1. Summary of Findings May 26, 2009
Richmond, California
Summary of Findings
May 26, 2009
©2009 Survey conducted by: National Research Center, Inc. • th St. • Boulder, CO • (303) •

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Community Ratings

6. 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.

7. Community Design

8. Transportation 52% 47% 44% 36%  35% 34%  24% 
National Benchmark
Population 64, ,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.

9. 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.

10. Housing  10
©2009 National Research Center, Inc.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Public Safety

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

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

18. Recreation and Wellness

19. 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.

20. 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

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

22. Community and Civic Engagement

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. City of Richmond Government

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. From Data to Action

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. Custom Questions

32. “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.

33. “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

34. 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

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

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

37. 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.

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