Summary of Findings May 26, 2009 Richmond, California Summary of Findings May 26, 2009 ©2009 Survey conducted by: National Research Center, Inc. • 3005 30th St. • Boulder, CO 80301 • (303)444-7863 • www.n-r-c.com

The National Citizen Survey™ (The NCS) Background ICMA/NRC initiative Turnkey omnibus citizen survey service Benchmark comparisons Over 200 participants in The NCS in over 40 states Over 500 jurisdictions in full database 2 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Uses of Survey Results Results can be used to: Monitor trends in resident opinion Results can be used to: Measure government performance Inform budget, land use, strategic planning decisions Benchmark service ratings 3 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Study Background and Methods 2009 Survey: Multi-contact mailed survey Representative sample of 3,000 residents and households 567 surveys returned; 20% response rate 4% margin of error Data statistically weighted to reflect population 4 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Community Ratings

Overall Quality of Community Neighborhood as a place to live 50% Overall Quality of life in Richmond 25% Richmond as a place to live 18% Percent “excellent” or “good” Would recommend living in Richmond to someone who asks Remain in Richmond for the next five years   41% 60% = Compared to 2007  = No by year comparison 6 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Community Design

Transportation 52% 47% 44% 36%  35% 34%  24%  National Benchmark Population 64,000 - 149,999 Ease of rail or subway travel 52% Above Ease of car travel 47% Similar Below Ease of bus travel 44% Similar Above Traffic Flow on major streets 36%  Similar Ease of bicycle travel 35% Below Availability of paths and walking trails 34%  Below Ease of walking 24% Below Percent “excellent” or “good” = Compared to 2007  = No by year comparison 8 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Transportation Services Similar to the national and custom benchmarks Bus or transit services 50% Traffic signal timing 40% Amount of public parking 40% Street cleaning 29% Below the national and custom benchmarks Street lighting 25% Sidewalk maintenance 24% Street repair 14% Percent “excellent” or “good” = Compared to 2007 9 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Housing  10 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Land Use, Planning and Zoning 31% Overall quality of new development in Richmond 14% Overall appearance of Richmond Percent “excellent” or “good” = Compared to 2007 11 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Economic Sustainability Shopping opportunities 27% Overall Quality of businesses and service establishments 23%  Richmond as a place to work 22% Employment opportunities 12%  = No by year comparison = Compared to 2007 Percent “excellent” or “good” 12 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Public Safety

Felt “very” or “somewhat” safe Public Safety Neighborhood Downtown From Environmental Hazards 19% During the day 68% From Violent Crime 10% 36% 29% From Property Crime 9% After dark 4% Felt “very” or “somewhat” safe 14 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Safety Services   79% 78% ` 54% 45% 36% 19% 28% Fire services Ambulance/EMS 78% Police services 54% Fire prevention and education 45% Traffic enforcement 36% Crime prevention 19% Emergency preparedness 28%  = Compared to 2007  = No by year comparison Percent “excellent” or “good” 15 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Environmental Sustainability Preservation of natural areas such as open space, farmlands and greenbelts 32%  Quality of overall natural environment 23%  Air quality 20% Cleanliness of Richmond 12%  93% Recycled used paper, cans or bottles from home at least once in the prior 12 months Above the national and custom benchmarks = Compared to 2007  = No by year comparison Percent “excellent” or “good” 16 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Utilities = Compared to 2007 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Recreation and Wellness

Parks and Recreation City parks 39% Recreation centers or facilities 33% Recreation programs or classes 30% Recreation opportunities 23% = Compared to 2007 Percent “excellent” or “good” 19 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Culture, Arts and Education Library services 51% Public Schools 18% Percent “excellent” or “good” Library use 59% Percent Used Richmond public libraries or their services in the last 12 months = Compared to 2007 20 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.   National comparison Populations 64,000 to 149,999 Opportunities to attend cultural activities Below Educational opportunities 20

Health and Wellness 21 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Community and Civic Engagement

Community Inclusiveness Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 39% Sense of community 27% Richmond as a place to retire 18% Availability of affordable quality child care 18% Richmond as a place to raise children 12% Percent “excellent” or “good” = Compared to 2007 23 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Services to Population Subgroups Services to seniors 39% Services to low-income people 26% Services to youth 22% Percent “excellent” or “good” = Compared to 2007 24 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

City of Richmond Government

Public Trust 23% Job Richmond government does at welcoming citizen involvement 28% The overall direction that Richmond is taking 21% Job Richmond government does at listening to citizens 19% Value of services for the taxes paid to Richmond 6% Overall image or reputation of Richmond Percent “excellent” or “good” = Compared to 2007 26 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

City of Richmond Employees Courtesy 56% Knowledge 55% Overall impression 52% Responsiveness 51% Percent “excellent” or “good” = Compared to 2007 27 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

From Data to Action

National Benchmark Comparisons Resident priorities Key Driver Analysis (KDA) Cornerstone of customer satisfaction research in the private sector Tells what service evaluations best predict how well you do overall Focuses managers and staff on activities that could “get the most bang for the buck” Trendline data National Benchmark Comparisons “Key Drivers” 29 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Richmond Action Chart™ Environmental Sustainability Preservation of natural areas Sewer services Storm drainage Garbage collection Recycling Community Design Code enforcement Street repair Economic development Bus/transit services Sidewalk Maintenance Street lighting Street cleaning Traffic signal timing Other City sponsored events City landscaping Civic Engagement Public information Recreation and Wellness City parks Public schools Library Health services Public Safety Traffic enforcement Fire services Police services EMS Emergency preparedness Overall Quality of City of Richmond Services Legend Above Benchmark Similar to Benchmark Below Benchmark Rating decrease Rating increase Key Driver 30 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Custom Questions

“Much” or “minor” improved Policy questions Comparing calendar year 2007 to the present, how would you describe the change in Richmond for the following? “Much” or “minor” improved City communications translated into other languages other than English 38% Junk vehicles 29% Graffiti 24% Traffic congestion Growth 23% Crime 22% Weed lots 20% Toxic waste or other environmental hazards Run down buildings 19% Job training opportunities 16% Drugs 14% Noise from trains Quality of public school education Unsupervised youth 11% Employment opportunities Homelessness 10% 32 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

“Essential or "very important" Policy questions How important, if at all, are the following issues for the City to address? “Essential or "very important" Improving street pavement conditions 84% Increasing street lighting 83% Expanding after school programs (K-12) Increasing job training and development programs 80% Installing surveillance cameras throughout the City 71% Improving infrastructure to prevent flooding 68% Improving park conditions and providing more parks and open space 66% Improving traffic flow and pedestrian safety 65% Renovating community centers and expanding programming 62% Increasing paratransit service 59% Upgrading existing and developing more athletic fields 56% Building a new library facility 51% Improving Richmond Parkway 50% Preserving historic buildings and completing the Rosie the Riveter WWII National Homefront Park 47% Displaying more public art 38% 33 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc. 33

Percent of respondents Policy questions Would you be willing to support a tax increase to support the following? Percent of respondents Infrastructure bonds for public facility and road repairs 58% Recreation and park development 52% Special assessment districts for lighting and landscaping 45% Library bonds 44% Stormwater bonds to restore creeks and prevent flooding 34% Building a sports complex 25% Building a new Hall of Justice 15% Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option 34 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc. 34

Subgroup Comparisons Demographic comparisons: Number of years lived in Richmond Ethnicity of respondent Race of respondent Age of respondent ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Subgroup Comparisons Geographic Comparisons: Northern (green) Central (red) Southern (violet) ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

Conclusions Highlights Opportunities Safety services Library services and usage Transportation and Transportation services Opportunities Public schools Public safety Economic development 37 ©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

National Research Center, Inc. 303-444-7863 www.n-r-c.com Thank you! National Research Center, Inc. 303-444-7863 www.n-r-c.com