1. 2009 Lane County Community Survey Demographic Breakdown

2. The Survey Random sample of 3000 Lane County addresses received survey by mail 974 completed surveys – 34% response rate Some services always rate higher than others 2009 is Lane County’s Baseline, plan to survey again in 2011

3. Focus Areas Community Quality Quality of life Quality of neighborhood County as a place to live Community Design Transportation Ease of travel, transit services, street maintenance Housing Housing options, cost, affordability Land Use and Zoning New development, growth, code enforcement Economic Sustainability Employment, shopping and retail, County as a place to work Public Safety Safety in neighborhood and downtown Crime victimization Police, fire, EMS services Emergency preparedness Environmental Sustainability Cleanliness Air quality Preservation of natural areas Garbage and recycling services Recreation and Wellness Parks and Recreation Recreation opportunities, use of parks and facilities, programs and classes Culture, Arts and Education Cultural and educational opportunities, libraries, schools Health and Wellness Availability of food, health services, social services Community Inclusiveness Sense of community Racial and cultural acceptance Senior, youth and low-income services Civic Engagement Civic Activity Volunteerism Civic attentiveness Voting behavior Social Engagement Neighborliness, social and religious events Information and Awareness Public information, publications, Website Public Trust Cooperation in community Value of services Direction of community Citizen involvement Employees

4. Subgroup Comparisons Subgroup comparison report for Annual Household Income, Age, Race, Gender Statistically significant differences occur most between age groups, and next most frequently between white and non-white respondents Demographic characteristics of the survey were compared to Lane County and the survey results were then weighted

5. Gender Men consistently rated questions lower than women with the exception of the following; EEducational opportunities AAvailability of affordable, quality housing & child care GGrowth related questions EEnvironment related questions FFeel safe in downtown after dark PParticipation in and opinion of local government Few of these differences were statistically significant except the last one regarding government

6. Overall Community Quality The overall quality of life in Lane County was rated as “excellent” or “good” by 67% of respondents Younger and not white respondents rated the overall quality of life excellent or good only 56% and 52% of the time respectively Majority of all respondents likely to remain in the County for next 5 years. Lowest household incomes, between 18-34 yrs old, or not white were less likely to stay Likely to retire in Lane County? Large discrepancy between white (61%) and not white respondents (39%) Non white respondents were also the least likely to recommend living in Lane County to someone who asks

7. Community Transportation Above benchmarks in all questions in this focus area. Availability of walking paths/trails one of the most favorable ratings in our survey. Ratings vary depending on where the respondents live, but overall still strong. Far above benchmarks for recent use of bus for transportation with younger, non white, and those with less means reporting highest levels of bus use.

8. Housing Characteristics & Cost Availability of affordable quality housing is one of lowest ratings in our survey.

9. Land Use & Zoning As a whole, respondents rated the overall appearance of Lane County near national benchmarks – however, non white respondents ratings were significantly lower. Respondents rated the quality of new development low. The oldest respondents were most satisfied and non white respondents the least satisfied. The quality land use, planning and zoning are far below the national benchmarks with those in the 35-54 age range least satisfied. Of all respondents, the oldest are least satisfied with code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.)

10. Economic Sustainability Overall, the most positively rated features were shopping opportunities and overall quality of business/service establishments – however, not white respondents were much less satisfied with either of these characteristics Lowest rating was employment opportunities and job growth with all subgroups in agreement

11. Personal Economic Prospects

12. Sense of Safety About 48% of respondents said they feel very or somewhat safe from violent crime with the youngest and non white respondents feeling least secure. Only 25% felt the same regarding property crime with those lowest income group feeling least secure. Of all ages, 18-34 yr olds felt the most safe in their neighborhoods in the day – yet the least safe at night The greatest insecurity was experienced by the youngest, non whites and the lowest income at night and by non whites and those with the highest income during the day.

13. Crime Victimization 25% of respondents reported that someone in the household had been a crime victim in the last year - 70% of them had reported that crime. 35% of not white, 33% of 18-34 yr olds, and 31% of the lowest income group had been victimized with far fewer not white or low income respondents reporting it.

14. Public Safety Services Emergency preparedness and crime prevention received the lowest ratings. All rankings were far below benchmarks. The quality of Sheriff services and traffic enforcement responses varied depending on where respondents live - rural residents rate these services higher than urban residents. The oldest residents were most satisfied while those with the most means were the least satisfied.

15. Environmental Sustainability The aesthetic qualities of our community (air, water, storm drainage, open spaces, etc.) ranked similar or above benchmarks. 74% of respondents rated the overall natural environment excellent or good. All subgroups of respondents reported recycling. Those subgroups that were least satisfied with recycling services were the youngest (18-34) and those with household incomes below $24,999.

16. Recycling Resident recycling was greater than in comparison communities with 70% or respondents recycling more than 26 times in the last year.

17. Parks & Recreation, Culture, Arts & Education The quality of our community’s recreational opportunities and the residents’ participation in these opportunities are some of the highest scores in our survey. While opportunities to participate in cultural activities were rated well and above benchmarks, not whites responses were much lower than other subgroups for cultural, social, and recreational opportunities. Those over 55 yrs old indicated the greatest opportunities for these activities.

18. Health & Wellness One of the least positive ratings in our survey was the availability of quality affordable health care. Ratings of health and wellness services were also low and below benchmark.

19. Community Inclusiveness Moderate results in most areas. Availability of affordable quality child care one of least positive ratings in survey.

20. Civic Engagement Lane County residents perceive they have many opportunities to volunteer and participate in community matters,  though non whites and 18-34 yr olds indicated fewer opportunities. A modest number had attended (25%) or watched (45%) a local elected officials meeting  with 18-34 yr olds least likely to have attended or watched and those who make less than $24,999 least likely to have watched. 59% reported volunteering  with those in the highest income subgroup and between 34-54 yrs old volunteering the most

21. Civic Engagement Consistent across all subgroups, an overwhelming majority (97%) report providing help to friends an neighbors. 81% of them having contact with neighbors at least one per month. With those 18-34 yrs old and not white a bit less likely to have as frequent neighbor contact.

22. Public Information 46% of respondents reported visiting the County’s website in the last year.  Those with the smallest household income or are over 55 were least likely to visit the website.  Non white visitors to the website were most critical of the current site’s appearance, navigation, search function, and content. 41% rated our public information services good or excellent, below the benchmark.

23. Public Trust Less than half of respondents felt the value of services for taxes paid were excellent or good. Though residents gave higher ratings to their Lane County compared to the state and federal governments.

24. Lane County Employees 51% of respondents reported having an in- person contact with an employee in the last year.  More likely to have contact if higher household income or under 55. County employees were rated positively; 67% of respondents rated their overall impression excellent or good.  Consistent across all subgroups.

25. Which three services does Lane County government do the best job providing?” Question #18F: Which three services does Lane County government do the best job of providing? Percent of Respondents Parks and recreation, events, fairgrounds32% Health and Human Services (services to youth, judicial services)21% Public Safety/Law Enforcement, crime, traffic enforcement19% Fire and ambulance/EMS services18% Waste Management, trash removal, recycling, bulk pick up14% None/Did not apply to question asked12% Public transportation services12% Infrastructure, public works, utilities11% Education/Cultural and Community opportunities10% Code enforcement and land use issues, appearance9% Governance issues (public meeting, elections, taxation, public information)7% Environmental- clean air, water, land preservation5% Don’t Know/No Comment13% Other12% Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one category.

26. Survey Steering Committee Sascha Cosio, Diversity Action Cmt Chair Bill Fleenor, West Lane Commissioner Amber Fossen, Public Information Officer Jennifer Inman, Sr. Management Analyst Liane Richardson, County Counsel Lisa Smith, Youth Services Director Jeff Spartz, County Administrator