+317)
After asking about services presently offered% an open-ended ques-
{ tion was asked that requested respondents id+ntify services that they y
1
Thought should be offered. As with most open-ended questions the
responses versed tremendously. Only two services were mentioned with
any consistencyi 15 percent (54) of the respondents identified public s
percent (20)
transportation as a service that should be provided and 6 s
mentioned sane form of recreation.
h'f
4g
°i
4
i
w
13
Contact with City and Citizen Information
Respondents were asked a number of questions about their contact
with city offices and the information they received about city issues.
Respondents were first asked whether they had contacted the city about
s
a problem, complaint, or request for service and 49.1 percent said
they had. The following summary table indicates who was contacted, the
level of satisfaction and whether the person(s) contacted were helpful.
i
Table 18
` Summary of Contact with Citya
r
Office contacted (N■l7l) Percent
6.3
City Manager
Mayor or Council 7.6
Police 15.2
Utility Department 43.8
Other Office 28.1
Satisfaction lN■171 Percent
Satisfied 66.7 r
Not Satisfied 38,2
Response Not Complete 4.1
Opinion of contact (1=169) Percent
Helpful 79,9
Not Helpful 2011
aThis question was asked only of those respondents who had
contacted the city,
t
i
i
I
r
14
a
After discussing contacts with the city, all respondents were asked
to rate how well they thought the city was run. The ratings of respondents
are reported in Table 19.
Table 19
How Well Is Denton Run?
(Ns340)
F
UP n ercen
` Excellent 9.7
47.6 ?
Good
Fair 32.4
Poor 10.3
Respondents were then asked whether they received enough information
about the city and current issues facing Denton. A majority of citizens, )
51.3 percent, stated they were not receiving enough information, People s
who most often stated they were not receiving enough information were
in the 18-45 age group and had 12 or more years of education.
The next question identified a number of sources of information
and respondents were asked whether they would use each source a lot, s
some, or not at all. In Table 20 the respons" are ranked according to
extent of use indicated (in the table tfie "use a lot" and "use some"
categories have been added together).
e..~.:r Y'Y .'nn .Y+n. :i'.I SM. J{ Y ":JYI YYJ Uf fe ib
•
15
Table 20
Source of information Use
Source se of se _
Regular column in 89.5% 10.5%
newspaper (0344)
Action line to 80.3 19.7
City (N■345)
Newsletter mailed 75.3 24.7 t
to citizens (N•348)
Printed material 73.0 27.0
with utility bill E
(N=337) }
Brochure with names 69.4 30.6 s
and phone numbers
6 (N+342)
57.5 42.5
i Neighborhood meet- P
ings (N•345)
in the section on information citizens were asked whether they had
enough information about one specific issue: The Texas Municipal Power
Agency (TMPA). A large majority, 79.8 percent, said they did not have
enough information about TMPA to understand what Denton's role in that
agency is and will be. While a majority of respondents at all educa-
tional levels stated more information on TMPA was needed, the percentage
{
~ did increase as years of education increased.
Opinions on Siqns, Public Transit, Living in Denton, and SourA Electricity
The last section of the report combines opinions,on four matters
that are unrelated, but that did not fit with any of the previous service ~
or evaluation areas. The first of these are citizens' opinions on
,l
s
16
advertizing signs in Denton. A minority of those surveyed, 21.4 percent,
felt advertizing signs presented a problem in Denton. Of those who felt
signs did present a problem, 59.7 percent said they detracted from the
beauty of the city, 33.3 percent said they presented a safety hazard,
and 6.9 percent mentioned some other problem. Despite the fact that
only 21.4 percent of the respondents stated signs were a problem, a
majority of all respondents, 75.2 percent, said they favored an ordinance
regulating signs.
On the question of public transportation respondents were asked
whether they were very much in favor, somewhat in favor, somewhat against,
or very much against the development of a public transportation system
in Denton, The results of the public transit question are reported in
Table 21.
i
Table 21
Attitudes ono330lic Transit
ercen
Attitude
2
Very much in favor 44,2
Somewhat in favor 39.7
Somewhat against 11.8
i Very much against 4.2
Third, respondents were asked how they rated Denton as a place to
live. As can be seen in Table 221 most residents seem satisfied with
Denton.
h
1i M Nm~.n....
Y
id
17
Table 22
Rating of Denton as a Place to Live
(N=351)
Rating Percent
Excellent 45.3
t Good 42.2
Fair 10.5
2.0
Poor
In response to this question ratings of excellent were given more often
by homeowners and residents who lived in Denton more than ten years.
The last opinion question was intended to assess the level of citizen
awarness in regard to the source of electric power for the City of Dentor'.
As can be seen in Table 23 24.5 percent of the respondents did not know that
Denton was the supplier of their electricity.
Table 23
Source o~NEleectric Power
So rc P re t
city 75.5
0,8
Lone Star Gas
Texas Power and Light 11.0
TMPA 4.1
Other 8.6
_w.nw p;lA At kr'. Umin'R: .MA.[r'W: •~y'_•»
I
` 18
Summary ?
As was stated at the outset, no attempt was made to interpret the
responses reported. Rather, the data presented represent citizen ratings f
of city services and citizen opinions on various issues. As such, this
information can be used by both city staff and council as another input a1
into policy and budgetary decisions. i
f
R
I
I
1
Id
a
i
J
s
1979 Denton Citizen Survey: Supplement
h r:
J
I
I
This report is a supplement to the 1979 Denton Citizen Survey report
submitted to the City of Denton in Juneo 1979. In this supplement the
responses obtained in the 1976 citizen survey have been compared to those
obtained in the most recent survey. Responses are compared only when the
same question was asked in both surveys or when the questions were similar
enough to warrant comparison.
In each section the responses to the questions that were asked in both
surveys are provided first. These responses are organized into tables and
reported without comment. Next,the responses to questions that were either
i
worded differently or that had different response categories are reported,
In these instances an explanation of how the comparison was made is pro-
vided. i
3
City Services
Street Lighting
Table I
Adequacy of Street Lighting
j ~
HIM --1979
About right 7268% 72,6%
More needed 24,1 20,3 4
1
More now than needed 3,1 1.l
x,
I
I
2
Garbage Collection and Neighborhood Cleanliness
Table 2
Garbage Collections Missed j
Imes Rqsid 1976 1979
None 87.22 76.2%
h ' 1-2 8.0 20:2
r r
3-4 4.8*
0.3
5 or more 3.3
The 1976 response was 3 or more times.
€ Neighborh7oodlCleanliness
MW
1979
Very clean 43.6% 35.1%
Fairly clean 49.3
~ 51.4
Fairly dirty 5.4 11.1
Very dirty 1.7 2.3
f
Water Supply
Table 4
Number of Interruptions in Water Supply
rnTe'rmpt ions 1079 1979
Nnne 68.5% 76.0%
1-2 19.6 20.5
3-4 11.9* 1.8
5 or more 168
a
* In the 1976 survey the last response category was three or more.
E Police Fair/Unfair and Neighborhood Safety
a
Tle
Are Police Fair?
:oonse
1979
f
Fair 7717% 8246%
i Unfair. 2213 1744
I
Table 6
Neighborhood Safe at Night?
Ling r
Very safe 36.211 46.0%
Somewhat safe 48,1 29.8
Soenwhat unsafe 1513
Very unsafe 15.7 8.8
* In the 1976 survey the response categories were very safeo rea-
sonably safe, and not safe at all.
I
i
Streets
The questions about street conditions did vary on the two survey Instru-
ments. In 1976 respondents were asked what repairs were needed and in 1979
they were asked whether streets were good all over, mostly good, or bad all
over. The two sets of responses are reported below.
Table 7
Street Condition
Response
Major repairs needed 16%
1976 Minor repairs needed 41
No repairs needed 42
€ xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
3 i
Many bad spots 57.2% k
1979, Mostly good 40.8 E
Good all over 2.0
! 1
Service Evaluations
The service evaluation questions did vary on the two instruments, how-
` ever, some comparisons may be made. In 1976 residents were asked to eval-
uate a list of services on a six-point scale from +3 to -3 (+3 being the
best rating and -3 the worst). In 1979 respondents were asked whether each
{ service needed much, some, or no improvement. The responses from the two
surveys are reported in Table 8.
r
oY~
R
M
5
1
Table 8
Satisfaction with City Services
a c e ssa c e a s e Dissatisfied
Fire Protection 95% 5% 78% 22%
Garbage Collection 89 11 67 33
Library Services 88 12 71 29
Police Protection 83 17 64 36
I
Street Maintenance 44 56 17 83
I
The responses are reported as percent satisfied or dissatisfied, To
arrive at these percentages for 1976 the positive responses (+3o +2, +1)
were sum 4 to represent those satisfied and the negative responses (-31
-2. - 1) were aumaed to represent those dissatistiedi for 1979 the "no a
improvement" response was interpreted as satisfied and the "much" and "sane
improvement" categories were summed to represent dissatisfaction, Only i
those servicas asked about in both surveys are reported.
It is difficult to judge the absolute difference between the percent
satisfied in 1976 and the percent satisfied in 1979. The portent satin-
find in 1976 is probably inflated over 1979 because respondents had the 4
E
~ opportunity to express degrees of satisfaction (+39 +2. +1) and in 1974 they
s did not have that opportunity.
M
jF3
1
L
i'
Y
p~p
1.
i
I
w
6
Rating Denton
In both surveys respondents were asked to rate Denton as a place to
live. In 1976 respondents rated Denton on a scale from +3 to -3. Whereas
in 1979 they rated the city as excellent, good, fair, or poor. The responses
are reported in Table 9,
Table 9
Rating of Denton as a Place to live
k
r
Percent positive (+3, +2..+1) 93%
Percent negative (-1, -2. -3) 7 {
I
1979
I
Excellent 45.3%
Good 42,2
Fair 1016
Poor 2.0
r
I
t
Conte.-it with the City
R
t
in both the 1976 atd 1979 surveys respondents were
asked about the contact they had with c4ty officials. The
results of these questions are reported in Table 106
4
tigg.
qi
~ I
i
M
.
7
Table TO
Contact with the City
Office Contacted 1976 1979
City manager 110% 5.3%
Mayor or Council 210 7.6
Police 1610 1512
Utility Department 43.8
Other Department 39.0 28.1
h Other 42.0
Satisfaction with contact 7
979 ;
Satisfied 6813% 65.7%
3 ~
5 Not Satisfied 29,8
~ 38.2
Response not complete 169 4.1
p
t
Summary
k
While some comparisons between the 1976 and 1979 Denton surveys are
{ possibles there are fewer opportunities for such
comparisons than sight be
assumed. The main reason for the lack of comparability is that different 1
methods of data collection were pe
employed in the two surveys. The rsonal
s interviews conducted in 1976 allowed the questions developed to be more
complex • for examples the +3 to -3 rating scale where respondents were i
n handed a card with the scale reprinted. In 1979 these questions had to be
i
modified so they could be used in the telephone interviews, As a results
many of the questions asked in 1976 were significantly altered or eliminated
r' in the 1979 survey instrument.
sy
r; 'f
i
"Owl
0
The 1979 data are as reliable as those of 1976; they are simply not
as detailed, Should another telephone survey be undertaken in the future
the opportunities for comparison should increase, particularly since the
questions asked in 1979 should not require significant modification or
i a
alteration,
T
i
•i
s
k
i