Appendix A
Sectors and Map
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix A
Sectors and Map
Eastern Sector
•
•
•
•
•
Locust Grove
Martha Jefferson
North Downtown
Starr Hill
Woolen Mills
Northern Sector
•
•
•
•
Barracks/Rugby/Kellytown/Greenleaf
Greenbrier
Meadows
Rose Hill
South-Central Sector
•
•
•
Fifeville
Johnson Village
Ridge Street
Southern Sector
•
Belmont
Western Sector
•
•
•
•
•
Fry’s Spring
Jefferson Park Avenue
Lewis Mountain
Venable
10th and Page/WCEH
A-1
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix A
A-2
Appendix B
Questionnaire
CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNING NEEDS 2006
Appendix B
Survey Questionnaire
2006 City of Charlottesville
Survey of Community Planning Issues
I1.
Hello, my name is __________________ and I’m calling from the Center for Survey
Research at the University of Virginia. We’re conducting a survey on behalf of the city
of Charlottesville, to find out what residents of your area like and dislike about your
neighborhood. Results will be used by city departments and the City Council to improve
the services and programs provided. Your household was selected at random to be part of
our sample. Do you have a few minutes to help me out by answering some questions?
Q1.
Before we start, let me mention that all your answers are confidential, and we don’t use
anybody’s name. The survey takes about 20 minutes to complete. First, I need to
confirm that I’ve reached the correct household. Do you live at [ADDRESS SHOWN]?
{Q: ADDRESS}
1
2
9
Yes
No {TERMINATE}
DK/REF
{Q: LEGALAGE}
Q2.
Next, I need to confirm that you are at least 18 years old?
1
2
9
Yes
No {TERMINATE}
DK/REF
{Q: HOWLONG}
Q3.
How long have you lived in the City of Charlottesville? [DEFINITION: COUNT
TOTAL TIME THAT R HAS EVER RESIDED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE.]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LESS THAN ONE YEAR
ONE TO TWO YEARS
THREE TO FIVE YEARS
SIX TO TEN YEARS
ELEVEN TO NINETEEN YEARS
TWENTY YEARS OR MORE, BUT NOT ALL MY LIFE
ALL MY LIFE
DON’T KNOW
REFUSED
B-1
CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNIG NEEDS 2006
Appendix B
{Q: HOWLONG2}
Q4.
And how long have you lived here at this address?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
LESS THAN ONE YEAR
ONE TO TWO YEARS
THREE TO FIVE YEARS
SIX TO TEN YEARS
ELEVEN TO NINETEEN YEARS
TWENTY YEARS OR MORE, BUT NOT ALL MY LIFE
ALL MY LIFE
DON’T KNOW
REFUSED
{Q: NEIGHBOR}
Q5.
Do you happen to know the name of the neighborhood where you live?
1
2
3
4
YES, R KNOWS A NAME FOR AREA
R ONLY KNOWS A STREET NAME
“THERE IS NO NAME FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD”
NO, R DOESN’T KNOW NAME FOR AREA
{Q: HOODNAM}
IF R ANSWERS 1 IN Q5, ASK
Q6.
What is the name of the neighborhood you live in?
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Q6a.
Barracks Road
Barracks Rugby
Belmont
Fifeville
Fry’s Spring
Greenbrier
Jackson Via
JPA – Jefferson Park Avenue
Johnson Village
Lewis Mountain
Locust Grove
Martha Jefferson
Meadows
North Downtown
Ridge Street
Rose Hill
Starr Hill
Tenth & Page
Venable
Woolen Mills
Other (Please Specify)
Please think of the nearest major intersection to your house. Could you tell me the names
or route numbers of the roads that cross there? [Open-end]
B-2
CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNING NEEDS 2006
Appendix B
{Q: HOME}
Q7.
And do you own your own home, or are you renting?
1
2
3
8
9
OWNS [OR IS BUYING]
RENTS
OTHER [SPECIFY]:
DON’T KNOW
REFUSED
{Q: PLACE}
Q8.
What kind of place are you living in? Is it a…
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
Single-family home,
A duplex or 2-family structure,
An apartment, [3 APTS OR MORE IN STRUCTURE]
A mobile home or trailer,
Or some other kind of structure? [SPECIFY:]
DON’T KNOW
REFUSED
{Q: CITYNOW}
Q9.
We’d like first to get a sense of your overall impressions about Charlottesville and the
neighborhood where you live. We’d like you to imagine a scale from 1 to 10, where 1
represents the worst possible community in which to live, and 10 represents the best
possible community. Where on that scale would you rate Charlottesville as a place to
live, from 1 to 10?
ENTER 98 = DON’T KNOW
ENTER 99 = REFUSED
{Q: CITYTHEN}
Q10.
Where on the same 1 to 10 scale would you say that Charlottesville stood five years ago?
ENTER 98 = DON’T KNOW
ENTER 99 = REFUSED
{Q: HOODNOW}
Q11.
Now thinking specifically about the neighborhood where you live, if 10 represents the
best, where on a 1 to 10 scale would you rate your neighborhood as a place to live?
ENTER 98 = DON’T KNOW
ENTER 99 = REFUSED
{Q: HOODTHEN}
Q12.
And where on the same scale would you say that your neighborhood stood five years
ago?
ENTER 98 = DON’T KNOW
ENTER 99 = REFUSED
B-3
CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNIG NEEDS 2006
Appendix B
{Q: CITYBET}
Q13.
If you had to name the one thing that could be done to make Charlottesville a better place
to live, what would it be?
[THREE-LINE OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]
{Q: GOALS}
Q14.
Over the next year, the City of Charlottesville will be updating its comprehensive plan.
We’d like your help in determining which goals should be most important for the plan.
I’m going to read a list of things that we might plan for to make the City of
Charlottesville a better place to live. After I read each one, please tell me how important
you think it is as a goal that we should plan for in the City of Charlottesville.
[IF NECESSARY: How important is ___________ as a goal we should plan for in the City of
Charlottesville: very important, somewhat important, or not that important?]
EVERY RESPONDENT IS RANDOMLY ASKED 10 OF 23 GOALS.
{Q: GOAL1}
Q14a
“Improving the quality of education in the public schools”
Q14b
“Bringing more higher-paying jobs to our area”
Q14c
“Improving the quality of existing housing”
Q14d
“Making housing more affordable for people of lower income”
Q14e
“Preserving natural resources and open space”
Q14f
“Promoting economic growth through redevelopment in selected commercial
areas”
Q14g
“Providing better parks and recreation facilities”
Q14h
“Making the area’s neighborhoods and streets safer”
Q14i
“Continuing to support cultural and entertainment opportunities”
Q14j
“Encouraging racial and cultural diversity in neighborhoods”
Q14k
“Reducing traffic in neighborhoods”
Q14l
“Providing better public transportation”
{Q: GOAL2}
{Q: GOAL3}
{Q: GOAL4}
{Q: GOAL5}
{Q: GOAL6}
{Q: GOAL7}
{Q: GOAL8}
{Q: GOAL9}
{Q: GOAL10}
{Q: GOAL11}
{Q: GOAL12}
{Q: GOAL13}
Q14m “Controlling the rate of growth of our area”
{Q: GOAL14}
Q14n
“Emphasizing prevention and development programs for youth”
Q14o
“Expanding and improving affordable child care services”
Q14p
“Expanding services for the elderly”
{Q: GOAL15}
{Q: GOAL16}
B-4
CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNING NEEDS 2006
Appendix B
{Q: GOAL17}
Q14q
“Emphasizing prevention and self-sufficiency programs for adults”
Q14r
“Making it more convenient to access services and information from
City government”
Q14s
“Expanding affordable health care services in the area”
Q14t
“Keeping taxes at or below their current level”
Q14u
“Expanding cooperation between the University and Charlottesville”
Q14v
“Expanding cooperation between the city of Charlottesville and
Albemarle County”
{Q: GOAL18}
{Q: GOAL19}
{Q: GOAL20}
{Q: GOAL21}
{Q: GOAL22}
{Q: GOAL23}
Q14w “Concentrating future growth of the University on or near the UVA grounds”
1
2
3
8
9
VERY IMPORTANT
SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT
NOT THAT IMPORTANT
DON’T KNOW
REFUSED
{Q: SERVS}
Q15.
Thanks for rating those goals. One of our main purposes in doing this survey is to find
out how satisfied residents of Charlottesville are with the services they receive from the
City. I’m going to list some of the services the City provides. There are about a dozen of
these, and for each one I’d like you to tell me whether you are very satisfied, somewhat
satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the job the City is doing. If you
don’t feel you can rate a particular service, just say so.
{Q: SERV1}
Q15a. The first service is providing police protection in your area. Would you say that you are
very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the job
the City is doing in providing police protection in your area?
1
2
3
4
8
9
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Unable to rate or don’t know
Refused
[IF NECESSARY:] And how satisfied are you with the job the City is doing in…
RANDOMIZE. ASK 12 OF 16 QUESTIONS
{Q: SERV2_1}
Q15b. Repairing and maintaining streets and roads in the city?
{Q: SERV2_2}
Q15c. Repairing and building sidewalks in the city?
B-5
CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNIG NEEDS 2006
Appendix B
{Q: SERV2_3}
Q15d. Controlling litter and weeds on the city streets?
{Q: SERV2_4}
Q15e. Maintaining and improving the drainage system for rain and storm water?
{Q: SERV2_5}
Q15f. Maintaining the appearance of neighborhoods in the City that are less well-off?
{Q: SERV2_6}
Q15g. Providing adequate recreation programs for the city’s young people?
{Q: SERV2_7}
Q15h. Promoting adequate housing opportunities for city residents?
{Q: SERV2_8}
Q15i.
Promoting higher paid employment opportunities for city residents?
Q15j.
Reducing traffic congestion and noise.
{Q: SERV2_9}
{Q: SERV2_10}
Q15k. Providing open green spaces and parks.
{Q: SERV2_11}
Q15l.
Providing adequate public transportation.
{Q: SERV2_12}
Q15m. Providing garbage and solid waste collection
[IF NECESSARY:] And how satisfied are you with the job the City is doing in…
{Q: SERV3_1}
Q15n. Reducing the use of illegal drugs among adults
{Q: SERV3_2}
Q15o. Reducing the use of illegal drugs among youth
{Q: SERV3_3}
Q15p. Protecting children from abuse or neglect in the home
{Q: SERV3_4}
Q15q. Providing public assistance to families in need
1
2
3
4
8
9
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Unable to rate or don’t know
Refused
{Q: OVERALL}
Q16.
Thank you. Now that you’ve answered those specific questions, I’d like you to give an
overall rating of the job the city is doing in providing services. Would you say you are
very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied in general
with the job the City is doing in providing services to its residents?
1
2
3
4
5
6
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Unable to rate or don’t know
Refused
B-6
CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNING NEEDS 2006
Appendix B
{Q:TAXSERV }
Q17.
Finally, a question about taxes. Considering all of the City government’s services on the
one hand and taxes on the other, which of the following statements comes closest to your
view:
1 The City should decrease services and taxes
2 The City should keep taxes and services about where they are; or
3 The City should increase services and taxes?
4 Increase services, keep taxes the same (volunteered)
5 Increase services, decrease taxes (volunteered)
6 Keep services as they are, decrease taxes (volunteered)
7 Some other change (volunteered)
8 DON’T KNOW/NO OPINION
9 REFUSED
Q18.
In the next part of the survey, I’d like to get your opinions about various aspects of living
in [NEIGHBORHOOD NAME]. What would you say is the thing you like best about
living in [NEIGHBORHOOD NAME]?
{Q: HOODBEST}
[TWO-LINE OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]
{Q: HOODPROB}
Q19.
And these days what would you say is the most important problem in
[NEIGHBORHOOD NAME]?
[TWO-LINE OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]
{Q: CHOICE}
Q20.
If you had your choice, do you think you would like to be living in this neighborhood five
years from now, or would you prefer to be living someplace else?
1
2
3
9
This neighborhood
Someplace else
Don’t know
Refused
{Q: HOUSING}
Q21.
Let’s look at housing issues now. People tell us different things about housing in their
neighborhoods. I’m going to read some statements that we sometimes hear. For each
one, would you please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree,
or strongly disagree with it. [Here’s the first statement:]
{Q: HOUSING1}
Q21a. The cost of rent in the neighborhood is too high.
{Q: HOUSING2}
Q21b. The cost of buying a home in the neighborhood is too high.
{Q: HOUSING3}
Q21c. Overall this neighborhood is clean and well maintained.
{Q: HOUSING4}
Q21d. The neighborhood’s houses are very well-maintained.
B-7
CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNIG NEEDS 2006
Appendix B
{Q: HOUSING5}
Q21e. Housing in this neighborhood is all pretty much the same.
{Q: HOUSING6}
Q21f. There is too much noise in the neighborhood.
{Q: HOUSING7}
Q21g. It’s easy to walk around in my neighborhood.
{Q: HOUSING8}
Q21h. There is satisfactory bus service in my neighborhood.
{Q: HOUSING9}
Q21i.
It’s easy to park in my neighborhood.
1
2
3
4
8
9
Strongly agree
Somewhat agree
Somewhat disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know
Refused
{Q: SAFETY}
Q22.
I’d like to ask you just a few questions about safety and security issues in your
neighborhood and other parts of this city. How safe do you feel...
{Q: SAFETY1}
Q22a. …In your neighborhood during the day time?
{Q: SAFETY2}
Q22b. …In your neighborhood after dark?
{Q: SAFETY3}
Q22c. …In business areas of the city during daylight?
{Q: SAFETY4}
Q22d. …In business areas of the city after dark?
{Q: SAFETY5}
Q22e. …In the West Main Street area during daylight?
{Q: SAFETY6}
Q22f. …In the West Main Street area after dark?
{Q: SAFETY7}
Q22g. …On the Downtown Mall during daylight?
{Q: SAFETY8}
Q22h. …On the Downtown Mall after dark?
1
2
3
4
8
9
Very safe
Somewhat safe
Somewhat unsafe
Very unsafe
Unable to rate or don’t know
Refused
{Q: CRIME}
Q23.
Compared with other problems facing the people who live in [AREA NAME], how
important a problem is crime in this area? Would you say that it is
1
2
The most important problem in [AREA NAME]
One of the more important problems in [AREA NAME], or
B-8
CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNING NEEDS 2006
Appendix B
3
8
9
Not that important a problem in [AREA NAME]?
DON’T KNOW
REFUSED
{Q: MORESAFE}
IF R ANSWERS 1 OR 2 in Q23, ASK
Q24. What do you think is the most important thing the City could do to make people in [AREA
NAME] feel safer and more secure?
[TWO-LINE OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE]
RANDOMIZE AND ASK 4 OF 7
{Q: IMPROVE}
Q25.
Now I’m going to read a list of a few improvements that might be made in the
neighborhood, and I’d like you to tell me how important you think each one is.
{Q: IMPROVE1}
Q25a. To create and maintain a more visually attractive neighborhood. [DEFINITION:
Improvements that would make the neighborhood look nicer.]
{Q: IMPROVE2}
Q25b. Doing more to maintain the neighborhood’s streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and
alleyways.
{Q: IMPROVE3}
Q25c. To create a neighborhood that is more unified and better organized to solve its
problems.
{Q: IMPROVE4}
Q25d. How about doing more to maintain the neighborhood’s rental properties?
[DEFINITION: We mean upkeep and maintenance on existing rental
properties.]
{Q: IMPROVE5}
Q25e. To improve the quality of housing in the neighborhood.
{Q: IMPROVE6}
Q25f. To have more effective traffic and parking controls.
{Q: IMPROVE7}
Q25g. How about increasing home ownership among neighborhood residents?
[READ CATEGORIES IF NECESSARY:]
1
Very important
2
Somewhat important
3
Not important
8
Don’t know
9
Refused
B-9
CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNIG NEEDS 2006
Appendix B
{Q: ASSOC}
Q26.
Is there a neighborhood association or homeowner’s association in your area that you
participate in—or does your area not have such an association?
1
2
3
9
Yes, R participates
No, R knows of neighborhood ass’n but does not participate
None, R does not know of a neighborhood ass’n
Refused to answer
{Q: ASSCPART}
IF ANSWERED 2,3, OR 9 IN Q25::
Q27. Would you be interested in participating in a neighborhood association in your area?
1
Yes
2
No
8
Don’t know
9
Refused
[INTERVIEWER: YOU CAN GIVE INFO TO R ABOUT ASSOCIATIONS AT THIS
POINT IF THEY ARE INTERESTED--*GIVE 970-3182 DEPT. OF
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES]
{Q:COOP}
Q28.
As you probably know, Charlottesville is an independent city with a separate government
and school system from Albemarle County. Over the years, people have talked about
different things that might be done to increase cooperation between the City and the
County. Please tell me if you favor or oppose each of the following proposals:
{Q:COOP1}
Q28a. The City and the County should work together more closely in planning for the
whole community.
{Q:COOP2}
Q28b. The City and the County should set up more joint programs and services that
would serve the entire area.
{Q:COOP3 }
Q28c. The City and County should merge their park and recreation systems into one
area-wide system.
{Q:COOP4}
Q28d. The City and the County should consolidate into a single, unified government
that serves the whole area.
{Q:COOP5}
Q28e. The City police department and the County police department should be merged.
{Q:COOP6}
Q28f. The City schools and the County schools should be merged.
{Q:COOP7}
Q28g. The City and County should provide joint fire-fighting services.
B-10
CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNING NEEDS 2006
Appendix B
Do you favor or oppose that?
1
2
3
4
8
9
STRONGLY FAVOR
SOMEWHAT FAVOR
SOMEWHAT OPPOSE
STRONGLY OPPOSE
DON'T KNOW
REFUSED
{Q: COMPUTER}
Q29.
Do you have access to a computer in your home?
1
2
8
9
Yes
No
Don’t know
Refused
{Q:USEWEB}
Q30. In the last 12 months, have you accessed the Internet or used the World Wide Web from
home or work?
1
2
8
9
Yes
No
Don’t know
Refused
{Q: NUMADULT}
Q31.
Now I have just a few final questions to ask. We ask these questions just for statistical
purposes, and as I mentioned all your answers are strictly confidential. How many
adults, 18 and older, live in your household, including yourself?
ENTER NUMBER HERE__AND PRESS RETURN
ENTER “99” FOR REFUSAL
{Q: NUMCHILD}
Q32. And how many children live in your household?
[CHILDREN=PERSONS 17 AND UNDER]
ENTER NUMBER HERE__AND PRESS RETURN
ENTER “99” FOR REFUSAL
B-11
CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNIG NEEDS 2006
Appendix B
{Q: PUBSCHL}
IF ANSWER TO Q30 IS >0:
Q33. Do any of them attend Charlottesville public schools?
1
2
8
9
Yes, has kids in C’ville schools
No, no kids in C’ville schools
Don’t know
Refused
{Q:YEARBORN}
Q34.
In what year were you born?
ENTER YEAR HERE _______AND PRESS RETURN
ENTER “9999” FOR REFUSED
{Q: EMPLOY}
Q35.
Which of the following best describes you? Are you working full time, working part
time, looking for work, homemaker, retired, or student?
[IF YOU ARE GIVEN TWO, ASK: Which best describes you?]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
WORKING FULL TIME [30 HRS/WK OR MORE]
WORKING PART TIME
LOOKING FOR WORK
HOMEMAKER
RETIRED
STUDENT
OTHER
DON’T KNOW/REFUSED
{Q: MARRIED}
Q36.
What is your current marital status? Are you married, separated, divorced, widowed, or
have you never been married?
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
Married
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
Never married
Don’t know
Refused
{Q: VOTER}
Q37.
Are you currently registered to vote in Charlottesville?
1
2
8
9
Yes, registered in Charlottesville
No, not registered in Charlottesville
Don’t’ know
Refused
B-12
CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNING NEEDS 2006
Appendix B
{Q: EDUCATE}
Q38.
What is the highest level of education you completed?
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
98
99
Elementary school only
Some high school, did not finish
Completed high school
Some college but didn’t finish
2 year college degree/ A.A./A.S.
4 year college degree/B.A./B.S.
Some graduate work
Completed masters or professional degree
Advanced graduate work or PH.D.
Don’t know
Refused
{Q: INCOME}
Q39.
I am going to read a list of income ranges. Would you please stop me when I read the
range that best describes where your annual household income from all sources falls.
That would be before taxes and deductions.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
B
Below fifteen thousand dollars
Fifteen to 30 thousand
Thirty to 45 thousand
Forty-five to 60 thousand
Sixty to 75 thousand
Seventy-five to 100 thousand
Hundred thousand to 150 thousand
Over 150 thousand
Don’t know
Refused
[$0 - $14,999]
[$15,000 - $29,999]
[$30,000 - $44,999]
[$45,000 - $59,999]
[$60,000 - $74,999]
[$75,000 - $99,999]
[$100,000 - $150,000]
[$150,000 + ]
{Q: HISPANIC}
Q40
Do you consider yourself to be of Hispanic origin?
1
YES
2
NO
8
DON'T KNOW
9
REFUSED
(Q: RACE}
Q41. Finally, I am going to read some racial categories. Would you tell me what category best
describes you?
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
White,
[READ ONE:] African American / Black
Asian? [INCLUDING SOUTH ASIAN]
American Indian [NATIVE AMERICAN; INCLUDES ESKIMO, ALEUT]
Pacific Islander?
OTHER [SPECIFY . . . ]
DON’T KNOW
REFUSED
B-13
CHARLOTTESVILLE PLANNIG NEEDS 2006
Appendix B
{Q: RGENDER}
Q42
ENTER RESPONDENT’S GENDER
IF UNSURE: Now I just need to put down whether you are male or female…
1 MALE
2 FEMALE
8 DON’T KNOW/CAN’T TELL
Q43.
Those are all the questions I have for you. Before I say good-bye, are there any other
comments you’d like to make?
{Q:RCOMM}
ENTER COMMENTS:
{Q:THANKS}
Q44.
We really appreciate the time you have taken to help in answering these important
questions. Thank you very much and have a good day/night.
---------------------------------------------------------------INTERVIEWERS: HANG UP THE PHONE IMMEDIATELY
IF YOU ARE READY TO MOVE ON, PRESS "1" TO CONTINUE
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THE RESULTS OF THIS CALL WILL NOT BE SAVED UNTIL YOU
COMPLETE THE REMAINING QUESTIONS
B-14
Appendix C
Frequencies and Substantive Variables by
Neighborhood Sector
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Frequencies &
Substantive Variables by Neighborhood Sector
2006
* For purposes of comparing the five sectors of Charlottesville (“Sector” columns), the data are weighted by race, gender, and
homeownership, whereas for the overall analysis (“Total” column), the data are weighted by race, gender, homeownership, and
sector population. Due to this difference in weighting, the sum of each row is not necessarily equal to the results displayed in the
“Total” column. Both types of weighting are based upon 2000 Census data.
Table C.1
SECTOR
Q3. LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN
CHARLOTTESVILLE
Less than one year
One to two years
Three to four years
Five to ten years
Eleven to nineteen years
Twenty years or more, but not all
my life
All my life
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
11
16
7
17
29
86
% within
region
6.5%
7.4%
3.8%
7.2%
9.7%
7.7%
Count
18
20
13
22
43
122
% within
region
10.6%
9.3%
7.0%
9.4%
14.3%
11.0%
Count
16
22
28
17
51
139
% within
region
9.4%
10.2%
15.1%
7.2%
17.0%
12.5%
Count
33
43
21
36
60
200
% within
region
19.4%
20.0%
11.3%
15.3%
20.0%
18.0%
Count
18
31
19
21
21
108
% within
region
10.6%
14.4%
10.2%
8.9%
7.0%
9.8%
Count
59
60
65
61
69
305
% within
region
34.7%
27.9%
34.9%
26.0%
23.0%
27.5%
Count
15
23
33
61
27
148
% within
region
8.8%
10.7%
17.7%
26.0%
9.0%
13.4%
Count
170
215
186
235
300
1,107
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-1
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.2
SECTOR
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
18
34
21
30
55
162
% within
region
10.7%
16.0%
11.3%
12.8%
18.4%
14.7%
Count
20
33
34
53
79
225
% within
region
11.9%
15.5%
18.3%
22.6%
26.4%
20.4%
Count
25
32
35
35
32
152
% within
region
14.9%
15.0%
18.8%
14.9%
10.7%
13.8%
Count
44
39
40
45
47
210
% within
region
26.2%
18.3%
21.5%
19.1%
15.7%
19.1%
Count
21
29
16
26
32
128
% within
region
12.5%
13.6%
8.6%
11.1%
10.7%
11.6%
Count
35
43
38
45
52
211
% within
region
20.8%
20.2%
20.4%
19.1%
17.4%
19.2%
Count
5
3
2
1
2
13
% within
region
3.0%
1.4%
1.1%
0.4%
0.7%
1.2%
Count
168
213
186
235
299
1,103
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q4. LENGTH OF RESIDENCE AT ADDRESS
Less than one year
One to two years
Three to four years
Five to ten years
Eleven to nineteen years
Twenty years or more, but not all
my life
All my life
Total
C-2
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.3
SECTOR
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
120
149
167
191
214
825
% within
region
70.6%
69.3%
89.8%
80.9%
71.6%
74.6%
Count
9
21
5
10
28
79
% within
region
5.3%
9.8%
2.7%
4.2%
9.4%
7.2%
Count
12
5
3
0
4
26
% within
region
7.1%
2.3%
1.6%
0.0%
1.3%
2.4%
Count
29
40
11
35
53
176
% within
region
17.1%
18.6%
5.9%
14.8%
17.7%
15.9%
Count
170
215
186
236
299
1,106
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q5. KNOW NAME OF NEIGHBORHOOD
Yes R knows name for area
R only knows street name
There is no name for this hood
No, R doesn't know name for area
Total
Table C.4
SECTOR
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
98
100
72
90
108
467
% within
region
57.6%
46.7%
38.3%
38.1%
36.4%
42.4%
Count
69
112
115
144
187
625
% within
region
40.6%
52.3%
61.2%
61.0%
63.0%
56.7%
Count
3
2
1
2
2
10
% within
region
1.8%
0.9%
0.5%
0.8%
0.7%
0.9%
Count
170
214
188
236
297
1,103
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q7. OWN OR RENTING HOME
Owns [or is Buying]
Rents
Other
Total
C-3
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.5
SECTOR
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
128
117
95
117
159
624
% within
region
75.7%
54.9%
50.8%
49.8%
53.4%
56.6%
Count
6
24
27
54
37
142
% within
region
3.6%
11.3%
14.4%
23.0%
12.4%
12.9%
Count
32
70
57
60
100
321
% within
region
18.9%
32.9%
30.5%
25.5%
33.6%
29.1%
Count
0
0
5
1
0
4
% within
region
0.0%
0.0%
2.7%
0.4%
0.0%
0.3%
Count
3
2
3
3
2
12
% within
region
1.8%
0.9%
1.6%
1.3%
0.7%
1.1%
Count
169
213
187
235
298
1,104
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Q8. KIND OF PLACE LIVING IN
Single family home
Duplex or 2 family structure
Apartment
Mobile home or trailer
Other structure
Total
C-4
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.6
SECTOR
Q9. CHARLOTTESVILLE AS A PLACE TO LIVE
(NOW)
1 (Worst)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 (Best)
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
3
1
3
4
0
8
% within
region
1.8%
0.5%
1.7%
1.7%
0.0%
0.8%
Count
1
2
2
0
0
4
% within
region
0.6%
0.9%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
Count
0
0
5
6
0
9
% within
region
0.0%
0.0%
2.8%
2.5%
0.0%
0.8%
Count
2
6
2
4
8
24
% within
region
1.2%
2.8%
1.1%
1.7%
2.7%
2.2%
Count
9
8
19
27
10
64
% within
region
5.4%
3.8%
10.6%
11.4%
3.4%
5.8%
Count
13
8
14
27
23
83
% within
region
7.7%
3.8%
7.8%
11.4%
7.7%
7.6%
Count
33
35
28
44
58
202
% within
region
19.6%
16.6%
15.6%
18.6%
19.5%
18.5%
Count
49
83
59
64
117
380
% within
region
29.2%
39.3%
32.8%
27.1%
39.3%
34.9%
Count
34
25
28
27
45
160
% within
region
20.2%
11.8%
15.6%
11.4%
15.1%
14.7%
Count
24
43
20
33
37
157
% within
region
14.3%
20.4%
11.1%
14.0%
12.4%
14.4%
Count
168
211
180
236
298
1,090
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-5
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.7
SECTOR
Q10. CHARLOTTESVILLE AS A PLACE TO LIVE
FIVE YEARS AGO
1 (Worst)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 (Best)
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
1
1
2
2
1
6
% within
region
0.8%
0.7%
1.6%
1.2%
0.6%
0.8%
Count
1
1
2
1
0
4
% within
region
0.8%
0.7%
1.6%
0.6%
0.0%
0.5%
Count
0
1
6
3
0
8
% within
region
0.0%
0.7%
4.7%
1.8%
0.0%
1.1%
Count
0
0
2
11
6
18
% within
region
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
6.5%
3.5%
2.6%
Count
4
8
19
20
8
51
% within
region
3.3%
5.4%
15.0%
11.8%
4.7%
7.1%
Count
9
12
4
24
8
56
% within
region
7.4%
8.2%
3.1%
14.1%
4.7%
7.7%
Count
17
22
15
26
36
119
% within
region
13.9%
15.0%
11.8%
15.3%
21.2%
16.4%
Count
34
45
36
41
52
206
% within
region
27.9%
30.6%
28.3%
24.1%
30.6%
28.4%
Count
29
19
21
17
27
112
% within
region
23.8%
12.9%
16.5%
10.0%
15.9%
15.5%
Count
27
38
20
25
32
144
% within
region
22.1%
25.9%
15.7%
14.7%
18.8%
19.9%
Count
122
147
127
170
170
725
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-6
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.8
SECTOR
Q11. NEIGHBORHOOD AS A PLACE TO LIVE
(NOW)
1 (Worst)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 (Best)
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
1
0
3
10
0
12
% within
region
0.6%
0.0%
1.7%
4.3%
0.0%
1.1%
Count
1
3
2
3
0
7
% within
region
0.6%
1.4%
1.1%
1.3%
0.0%
0.7%
Count
2
0
1
12
6
19
% within
region
1.2%
0.0%
0.6%
5.2%
2.1%
1.8%
Count
4
5
8
9
8
33
% within
region
2.4%
2.4%
4.5%
3.9%
2.8%
3.1%
Count
7
7
24
33
28
94
% within
region
4.3%
3.3%
13.6%
14.3%
9.8%
8.7%
Count
10
13
16
32
48
124
% within
region
6.1%
6.1%
9.0%
13.9%
16.7%
11.6%
Count
24
36
37
38
53
188
% within
region
14.6%
17.0%
20.9%
16.5%
18.5%
17.6%
Count
42
57
34
51
75
264
% within
region
25.6%
26.9%
19.2%
22.1%
26.1%
24.6%
Count
41
39
22
13
35
156
% within
region
25.0%
18.4%
12.4%
5.6%
12.2%
14.5%
Count
32
52
30
30
34
174
% within
region
19.5%
24.5%
16.9%
13.0%
11.8%
16.3%
Count
164
212
177
231
287
1,072
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-7
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.9
SECTOR
Q12. NEIGHBORHOOD AS A PLACE TO LIVE
FIVE YEARS AGO
1 (Worst)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 (Best)
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
0
0
0
4
0
4
% within
region
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.5%
0.0%
0.7%
Count
0
1
0
4
0
4
% within
region
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
3.5%
0.0%
0.7%
Count
0
0
1
10
3
13
% within
region
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
8.8%
2.3%
2.4%
Count
0
1
5
9
6
19
% within
region
0.0%
0.9%
5.5%
8.0%
4.7%
3.5%
Count
4
2
7
22
7
38
% within
region
3.9%
1.8%
7.7%
19.5%
5.5%
6.9%
Count
8
6
21
8
15
54
% within
region
7.8%
5.3%
23.1%
7.1%
11.7%
10.0%
Count
7
17
14
16
20
73
% within
region
6.9%
15.0%
15.4%
14.2%
15.6%
13.5%
Count
33
33
13
18
25
126
% within
region
32.4%
29.2%
14.3%
15.9%
19.5%
23.2%
Count
27
17
8
8
27
92
% within
region
26.5%
15.0%
8.8%
7.1%
21.1%
17.0%
Count
23
36
22
14
25
120
% within
region
22.5%
31.9%
24.2%
12.4%
19.5%
22.1%
Count
102
113
91
113
128
543
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-8
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.10
SECTOR
Q14a. GOAL1: IMPROVING QUALITY OF
EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
3
3
0
1
3
11
% within
region
4.0%
3.4%
0.0%
0.9%
2.2%
2.2%
Count
11
14
10
8
17
60
% within
region
14.7%
15.9%
14.9%
7.3%
12.7%
12.6%
Count
61
71
57
101
114
408
% within
region
81.3%
80.7%
85.1%
91.8%
85.1%
85.2%
Count
75
88
67
110
134
479
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.11
SECTOR
Q14b. GOAL2: BRINGING MORE HIGHER
PAYING JOBS TO AREA
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
15
8
4
5
12
46
% within
region
19.2%
8.2%
5.3%
5.1%
9.1%
9.4%
Count
23
43
21
22
51
166
% within
region
29.5%
44.3%
27.6%
22.2%
38.6%
34.2%
Count
40
46
51
72
69
274
% within
region
51.3%
47.4%
67.1%
72.7%
52.3%
56.4%
Count
78
97
76
99
132
486
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-9
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.12
SECTOR
Q14c. GOAL3: IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF
EXISTING HOUSING
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
13
5
3
4
16
44
% within
region
18.8%
6.9%
4.6%
4.2%
13.9%
10.4%
Count
30
27
16
19
46
146
% within
region
43.5%
37.5%
24.6%
20.0%
40.0%
34.8%
Count
26
40
46
72
53
229
% within
region
37.7%
55.6%
70.8%
75.8%
46.1%
54.8%
Count
69
72
65
95
115
418
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.13
SECTOR
Q14d. GOAL4: MAKING HOUSING MORE
AFFORDABLE FOR PEOPLE OF LOWER
INCOME
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
1
7
2
2
8
21
% within
region
1.4%
8.0%
2.5%
2.1%
7.1%
4.9%
Count
7
7
10
6
17
47
% within
region
10.1%
8.0%
12.3%
6.3%
15.0%
10.7%
Count
61
74
69
87
88
371
% within
region
88.4%
84.1%
85.2%
91.6%
77.9%
84.4%
Count
69
88
81
95
113
440
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-10
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.14
SECTOR
Q14e. GOAL5: PRESERVING NATURAL
RESOURCES AND OPEN SPACE
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
4
3
5
9
5
25
% within
region
6.3%
3.2%
6.2%
8.3%
3.8%
5.2%
Count
13
18
13
28
34
109
% within
region
20.3%
19.1%
16.0%
25.9%
25.6%
22.7%
Count
47
73
63
71
94
346
% within
region
73.4%
77.7%
77.8%
65.7%
70.7%
72.1%
Count
64
94
81
108
133
480
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.15
SECTOR
Q14f. GOAL6: PROMOTING ECONOMIC
GROWTH THROUGH REDEVELOPMENT IN
SELECT COMMERICIAL AREAS
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
16
25
19
15
26
102
% within
region
22.9%
29.8%
25.0%
16.1%
21.1%
22.9%
Count
24
32
35
35
55
182
% within
region
34.3%
38.1%
46.1%
37.6%
44.7%
40.8%
Count
30
27
22
43
42
162
% within
region
42.9%
32.1%
28.9%
46.2%
34.1%
36.3%
Count
70
84
76
93
123
445
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-11
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.16
SECTOR
Q14g. GOAL7: PROVIDING BETTER PARKS
AND RECREATION FACILITIES
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
16
11
8
10
32
84
% within
region
23.5%
11.5%
12.1%
10.0%
24.6%
18.0%
Count
28
50
25
33
58
201
% within
region
41.2%
52.1%
37.9%
33.0%
44.6%
43.0%
Count
24
35
33
57
40
181
% within
region
35.3%
36.5%
50.0%
57.0%
30.8%
38.9%
Count
68
96
66
100
130
466
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.17
SECTOR
Q14h. GOAL8: MAKING THE AREA’S HOODS
AND STREETS SAFER
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
8
6
6
1
8
30
% within
region
13.1%
6.8%
8.7%
1.1%
6.9%
7.0%
Count
11
27
19
16
20
90
% within
region
18.0%
30.7%
27.5%
18.0%
17.2%
21.3%
Count
42
55
44
72
88
304
% within
region
68.9%
62.5%
63.8%
80.9%
75.9%
71.7%
Count
61
88
69
89
116
424
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-12
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.18
SECTOR
Q14i. GOAL9: CONTINUING TO SUPPORT
CULTURAL AND ENTERTAINMENT
OPPORTUNITIES
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
6
12
6
8
11
43
% within
region
8.2%
14.0%
7.1%
8.0%
8.5%
9.2%
Count
31
36
31
45
53
196
% within
region
42.5%
41.9%
36.9%
45.0%
41.1%
41.6%
Count
36
38
47
47
65
232
% within
region
49.3%
44.2%
56.0%
47.0%
50.4%
49.2%
Count
73
86
84
100
129
471
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.19
SECTOR
Q14j. GOAL10: ENCOURAGING RACIAL AND
CULTURAL DIVERSITY IN NEIGHBORHOODS
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
5
5
10
8
8
32
% within
region
7.8%
6.0%
12.5%
9.9%
6.7%
7.5%
Count
15
29
19
12
30
107
% within
region
23.4%
34.5%
23.8%
14.8%
25.0%
24.9%
Count
44
50
51
61
82
291
% within
region
68.8%
59.5%
63.8%
75.3%
68.3%
67.6%
Count
64
84
80
81
120
431
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-13
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.20
SECTOR
Q14k. GOAL11: REDUCING TRAFFIC IN
NEIGHBORHOODS
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
10
14
15
9
22
71
% within
region
13.9%
15.6%
20.3%
9.9%
19.1%
16.0%
Count
16
31
23
30
33
131
% within
region
22.2%
34.4%
31.1%
33.0%
28.7%
29.7%
Count
46
45
36
52
60
241
% within
region
63.9%
50.0%
48.6%
57.1%
52.2%
54.4%
Count
72
90
74
91
115
443
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.21
SECTOR
Q14l. GOAL12: PROVIDING BETTER PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
5
11
13
9
21
59
% within
region
7.0%
12.4%
17.6%
9.5%
17.2%
13.0%
Count
27
29
13
21
44
144
% within
region
38.0%
32.6%
17.6%
22.1%
36.1%
31.9%
Count
39
49
48
65
57
250
% within
region
54.9%
55.1%
64.9%
68.4%
46.7%
55.1%
Count
71
89
74
95
122
453
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-14
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.22
SECTOR
Q14m. GOAL13: CONTROLLING THE RATE OF
GROWTH OF OUR AREA
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
12
13
14
15
15
65
% within
region
16.4%
13.1%
15.1%
14.4%
12.1%
13.4%
Count
13
30
29
40
33
139
% within
region
17.8%
30.3%
31.2%
38.5%
26.6%
28.7%
Count
48
56
50
49
76
280
% within
region
65.8%
56.6%
53.8%
47.1%
61.3%
57.9%
Count
73
99
93
104
124
484
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.23
SECTOR
Q14n. GOAL14: EMPHASIZING PREVENTION
AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR YOUTH
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
4
4
2
0
5
16
% within
region
6.5%
4.8%
2.9%
0.0%
5.0%
4.0%
Count
15
25
28
11
27
104
% within
region
24.2%
29.8%
40.0%
13.8%
27.0%
26.2%
Count
43
55
40
69
68
275
% within
region
69.4%
65.5%
57.1%
86.3%
68.0%
69.8%
Count
62
84
70
80
100
395
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-15
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.24
SECTOR
Q14o. GOAL15: EXPANDING AND IMPROVING
AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE SERVICES
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
12
10
6
7
15
51
% within
region
14.6%
11.0%
7.0%
6.1%
11.4%
10.2%
Count
27
22
30
32
40
148
% within
region
32.9%
24.2%
34.9%
27.8%
30.3%
29.4%
Count
43
59
50
76
77
303
% within
region
52.4%
64.8%
58.1%
66.1%
58.3%
60.4%
Count
82
91
86
115
132
502
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.25
SECTOR
Q14p. GOAL16: EXPANDING SERVICES FOR
THE ELDERLY
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
6
7
6
1
14
37
% within
region
8.8%
9.5%
8.0%
1.0%
12.7%
8.6%
Count
30
25
13
23
29
122
% within
region
44.1%
33.8%
17.3%
23.0%
26.4%
28.7%
Count
32
42
56
76
67
266
% within
region
47.1%
56.8%
74.7%
76.0%
60.9%
62.6%
Count
68
74
75
100
110
424
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-16
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.26
SECTOR
Q14q. GOAL17: EMPHASIZING PREVENTION
AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROGRAMS FOR
ADULTS
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
8
11
7
7
16
52
% within
region
11.0%
12.4%
8.9%
6.7%
12.2%
10.8%
Count
32
35
26
35
52
183
% within
region
43.8%
39.3%
32.9%
33.7%
39.7%
38.3%
Count
33
43
46
62
63
243
% within
region
45.2%
48.3%
58.2%
59.6%
48.1%
50.9%
Count
73
89
79
104
131
478
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.27
SECTOR
Q14r. GOAL18: MAKING IT MORE CONVENIENT
TO ACCESS SERVICES AND INFORMATION
FROM CITY GOVERNMENT
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
16
17
17
5
22
78
% within
region
23.9%
19.3%
20.7%
5.2%
18.2%
17.3%
Count
29
40
31
38
61
203
% within
region
43.3%
45.5%
37.8%
39.2%
50.4%
45.0%
Count
22
31
34
54
38
170
% within
region
32.8%
35.2%
41.5%
55.7%
31.4%
37.7%
Count
67
88
82
97
121
451
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-17
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.28
SECTOR
Q14s. GOAL19: EXPANDING AFFORDABLE
HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN THE AREA
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
5
6
2
6
11
31
% within
region
8.5%
8.1%
2.7%
6.6%
10.7%
8.0%
Count
14
11
12
11
19
66
% within
region
23.7%
14.9%
16.4%
12.1%
18.4%
16.9%
Count
40
57
59
74
73
294
% within
region
67.8%
77.0%
80.8%
81.3%
70.9%
75.1%
Count
59
74
73
91
103
392
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.29
SECTOR
Q14t. GOAL20: KEEPING TAXES AT OR BELOW
THEIR CURRENT LEVEL
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
10
19
12
10
15
65
% within
region
14.5%
20.0%
15.2%
8.4%
12.0%
13.4%
Count
16
29
17
29
38
131
% within
region
23.2%
30.5%
21.5%
24.4%
30.4%
27.0%
Count
43
47
50
80
72
289
% within
region
62.3%
49.5%
63.3%
67.2%
57.6%
59.6%
Count
69
95
79
119
125
485
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-18
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.30
SECTOR
Q14u. GOAL21: EXPANDING COOPERATION
BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY AND
CHARLOTTESVILLE
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
12
11
15
10
15
62
% within
region
15.2%
11.1%
16.3%
9.3%
10.3%
11.9%
Count
23
36
41
45
49
188
% within
region
29.1%
36.4%
44.6%
42.1%
33.6%
35.9%
Count
44
52
36
52
82
274
% within
region
55.7%
52.5%
39.1%
48.6%
56.2%
52.3%
Count
79
99
92
107
146
524
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.31
SECTOR
Q14v. GOAL22: EXPANDING COOPERATION
BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
9
9
15
10
15
56
% within
region
12.3%
10.1%
18.8%
10.9%
13.2%
12.6%
Count
25
32
33
31
40
158
% within
region
34.2%
36.0%
41.3%
33.7%
35.1%
35.6%
Count
39
48
32
51
59
230
% within
region
53.4%
53.9%
40.0%
55.4%
51.8%
51.8%
Count
73
89
80
92
114
445
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-19
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.32
SECTOR
Q14w. GOAL23: CONCENTRATING FUTURE
GROWTH OF THE UNIVERSITY ON OR NEAR
THE UVA GROUNDS
1 Not that important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
16
26
30
41
23
126
% within
region
27.6%
31.7%
41.1%
43.6%
18.7%
29.1%
Count
14
28
25
29
33
127
% within
region
24.1%
34.1%
34.2%
30.9%
26.8%
29.4%
Count
28
28
18
24
67
179
% within
region
48.3%
34.1%
24.7%
25.5%
54.5%
41.5%
Count
58
82
73
94
123
432
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.33
SECTOR
Q15a. SERV1: POLICE PROTECTION IN YOUR
AREA
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
2
8
13
10
7
36
% within
region
1.2%
4.0%
7.2%
4.5%
2.5%
3.4%
Count
12
7
11
22
19
70
% within
region
7.5%
3.5%
6.1%
9.9%
6.9%
6.7%
Count
77
81
81
101
135
480
% within
region
47.8%
40.1%
44.8%
45.5%
48.9%
46.2%
Count
70
106
76
89
115
453
% within
region
43.5%
52.5%
42.0%
40.1%
41.7%
43.6%
Count
161
202
181
222
276
1038
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-20
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.34
SECTOR
Q15b. SERV2_1: REPAIRING AND
MAINTAINING STREETS AND ROADS IN CITY
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
3
9
11
14
8
41
% within
region
2.5%
5.8%
8.8%
8.9%
4.2%
5.5%
Count
12
16
22
33
24
103
% within
region
10.2%
10.4%
17.6%
21.0%
12.6%
13.8%
Count
71
72
68
71
103
388
% within
region
60.2%
46.8%
54.4%
45.2%
54.2%
52.1%
Count
32
57
24
39
55
212
% within
region
27.1%
37.0%
19.2%
24.8%
28.9%
28.5%
Count
118
154
125
157
190
743
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.35
SECTOR
Q15c. SERV2_2: REPAIRING AND BUILDING
SIDEWALKS IN CITY
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
10
19
19
14
18
77
% within
region
9.3%
13.5%
17.0%
9.3%
9.5%
10.9%
Count
20
35
23
31
36
143
% within
region
18.5%
24.8%
20.5%
20.5%
19.0%
20.3%
Count
51
54
47
74
86
314
% within
region
47.2%
38.3%
42.0%
49.0%
45.5%
44.7%
Count
27
33
23
32
49
169
% within
region
25.0%
23.4%
20.5%
21.2%
25.9%
24.1%
Count
108
141
112
151
189
702
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-21
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.36
SECTOR
Q15d. SERV2_3: CONTROLLING LITTER AND
WEEDS ON CITY STREETS
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
9
5
8
24
9
51
% within
region
8.3%
3.8%
7.0%
15.8%
4.6%
7.3%
Count
3
19
17
23
33
98
% within
region
2.8%
14.5%
14.8%
15.1%
17.0%
14.0%
Count
35
59
59
54
89
296
% within
region
32.4%
45.0%
51.3%
35.5%
45.9%
42.2%
Count
61
48
31
51
63
257
% within
region
56.5%
36.6%
27.0%
33.6%
32.5%
36.6%
Count
108
131
115
152
194
702
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.37
SECTOR
Q15e. SERV2_4: MAINTAINING AND
IMPROVING THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM FOR
RAIN AND STORM WATER
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
9
11
6
14
22
65
% within
region
8.7%
10.0%
5.7%
10.9%
13.1%
10.6%
Count
23
13
20
24
37
120
% within
region
22.3%
11.8%
18.9%
18.8%
22.0%
19.5%
Count
47
51
55
63
80
296
% within
region
45.6%
46.4%
51.9%
49.2%
47.6%
48.1%
Count
24
35
25
27
29
133
% within
region
23.3%
31.8%
23.6%
21.1%
17.3%
21.7%
Count
103
110
106
128
168
614
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-22
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.38
SECTOR
Q15f. SERV2_5: MAINTAINING THE
APPEARANCE OF NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE
CITY THAT ARE LESS WELL OFF
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
4
10
10
31
14
65
% within
region
4.5%
8.8%
9.7%
21.2%
9.2%
10.9%
Count
26
38
21
40
37
161
% within
region
29.5%
33.6%
20.4%
27.4%
24.3%
27.0%
Count
42
48
49
57
85
284
% within
region
47.7%
42.5%
47.6%
39.0%
55.9%
47.7%
Count
16
17
23
18
16
86
% within
region
18.2%
15.0%
22.3%
12.3%
10.5%
14.4%
Count
88
113
103
146
152
596
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.39
SECTOR
Q15g. SERV2_6: PROVIDING ADEQUATE
RECREATION PROGRAMS FOR YOUNG
PEOPLE
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
8
4
6
20
19
59
% within
region
10.5%
4.1%
7.3%
15.0%
15.7%
11.9%
Count
11
20
17
40
10
87
% within
region
14.5%
20.6%
20.7%
30.1%
8.3%
17.4%
Count
36
44
42
50
59
228
% within
region
47.4%
45.4%
51.2%
37.6%
48.8%
45.6%
Count
21
29
17
23
33
126
% within
region
27.6%
29.9%
20.7%
17.3%
27.3%
25.1%
Count
76
97
82
133
121
499
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-23
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.40
SECTOR
Q15h. SERV2_7: PROMOTING ADEQUATE
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITY
RESIDENTS
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
17
20
17
39
25
116
% within
region
17.9%
16.1%
15.6%
30.7%
18.2%
19.9%
Count
28
43
37
36
44
185
% within
region
29.5%
34.7%
33.9%
28.3%
32.1%
31.8%
Count
37
45
36
37
47
199
% within
region
38.9%
36.3%
33.0%
29.1%
34.3%
34.1%
Count
13
16
19
15
21
82
% within
region
13.7%
12.9%
17.4%
11.8%
15.3%
14.1%
Count
95
124
109
127
137
583
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.41
SECTOR
Q15i. SERV2_8: PROMOTING HIGHER PAID
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR CITY
RESIDENTS
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
15
14
15
34
21
96
% within
region
22.7%
13.2%
16.9%
32.1%
18.8%
20.6%
Count
16
31
25
24
33
128
% within
region
24.2%
29.2%
28.1%
22.6%
29.5%
27.3%
Count
26
42
36
34
49
184
% within
region
39.4%
39.6%
40.4%
32.1%
43.8%
39.2%
Count
9
19
13
14
9
60
% within
region
13.6%
17.9%
14.6%
13.2%
8.0%
12.8%
Count
66
106
89
106
112
468
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-24
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.42
SECTOR
Q15j. SERV2_9: REDUCING TRAFFIC
CONGESTION AND NOISE
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
17
36
25
32
55
169
% within
region
17.0%
24.7%
23.1%
21.3%
28.6%
24.0%
Count
32
44
39
42
70
231
% within
region
32.0%
30.1%
36.1%
28.0%
36.5%
32.8%
Count
34
48
27
51
54
218
% within
region
34.0%
32.9%
25.0%
34.0%
28.1%
31.0%
Count
17
18
17
25
13
85
% within
region
17.0%
12.3%
15.7%
16.7%
6.8%
12.1%
Count
100
146
108
150
192
702
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.43
SECTOR
Q15k. SERV2_10: PROVIDING OPEN GREEN
SPACES AND PARKS
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
3
4
1
12
8
30
% within
region
2.7%
3.1%
.9%
8.3%
4.4%
4.4%
Count
11
9
8
29
12
65
% within
region
10.0%
7.0%
6.8%
20.0%
6.7%
9.6%
Count
49
48
63
70
95
326
% within
region
44.5%
37.2%
53.8%
48.3%
52.8%
47.8%
Count
47
68
45
34
65
260
% within
region
42.7%
52.7%
38.5%
23.4%
36.1%
38.2%
Count
110
129
117
145
180
681
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-25
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.44
SECTOR
Q15l. SERV2_11: PROVIDING ADEQUATE
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
7
11
14
18
19
68
% within
region
8.3%
8.6%
13.6%
14.3%
11.2%
11.2%
Count
23
28
19
17
17
99
% within
region
27.4%
21.9%
18.4%
13.5%
10.1%
16.2%
Count
34
51
35
39
84
257
% within
region
40.5%
39.8%
34.0%
31.0%
49.7%
41.9%
Count
20
38
35
52
49
188
% within
region
23.8%
29.7%
34.0%
41.3%
29.0%
30.7%
Count
84
128
103
126
169
612
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.45
SECTOR
Q15m. SERV2_12: PROVIDING GARBAGE AND
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
7
13
11
25
13
65
% within
region
6.9%
10.0%
9.8%
16.3%
7.1%
9.7%
Count
14
14
12
17
29
90
% within
region
13.9%
10.8%
10.7%
11.1%
15.9%
13.3%
Count
34
60
41
69
80
285
% within
region
33.7%
46.2%
36.6%
45.1%
44.0%
42.3%
Count
46
43
48
42
60
234
% within
region
45.5%
33.1%
42.9%
27.5%
33.0%
34.7%
Count
101
130
112
153
182
674
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-26
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.46
SECTOR
Q15n. SERV3_1: REDUCING THE USE OF
ILLEGAL DRUGS AMONG ADULTS
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
18
14
20
39
28
115
% within
region
20.7%
12.4%
17.9%
24.1%
21.7%
19.9%
Count
19
33
30
28
26
130
% within
region
21.8%
29.2%
26.8%
17.3%
20.2%
22.5%
Count
32
49
47
68
57
243
% within
region
36.8%
43.4%
42.0%
42.0%
44.2%
42.0%
Count
18
17
15
27
18
90
% within
region
20.7%
15.0%
13.4%
16.7%
14.0%
15.6%
Count
87
113
112
162
129
579
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.47
SECTOR
Q15o. SERV3_2: REDUCING THE USE OF
ILLEGAL DRUGS AMONG YOUTH
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
28
14
26
51
33
146
% within
region
28.9%
11.3%
23.9%
32.5%
22.9%
23.7%
Count
23
40
28
34
40
165
% within
region
23.7%
32.3%
25.7%
21.7%
27.8%
26.7%
Count
31
51
47
50
55
227
% within
region
32.0%
41.1%
43.1%
31.8%
38.2%
36.8%
Count
15
19
8
22
16
79
% within
region
15.5%
15.3%
7.3%
14.0%
11.1%
12.8%
Count
97
124
109
157
144
616
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-27
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.48
SECTOR
Q15p. SERV3_3: PROTECTING CHILDREN
FROM ABUSE OR NEGLECT IN THE HOME
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
15
16
11
26
24
93
% within
region
19.7%
14.7%
10.5%
19.3%
18.3%
17.1%
Count
18
17
18
19
23
94
% within
region
23.7%
15.6%
17.1%
14.1%
17.6%
17.3%
Count
32
50
53
64
62
251
% within
region
42.1%
45.9%
50.5%
47.4%
47.3%
46.3%
Count
11
26
23
26
22
105
% within
region
14.5%
23.9%
21.9%
19.3%
16.8%
19.3%
Count
76
109
105
135
131
542
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.49
SECTOR
Q15q. SERV3_4: PROVIDING PUBLIC
ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES IN NEED
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
13
8
15
37
15
82
% within
region
13.0%
6.0%
12.1%
21.8%
9.9%
12.4%
Count
19
32
31
19
42
145
% within
region
19.0%
24.1%
25.0%
11.2%
27.6%
21.9%
Count
47
64
56
78
68
304
% within
region
47.0%
48.1%
45.2%
45.9%
44.7%
46.0%
Count
21
29
22
36
27
130
% within
region
21.0%
21.8%
17.7%
21.2%
17.8%
19.7%
Count
100
133
124
170
152
661
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-28
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.50
SECTOR
Q16. OVERALL: HOW SATISFIED IN GENERAL
WITH THE JOB THE CITY IS DOING IN
PROVIDING SERVICES TO ITS RESIDENTS
1 Very dissatisfied
2 Somewhat dissatisfied
3 Somewhat satisfied
4 Very satisfied
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
6
8
8
19
8
45
% within
region
3.7%
3.8%
4.5%
8.5%
2.8%
4.3%
Count
13
16
24
16
23
89
% within
region
8.0%
7.7%
13.5%
7.2%
8.0%
8.4%
Count
106
129
120
144
185
685
% within
region
65.4%
62.0%
67.4%
64.6%
64.7%
64.8%
Count
37
55
26
44
70
238
% within
region
22.8%
26.4%
14.6%
19.7%
24.5%
22.5%
Count
162
208
178
223
286
1057
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-29
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.51
SECTOR
Q17. TAXSERV: WHICH STATEMENT COMES
CLOSEST TO YOUR VIEW
1 The City should decrease
services and taxes
2 The City should keep taxes and
services about where they are
3 The City should increase
services and taxes
4 Increase services, keep taxes
the same (volunteered)
5 Increase services, decrease
taxes (volunteered)
6 Keep services as they are,
decrease taxes (volunteered)
7 Some other change
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
20
33
33
43
35
157
% within
region
12.8%
16.3%
19.8%
20.3%
13.6%
15.9%
Count
90
108
80
102
129
509
% within
region
57.7%
53.5%
47.9%
48.1%
50.0%
51.3%
Count
18
38
29
34
59
184
% within
region
11.5%
18.8%
17.4%
16.0%
22.9%
18.6%
Count
5
5
4
3
7
25
% within
region
3.2%
2.5%
2.4%
1.4%
2.7%
2.5%
Count
7
6
8
13
9
41
% within
region
4.5%
3.0%
4.8%
6.1%
3.5%
4.2%
Count
8
6
8
12
9
40
% within
region
5.1%
3.0%
4.8%
5.7%
3.5%
4.1%
Count
8
6
5
5
10
35
% within
region
5.1%
3.0%
3.0%
2.4%
3.9%
3.5%
Count
156
202
167
212
258
991
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.52
SECTOR
Q20. CHOICE: Would like to be living in this
neighborhood five years from now, or would
you prefer to be living someplace else
1 This neighborhood
2 Someplace else
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
120
154
112
106
139
624
% within
region
75.0%
75.9%
65.1%
50.2%
50.2%
60.9%
Count
40
49
60
105
138
401
% within
region
25.0%
24.1%
34.9%
49.8%
49.8%
39.1%
Count
160
203
172
211
277
1025
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-30
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.53
SECTOR
Q21a. THE COST OF RENT IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD IS TOO HIGH
1 Strongly disagree
2 Somewhat disagree
3 Somewhat agree
4 Strongly agree
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
19
19
7
6
19
66
% within
region
16.4%
6.1%
4.5%
3.1%
8.2%
7.7%
Count
20
19
26
37
51
172
% within
region
17.2%
23.2%
16.6%
19.1%
22.1%
20.1%
Count
34
43
42
54
76
253
% within
region
29.3%
26.2%
26.8%
27.8%
32.9%
29.6%
Count
43
73
82
97
85
363
% within
region
37.1%
44.5%
52.2%
50.0%
36.8%
42.5%
Count
116
164
157
194
231
854
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.54
SECTOR
Q21b. THE COST OF BUTYING A HOME IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD IS TOO HIGH
1 Strongly disagree
2 Somewhat disagree
3 Somewhat agree
4 Strongly agree
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
6
1
2
13
8
31
% within
region
3.8%
.5%
1.2%
6.1%
3.2%
3.2%
Count
19
15
10
12
11
66
% within
region
12.2%
7.8%
6.1%
5.6%
4.4%
6.8%
Count
36
36
22
49
74
224
% within
region
23.1%
18.7%
13.4%
22.9%
29.7%
23.1%
Count
95
141
130
140
156
650
% within
region
60.9%
73.1%
79.3%
65.4%
62.7%
67.0%
Count
156
193
164
214
249
970
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-31
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.55
SECTOR
Q21c. OVERALL THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS
CLEAN AND WELL MAINTAINED
1 Strongly disagree
2 Somewhat disagree
3 Somewhat agree
4 Strongly agree
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
3
6
7
19
8
41
% within
region
1.8%
2.9%
4.0%
8.6%
2.8%
3.9%
Count
3
8
16
25
29
80
% within
region
1.8%
3.9%
9.0%
11.3%
10.2%
7.6%
Count
34
55
79
89
121
377
% within
region
20.7%
26.6%
44.6%
40.1%
42.5%
35.6%
Count
124
138
75
89
127
560
% within
region
75.6%
66.7%
42.4%
40.1%
44.6%
53.0%
Count
164
207
177
222
285
1058
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.56
SECTOR
Q21d. THE NEIGHBORHOOD’S HOUSES ARE
WELL MAINTAINED
1 Strongly disagree
2 Somewhat disagree
3 Somewhat agree
4 Strongly agree
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
3
2
12
19
8
40
% within
region
1.8%
1.0%
6.7%
8.7%
2.9%
3.8%
Count
7
15
32
35
45
131
% within
region
4.3%
7.3%
18.0%
16.1%
16.1%
12.5%
Count
61
64
80
88
136
435
% within
region
37.2%
31.1%
44.9%
40.4%
48.6%
41.5%
Count
93
125
54
76
91
442
% within
region
56.7%
60.7%
30.3%
34.9%
32.5%
42.2%
Count
164
206
178
218
280
1048
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-32
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.57
SECTOR
Q21e. HOUSING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS
ALL PRETTY MUCH THE SAME
1 Strongly disagree
2 Somewhat disagree
3 Somewhat agree
4 Strongly agree
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
22
35
39
36
43
171
% within
region
13.7%
17.9%
22.7%
16.2%
15.5%
16.6%
Count
35
65
57
47
90
299
% within
region
21.7%
33.2%
33.1%
21.2%
32.5%
29.0%
Count
51
59
46
81
89
326
% within
region
31.7%
30.1%
26.7%
36.5%
32.1%
31.7%
Count
53
37
30
58
55
234
% within
region
32.9%
18.9%
17.4%
26.1%
19.9%
22.8%
Count
161
196
172
222
277
1029
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.58
SECTOR
Q21f. THERE IS TOO MUCH NOISE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD
1 Strongly disagree
2 Somewhat disagree
3 Somewhat agree
4 Strongly agree
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
80
83
56
67
71
354
% within
region
48.8%
40.1%
32.0%
29.9%
25.0%
33.6%
Count
47
66
70
91
114
385
% within
region
28.7%
31.9%
40.0%
40.6%
40.1%
36.5%
Count
20
37
27
27
53
169
% within
region
12.2%
17.9%
15.4%
12.1%
18.7%
16.0%
Count
17
21
22
39
46
146
% within
region
10.4%
10.1%
12.6%
17.4%
16.2%
13.9%
Count
164
207
175
224
284
1054
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-33
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.59
SECTOR
Q21g. IT’S EASY TO WALK AROUND IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD
1 Strongly disagree
2 Somewhat disagree
3 Somewhat agree
4 Strongly agree
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
9
9
21
28
21
85
% within
region
5.5%
4.4%
11.9%
12.7%
7.4%
8.1%
Count
15
16
16
21
19
83
% within
region
9.2%
7.8%
9.0%
9.5%
6.7%
7.9%
Count
35
43
55
70
77
278
% within
region
21.5%
20.9%
31.1%
31.7%
27.3%
26.4%
Count
104
138
85
102
165
605
% within
region
63.8%
67.0%
48.0%
46.2%
58.5%
57.6%
Count
163
206
177
221
282
1050
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.60
SECTOR
Q21h. THERE IS SATISFACTORY BUS SERVICE
IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD
1 Strongly disagree
2 Somewhat disagree
3 Somewhat agree
4 Strongly agree
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
34
25
15
26
30
132
% within
region
25.4%
13.9%
10.3%
12.4%
12.3%
14.5%
Count
21
23
20
14
27
105
% within
region
15.7%
12.8%
13.8%
6.7%
11.1%
11.5%
Count
27
40
46
72
69
249
% within
region
20.1%
22.2%
31.7%
34.4%
28.4%
27.3%
Count
52
92
64
97
117
426
% within
region
38.8%
51.1%
44.1%
46.4%
48.1%
46.7%
Count
134
180
145
209
243
912
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-34
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.61
SECTOR
Q21i. IT’S EASY TO PARK IN MY
NEIGHBORHOOD
1 Strongly disagree
2 Somewhat disagree
3 Somewhat agree
4 Strongly agree
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
12
42
15
39
53
170
% within
region
7.4%
20.9%
8.6%
17.9%
18.9%
16.4%
Count
20
30
20
14
47
140
% within
region
12.3%
14.9%
11.5%
6.4%
16.7%
13.4%
Count
28
49
58
67
84
281
% within
region
17.2%
24.4%
33.3%
30.7%
29.9%
27.1%
Count
103
80
81
98
97
448
% within
region
63.2%
39.8%
46.6%
45.0%
34.5%
43.1%
Count
163
201
174
218
281
1039
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.62
SECTOR
Q22a. HOW SAFE DO YOU FEEL IN YOUR
NEIGHBORHOOD DURING THE DAY TIME
1 Very unsafe
2 Somewhat unsafe
3 Somewhat safe
4 Very safe
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
0
0
3
4
1
7
% within
region
.0%
.0%
1.7%
1.8%
.3%
.6%
Count
2
0
3
9
6
19
% within
region
1.2%
.0%
1.7%
4.0%
2.1%
1.8%
Count
27
23
33
51
43
173
% within
region
16.6%
11.2%
18.6%
22.9%
14.9%
16.3%
Count
134
183
138
159
238
861
% within
region
82.2%
88.8%
78.0%
71.3%
82.6%
81.3%
Count
163
206
177
223
288
1059
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-35
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.63
SECTOR
Q22b. HOW SAFE DO YOU FEEL IN YOUR
NEIGHBORHOOD AFTER DARK
1 Very unsafe
2 Somewhat unsafe
3 Somewhat safe
4 Very safe
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
3
5
13
31
17
64
% within
region
1.9%
2.4%
7.6%
14.0%
6.0%
6.1%
Count
13
17
32
46
39
141
% within
region
8.1%
8.3%
18.7%
20.7%
13.7%
13.5%
Count
68
78
66
83
123
425
% within
region
42.5%
38.0%
38.6%
37.4%
43.2%
40.6%
Count
76
105
60
62
106
416
% within
region
47.5%
51.2%
35.1%
27.9%
37.2%
39.8%
Count
160
205
171
222
285
1047
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.64
SECTOR
Q22c. HOW SAFE DO YOU FEEL IN BUSINESS
AREAS OF THE CITY DURING DAYLIGHT
1 Very unsafe
2 Somewhat unsafe
3 Somewhat safe
4 Very safe
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
0
0
1
0
3
5
% within
region
.0%
.0%
.6%
.0%
1.1%
.5%
Count
6
2
3
4
3
17
% within
region
3.8%
1.0%
1.8%
1.8%
1.1%
1.7%
Count
49
39
43
58
52
236
% within
region
30.6%
19.4%
25.4%
26.7%
18.8%
23.0%
Count
105
160
122
155
219
769
% within
region
65.6%
79.6%
72.2%
71.4%
79.1%
74.9%
Count
160
201
169
217
277
1028
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-36
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.65
SECTOR
Q22d. HOW SAFE DO YOU FEEL IN BUSINESS
AREAS OF THE CITY AFTER DARK
1 Very unsafe
2 Somewhat unsafe
3 Somewhat safe
4 Very safe
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
13
9
15
17
4
51
% within
region
8.8%
4.9%
10.0%
8.6%
1.6%
5.4%
Count
28
21
28
41
41
158
% within
region
18.9%
11.5%
18.7%
20.8%
15.9%
16.8%
Count
72
94
78
91
134
475
% within
region
48.6%
51.4%
52.0%
46.2%
51.9%
50.5%
Count
35
59
29
48
79
257
% within
region
23.6%
32.2%
19.3%
24.4%
30.6%
27.3%
Count
148
183
150
197
258
940
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.66
SECTOR
Q22e. HOW SAFE DO YOU FEEL IN THE WEST
MAIN STREET AREA DURING DAYLIGHT
1 Very unsafe
2 Somewhat unsafe
3 Somewhat safe
4 Very safe
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
0
5
4
3
0
12
% within
region
.0%
2.6%
2.6%
1.5%
.0%
1.2%
Count
6
2
8
6
14
38
% within
region
4.1%
1.0%
5.2%
2.9%
5.3%
3.9%
Count
62
54
55
57
77
305
% within
region
41.9%
27.7%
35.7%
27.9%
29.1%
31.3%
Count
80
134
87
138
174
620
% within
region
54.1%
68.7%
56.5%
67.6%
65.7%
63.7%
Count
148
195
154
204
265
975
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-37
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.67
SECTOR
Q22f. HOW SAFE DO YOU FEEL IN THE WEST
MAIN STREET AREA AFTER DARK
1 Very unsafe
2 Somewhat unsafe
3 Somewhat safe
4 Very safe
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
13
18
28
31
24
107
% within
region
9.4%
10.7%
19.9%
16.0%
9.9%
12.0%
Count
46
49
40
49
77
269
% within
region
33.1%
29.0%
28.4%
25.3%
31.7%
30.2%
Count
66
72
47
79
96
365
% within
region
47.5%
42.6%
33.3%
40.7%
39.5%
41.0%
Count
14
30
26
35
46
150
% within
region
10.1%
17.8%
18.4%
18.0%
18.9%
16.8%
Count
139
169
141
194
243
891
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.68
SECTOR
Q22g. HOW SAFE DO YOU FEEL ON THE
DOWNTOWN MALL DURING DAYLIGHT
1 Very unsafe
2 Somewhat unsafe
3 Somewhat safe
4 Very safe
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
0
3
0
4
1
8
% within
region
.0%
1.5%
.0%
1.9%
.4%
.7%
Count
0
2
3
0
0
4
% within
region
.0%
1.0%
1.9%
.0%
.0%
.4%
Count
32
27
32
31
34
154
% within
region
20.4%
13.2%
19.8%
14.6%
12.3%
15.1%
Count
125
173
127
177
241
853
% within
region
79.6%
84.4%
78.4%
83.5%
87.3%
83.7%
Count
157
205
162
212
276
1019
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-38
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.69
SECTOR
Q22h. HOW SAFE DO YOU FEEL ON THE
DOWNTOWN MALL AFTER DARK
1 Very unsafe
2 Somewhat unsafe
3 Somewhat safe
4 Very safe
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
10
18
18
21
13
74
% within
region
6.9%
9.8%
12.2%
10.9%
5.1%
8.0%
Count
25
22
28
34
28
132
% within
region
17.4%
12.0%
19.0%
17.7%
10.9%
14.2%
Count
55
72
51
64
100
349
% within
region
38.2%
39.1%
34.7%
33.3%
38.9%
37.6%
Count
54
72
50
73
116
374
% within
region
37.5%
39.1%
34.0%
38.0%
45.1%
40.3%
Count
144
184
147
192
257
930
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.70
SECTOR
Q23. COMPARED WITH OTHER PROBLEMS
FACING PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN [AREA NAME],
HOW IMPORTANT A PROBLEM IS CRIME IN
THIS AREA
1 The most important problem in
[AREA NAME]
2 One of the most important
problems in [AREA NAME]
3 Not that important a problem in
[AREA NAME]
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
14
7
21
35
23
95
% within
region
8.8%
3.4%
12.4%
15.8%
8.4%
9.2%
Count
47
33
76
90
106
344
% within
region
29.6%
16.1%
44.7%
40.7%
38.7%
33.5%
Count
98
165
73
96
145
589
% within
region
61.6%
80.5%
42.9%
43.4%
52.9%
57.3%
Count
159
205
170
221
274
1029
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-39
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.71
SECTOR
Q25a. TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN A MORE
VISUALLY ATTRACTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD
1 Not important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
37
28
29
19
40
154
% within
region
44.6%
26.2%
29.9%
15.8%
25.6%
27.4%
Count
23
35
28
49
74
216
% within
region
27.7%
32.7%
28.9%
40.8%
47.4%
38.3%
Count
23
44
40
52
42
192
% within
region
27.7%
41.1%
41.2%
43.3%
26.9%
34.2%
Count
83
107
97
120
156
562
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.72
SECTOR
Q25b. DOING MORE TO MAINTAIN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD’S STREETS, SIDEWALKS,
CURBS, GUTTERS, AND ALLEYWAYS
1 Not important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
27
19
10
22
30
111
% within
region
33.3%
17.3%
10.3%
18.0%
18.4%
19.3%
Count
28
44
41
49
77
245
% within
region
34.6%
40.0%
42.3%
40.2%
47.2%
42.5%
Count
26
47
46
51
56
221
% within
region
32.1%
42.7%
47.4%
41.8%
34.4%
38.2%
Count
81
110
97
122
163
577
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-40
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.73
SECTOR
Q25c. TO CREATE A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS
MORE UNIFIED AND BETTER ORGANIZED TO
SOLVE ITS PROBLEMS
1 Not important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
37
32
14
19
53
167
% within
region
37.8%
28.1%
15.7%
13.8%
31.0%
27.1%
Count
28
42
35
51
74
235
% within
region
28.6%
36.8%
39.3%
37.0%
43.3%
38.2%
Count
33
40
40
68
44
213
% within
region
33.7%
35.1%
44.9%
49.3%
25.7%
34.7%
Count
98
114
89
138
171
615
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.74
SECTOR
Q25d. HOW ABOUT DOING MORE TO
MAINTAIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD’S RENTAL
PROPERTIES
1 Not important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
39
24
14
16
26
121
% within
region
47.6%
22.4%
14.4%
13.9%
19.3%
22.8%
Count
12
45
28
43
50
178
% within
region
14.6%
42.1%
28.9%
37.4%
37.0%
33.6%
Count
31
38
55
56
59
230
% within
region
37.8%
35.5%
56.7%
48.7%
43.7%
43.6%
Count
82
107
97
115
135
529
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-41
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.75
SECTOR
Q25e. TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF HOUSING
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
1 Not important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
46
53
13
21
40
180
% within
region
51.1%
43.1%
13.1%
17.4%
28.2%
31.7%
Count
25
39
36
33
63
199
% within
region
27.8%
31.7%
36.4%
27.3%
44.4%
34.9%
Count
19
31
50
67
39
190
% within
region
21.1%
25.2%
50.5%
55.4%
27.5%
33.3%
Count
90
123
99
121
142
569
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.76
SECTOR
Q25f. TO HAVE MORE EFFECTIVE TRAFFIC
AND PARKING CONTROLS
1 Not important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
32
30
33
35
48
175
% within
region
34.4%
24.8%
34.0%
27.8%
29.4%
29.2%
Count
24
32
30
30
52
171
% within
region
25.8%
26.4%
30.9%
23.8%
31.9%
28.5%
Count
37
59
34
61
63
255
% within
region
39.8%
48.8%
35.1%
48.4%
38.7%
42.3%
Count
93
121
97
126
163
601
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-42
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.77
SECTOR
Q25g. INCREASING HOMEOWNERSHIP AMONG
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS
1 Not important
2 Somewhat important
3 Very important
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
36
37
23
28
44
171
% within
region
39.1%
31.6%
23.2%
20.7%
26.3%
27.9%
Count
20
27
27
38
49
161
% within
region
21.7%
23.1%
27.3%
28.1%
29.3%
26.3%
Count
36
53
49
69
74
281
% within
region
39.1%
45.3%
49.5%
51.1%
44.3%
45.8%
Count
92
117
99
135
167
612
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.78
SECTOR
Q26. IS THERE A NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION OR HOMEOWNER’S
ASSOCIATION IN YOUR AREA THAT YOU
PARTICIPATE IN—OR DOES YOUR AREA NOT
HAVE SUCH AN ASSOCIATION
1 Yes, R participates
2 No, R knows of neighborhood
ass’n but does not participate
3 None, R does not know of a
neighborhood ass’n
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
68
59
36
58
70
297
% within
region
42.2%
28.5%
20.8%
26.1%
24.6%
28.3%
Count
53
98
93
89
102
422
% within
region
32.9%
47.3%
53.8%
40.1%
35.9%
40.2%
Count
40
50
44
75
112
330
% within
region
24.8%
24.2%
25.4%
33.8%
39.4%
31.5%
Count
161
207
173
222
284
1049
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-43
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.79
SECTOR
Q27. WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED IN
PARTICIPATING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOCIATION IN YOUR AREA
1 Yes
2 No
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
45
50
47
89
61
283
% within
region
50.0%
35.5%
36.4%
57.1%
30.7%
39.9%
Count
45
91
82
67
138
427
% within
region
50.0%
64.5%
63.6%
42.9%
69.3%
60.1%
Count
90
141
129
156
199
710
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.80
SECTOR
Q28a. THE CITY AND THE COUNTY SHOULD
WORK TOGETHER MORE CLOSELY IN
PLANNING FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY
1 Strongly oppose
2 Somewhat oppose
3 Somewhat favor
4 Strongly favor
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
1
4
4
12
5
23
% within
region
.7%
2.0%
2.4%
5.6%
1.9%
2.4%
Count
9
2
8
13
7
37
% within
region
5.9%
1.0%
4.7%
6.0%
2.7%
3.7%
Count
30
42
53
57
79
259
% within
region
19.6%
21.1%
31.4%
26.4%
30.4%
26.2%
Count
113
151
104
134
169
672
% within
region
73.9%
75.9%
61.5%
62.0%
65.0%
67.7%
Count
153
199
169
216
260
992
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-44
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.81
SECTOR
Q28b. THE CITY AND THE COUNTY SHOULD
SET UP MORE JOINT PROGRAMS AND
SERVICES THAT WOULD SERVE THE ENTIRE
AREA
1 Strongly oppose
2 Somewhat oppose
3 Somewhat favor
4 Strongly favor
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
2
1
5
17
6
28
% within
region
1.3%
.5%
3.0%
7.9%
2.3%
2.8%
Count
7
7
8
9
10
40
% within
region
4.7%
3.5%
4.8%
4.2%
3.9%
4.1%
Count
39
41
57
56
92
286
% within
region
26.0%
20.5%
34.3%
26.0%
35.5%
29.0%
Count
102
151
96
133
151
631
% within
region
68.0%
75.5%
57.8%
61.9%
58.3%
64.1%
Count
150
200
166
215
259
985
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.82
SECTOR
Q28c. THE CITY AND COUNTY SHOULD
MERGE THEIR PARK AND RECREATION
SYSTEMS INTO ONE AREA-WIDE SYSTEM
1 Strongly oppose
2 Somewhat oppose
3 Somewhat favor
4 Strongly favor
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
7
11
12
23
4
50
% within
region
5.3%
6.1%
8.2%
10.9%
1.7%
5.6%
Count
21
33
13
20
38
132
% within
region
15.8%
18.2%
8.8%
9.5%
16.5%
14.7%
Count
53
62
58
77
85
330
% within
region
39.8%
34.3%
39.5%
36.5%
36.8%
36.8%
Count
52
75
64
91
104
386
% within
region
39.1%
41.4%
43.5%
43.1%
45.0%
43.0%
Count
133
181
147
211
231
897
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-45
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
Table C.83
SECTOR
Q28d. THE CITY AND THE COUNTY SHOULD
CONSOLIDATE INTO A SINGLE, UNIFIED
GOVERNMENT THAT SERVES THE WHOLE
AREA
1 Strongly oppose
2 Somewhat oppose
3 Somewhat favor
4 Strongly favor
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
44
51
38
47
57
237
% within
region
31.4%
28.2%
26.4%
23.0%
25.2%
26.6%
Count
27
45
38
36
71
221
% within
region
19.3%
24.9%
26.4%
17.6%
31.4%
24.8%
Count
28
37
25
54
43
184
% within
region
20.0%
20.4%
17.4%
26.5%
19.0%
20.6%
Count
41
48
43
67
55
248
% within
region
29.3%
26.5%
29.9%
32.8%
24.3%
27.9%
Count
140
181
144
204
226
889
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.84
SECTOR
Q28e. THE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT AND
THE COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD
BE MERGED
1 Strongly oppose
2 Somewhat oppose
3 Somewhat favor
4 Strongly favor
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
26
47
30
46
51
201
% within
region
18.4%
27.5%
20.0%
24.9%
22.3%
23.0%
Count
33
41
31
27
68
210
% within
region
23.4%
24.0%
20.7%
14.6%
29.7%
24.0%
Count
41
35
42
46
51
211
% within
region
29.1%
20.5%
28.0%
24.9%
22.3%
24.1%
Count
41
48
47
66
59
252
% within
region
29.1%
28.1%
31.3%
35.7%
25.8%
28.8%
Count
141
171
150
185
229
874
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-46
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix C
Table C.85
SECTOR
Q28f. THE CITY SCHOOLS AND THE COUNTY
SCHOOLS SHOULD BE MERGED
1 Strongly oppose
2 Somewhat oppose
3 Somewhat favor
4 Strongly favor
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
31
44
45
54
60
232
% within
region
22.1%
26.3%
32.1%
27.8%
27.0%
26.9%
Count
27
32
37
45
54
191
% within
region
19.3%
19.2%
26.4%
23.2%
24.3%
22.2%
Count
44
45
34
41
50
213
% within
region
31.4%
26.9%
24.3%
21.1%
22.5%
24.8%
Count
38
46
24
54
58
224
% within
region
27.1%
27.5%
17.1%
27.8%
26.1%
26.0%
Count
140
167
140
194
222
860
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table C.86
SECTOR
Q28g. THE CITY AND COUNTY SHOULD
PROVIDE JOINT FIRE-FIGHTING SERVICES
1 Strongly oppose
2 Somewhat oppose
3 Somewhat favor
4 Strongly favor
Total
North
East
South
SouthCentral
West
Total
Count
13
9
5
18
10
54
% within
region
9.4%
4.9%
3.2%
8.8%
4.2%
5.9%
Count
15
19
21
12
29
98
% within
region
10.8%
10.3%
13.4%
5.9%
12.2%
10.7%
Count
43
59
56
54
95
312
% within
region
30.9%
31.9%
35.7%
26.5%
39.9%
33.9%
Count
68
98
75
120
104
455
% within
region
48.9%
53.0%
47.8%
58.8%
43.7%
49.5%
Count
139
185
157
204
238
919
% within
region
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
C-47
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix C
C-48
Appendix D
Demographic Profile
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix D
Demographic Profile
2006
* The following demographic data are weighted by race, gender, homeownership, and sector population (2000 Census).
Table D.1: Neighborhood Sector
Sector
North
East
South
South Central
West
Total
Frequency
181
219
113
185
413
1111
Valid
Percent
16.3%
19.8%
10.2%
16.6%
37.1%
100.0%
Q3. How long have you lived in the City of Charlottesville?
Table D.2: Years Living in Charlottesville
Less than one year
One to two years
Three to four years
Five to ten years
Eleven to nineteen years
Twenty years or more, but not all my life
All my life
Total
Frequency
86
122
139
200
108
305
148
1107
Valid
Percent
7.7%
11.0%
12.5%
18.0%
9.8%
27.5%
13.4%
100.0%
Q4. How long have you lived here at this address?
Table D.3: Years Living at Current Address
Less than one year
One to two years
Three to four years
Five to ten years
Eleven to nineteen years
Twenty years or more, but not all my life
All my life
Total
D-1
Frequency
162
225
152
210
128
211
13
1103
Valid
Percent
14.7%
20.4%
13.8%
19.1%
11.6%
19.2%
1.2%
100.0%
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix D
Q7. And do you own your own home, or are you renting?
Table D.4: Homeownership
Owns (or is buying)
Rents
Total
Frequency
467
625
1093
Valid
Percent
42.8%
57.2%
100.0%
Q34. What kind of Place are you living in?
Table D.5: Place
Single family home
Duplex or 2 family structure
Apartment
Mobile home or trailer
Other structure
Total
Frequency
624
142
321
4
12
1104
Valid
Percent
56.6%
12.9%
29.1%
.3%
1.1%
100.0%
Q29. Do you have access to a computer in your home?
Table D.6: Computer
Yes
No
Total
Frequency
774
273
1047
Valid
Percent
73.9%
26.1%
100.0%
Q30. In the last 12 months, have you accessed the Internet or used the World Wide Web from home or work?
Table D.7: Internet
Yes
No
Total
Frequency
811
236
1047
D-2
Valid
Percent
77.5%
22.5%
100.0%
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix D
Q31. How many adults, 18 and older, live in your household, including yourself?
Table D.8: Number of Adults in Household – 4
Categories
Valid
Percent
39.6%
48.2%
7.1%
5.1%
100.0%
Frequency
415
506
74
54
1049
1 adult
2 adults
3 adults
4 or more adults
Total
Q32. And how many children live in your household?
Table D.9: Number of Children in Household – 4
Categories
Valid
Percent
70.7%
11.7%
11.7%
5.9%
100.0%
Frequency
741
122
123
62
1049
None
1 child
2 children
3 or more children
Total
Q33. Do any of them attend Charlottesville public schools?
Table D.10: Children in Public
Schools
Yes
No
Total
Frequency
188
114
302
Valid
Percent
62.1%
37.9%
100.0%
Q34. In what year were you born?
Table D.11: Age – 5 Categories
Age Category
18-25 years old
26-37 years old
38-49 years old
50-64 years old
65 years and older
Total
Frequency
127
252
232
224
213
1049
D-3
Valid
Percent
12.2%
24.1%
22.1%
21.4%
20.3%
100.0%
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix D
Q35. Which of the following best describes you?
Table D.12: Employment Status
Working Full Time
Working Part Time
Looking for work
Homemaker
Retired
Student
Other
Total
Frequency
522
91
20
34
205
128
46
1046
Valid
Percent
49.9%
8.7%
1.9%
3.3%
19.6%
12.3%
4.4%
100.0%
Q36. What is your current marital status?
Table D.13: Marital Status
Married
Separated
Divorced
Widowed
Never Married
Total
Frequency
440
31
151
94
310
1026
Valid
Percent
42.9%
3.0%
14.7%
9.1%
30.3%
100.0%
Q37. Are you currently registered to vote in Charlottesville?
Table D.14: Voter Registration
Yes
No
Total
Frequency
794
252
1047
D-4
Valid
Percent
75.9%
24.1%
100.0%
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix D
Q38. What is the highest level of education you completed?
Table D.15: Educational Level
Elementary school only
Some high school, did not finish
Completed high school
Some college but didn’t finish
2 year college degree AA AS
4 year college degree BA BS
Some graduate work
Completed Masters or Prof degree
Advanced graduate work PhD
Total
Frequency
17
52
190
147
67
199
57
205
110
1046
Valid
Percent
1.6%
5.0%
18.2%
14.0%
6.4%
19.1%
5.5%
19.6%
10.5%
100.0%
Q39. Would you please stop me when I read the range that best describes where your annual household
income from all sources falls? That would be before taxes and deductions.
Table D.16: Income Level
Level of Income
$0--$14,999
$15,000--$29,999
$30,000--$44,999
$45,000--$59,999
$60,000--$74,999
$75,000--$99,999
$100,000--$150,000
$150,000 +
Total
Frequency
120
187
175
130
77
91
69
33
881
Valid
Percent
13.6%
21.2%
19.9%
14.8%
8.7%
10.3%
7.8%
3.7%
100.0%
Q40. Do you consider yourself to be of Hispanic origin?
Table D.17: Hispanic Origin
Yes
No
Total
Frequency
25
1013
1038
D-5
Valid
Percent
2.4%
97.6%
100.0%
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix D
Q41. Finally, I am going to read some racial categories. Would you tell me what category best describes you?
Table D.18: Race
White
African-American
Asian
American Indian
Pacific Islander
Other
Total
Frequency
751
212
27
4
1
24
1019
Valid
Percent
73.6%
20.8%
2.7%
.4%
.1%
2.4%
100.0%
Q42. Respondent’s Gender
Table D.19: Gender
Male
Female
Total
Frequency
488
557
1045
D-6
Valid
Percent
46.7%
53.3%
100.0%
Appendix E
Survey and Sampling Methodology
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix E
Survey and Sampling Methodology
The 2006 City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Planning Needs Survey was conducted by
the Center for Survey Research (CSR) using a Computer-Aided Telephone Interviewing (CATI)
system, employing a sample of directory-listed telephone households. This appendix describes:
• The geography of the study
• How the sample was selected
• How the questionnaire was developed
• How the survey was administered
• How the data were weighted for analysis
• How statistical testing was used to evaluate the results
• A detailed sample calling disposition
Geography
The City of Charlottesville Department of Neighborhood Planning and Development
Services has divided the city into approximately 20 named neighborhoods, based largely on
neighborhood definitions used in the community. For the planning process used in updating the
Comprehensive Plan, these were grouped into five “sectors,” each comprising a number of
neighborhoods. The five sectors (North, East, South, South-Central, and West) are shown on the
map in Appendix A.
A major design objective for this survey was to be able to evaluate survey results for each
sector. However, the sectors differ substantially in their population sizes. Accordingly, CSR
developed a quota design for the study in which each sector would be represented by at least 200
respondents, but the larger sectors would have somewhat larger numbers of respondents.
Sample
CSR employed a machine-readable file of directory-listed telephone numbers to reach a
random sample of the households in the City of Charlottesville. We chose a listed sample over the
alternative of “random-digit dialing” (RDD), because the study design called for completion of a
set number of interviews (quotas) in each of five geographic sectors. RDD methods do not allow
that level of geographic specificity. Using a listed sample, we were able to confirm the address of
each household in which an interview was completed, and could definitely assign each household
to the correct quota cell. Another reason for using a listed sample is that prior surveys of
Charlottesville residents completed by CSR have used this technique. A sample telephone number
listed in the Charlottesville phone directory, and known to be located within the City of
Charlottesville, was purchased from Survey Sampling, Inc., a commercial sampling company that
uses state-of-the-art methodologies. Numbers were chosen for the sample so that each of the five
geographic sectors (each comprising a set of census block groups) would be represented as called
for in our quota design.
E-1
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix E
Telephone surveys risk biases because members of a household differ in how likely it is
that any one of them will answer the telephone. For example, persons who do not work may be
more likely to answer the telephone than those who are employed. Various methods have been
developed to randomize respondents within households in order to reduce these biases. In this
survey, CSR used a “minimally intrusive method” which combines random selection by computer
with the “last-birthday” method, in which we ask to speak to the adult in the household who had
the most recent birthday or, if last birthday is unknown, with the KISH selection process of
enumerating first names of eligible household members.1
Questionnaire
The survey questionnaire was developed by a committee that included staff members of the
City of Charlottesville and the Center for Survey Research (University of Virginia). Beginning in
December 2004, this committee reviewed several prior CSR surveys of City residents and decided
to start with the 1993 Charlottesville Community Development Survey of CDBG Neighborhoods
and the 2000 City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Needs Survey. For use in the comprehensive
plan update, a series of questions on overall planning goals was adapted from the 2000
neighborhood needs survey. The most recent instrument was revised through several drafts, with
the committee agreeing that direct comparability with the 2000 survey was an analytical strategy,
given the reasonable amount of years between the two survey reports. Some questions from the
2000 survey were removed and more relevant question for this year’s survey were added.
However, very few changes were made in regards to the satisfaction items to allow for direct
comparability of the city’s current ratings and priorities with the 2000 results. Overall, the survey
instrument attempts to combine several objectives: setting planning priorities, evaluating service
satisfaction, and assessing neighborhood needs in housing and social services.
To keep the interview at a manageable length, CSR employed a technique known as
“rationing” to reduce the number of questions asked of any individual respondent. Using the
programmable features of the Ci3 system, we randomly picked a subset of questions (within a
given series of questions) to be asked of any given respondent. For example, in the series on
strategic planning goals, each respondent was asked to rate 10 randomly selected goals out of a
possible 23.
The questionnaire was programmed into CSR’s Ci3 CATI system and pre-tested January
19-20. Overall, the pre-test interview, with 43 completed interviews, went smoothly and the timing
of the interview at 19.4 minutes (from greeting to goodbye) was only slightly higher than expected
limits. Based on comments from interviewers and interviewing supervisors, only very minor
revisions were necessary to improve the questionnaire. Another 42 seconds was shaved off the
survey from pretest to production mostly due to interviewer training and experience on the
instrument.
1 Programmed by CSR into the CATI system based on the method’s description in Louis Rizzo, J. Michael Brick and
Inho Park “A Minimally Intrusive Method for Sampling Persons in Random Digit Dial Surveys,” Public Opinion
Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 2 (2004), pp. 267-274.
E-2
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix E
Interviewing Procedures
The Center for Survey Research conducted the telephone interviews using the ComputerAssisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system. CSR used the Ci3 CATI system by Sawtooth
Software, a system in which computers are employed to increase the efficiency, accuracy, and
flexibility of telephone surveys conducted by trained interviewers. Questions appear on the
computer screen in programmed sequence as the interviewer presses the keys on the keyboard to
record the respondent’s answers. Accurate, instantaneous data entry is assured by the system. The
computer system stores the data base of telephone numbers and is used to control the sampling
process, dial each sampled number, schedule call-backs, and record the disposition of each
attempted call.
Production calling for the survey was carried out from February 6 through March 21, 2006.
All telephone calls for the study were made from the CATI laboratory under the direct supervision
of CSR staff. Numbers were dialed automatically by the computer system. Calling was done on
Sunday through Thursday evenings and on Sunday afternoons. The interviewers received at least
six hours of training prior to production interviewing. Many had prior interviewing experience on
similar studies. Each phone number was given approximately 8 to 10 call attempts before it was
treated as a “no answer” or “busy” number. Residential phones answered by automatic answering
machines were treated the same as “no answer” calls (although counted separately). CSR
interviewers did not leave messages on the answering machines of potential respondents but
simply returned the phone number to the sample pool for another calling attempt at a later time.
However, answering machine announcements that identified the phone number as a place of
business were recorded as such and not re-attempted.
CSR used a technique called “conversion calling” in order to reduce “non-response bias."
Non-response bias in surveys results when qualified respondents do not complete a survey, usually
because they refuse to cooperate. In conversion calling, our most highly trained interviewers call
back households in which we previously had someone refuse to take the survey. First, we kept
track of the “tone” of initial refusals. “Hard” refusals, those in which people explicitly asked not to
be called again, or were noticeably agitated or upset about our phone call, were not called back at
all. “Soft” refusals, those for which it seemed that we only caught someone at a bad time, were
called back once more after an interval of at least three days.
Information on the disposition of each call made for this study was tracked using the Ci3
CATI system. This information forms the basis for calculating a completion rate for the study, an
important indicator of study quality. A total of 4491 phone numbers were attempted in the course
of the survey. The final disposition of each of the attempted phone numbers is shown in Appendix
Table E-2, the Sample Disposition Report. This year’s disposition report, like that reported in
2000, is presented in a format that has been recommended as an industry standard by the American
Association for Public Opinion Research.2 The AAPOR rate was calculated by a custom analysis
of the complete call history of each attempted number, using a program written in SPSS by CSR
technical staff. This new tool increases the accuracy of the calculation. CSR completed a total of
2 The American Association for Public Opinion Research. 1998. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case
Codes and Outcome Rates for RDD Telephone Surveys and In-Person Household Surveys. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
AAPOR. See also the AAPOR website, www.aapor.org.
E-3
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix E
1044 interviews (including those completed in the conversion phase of calling), for an overall
response rate of 28.8%.3 There were also 36 partial interviews of which 4 were sufficiently
complete for inclusion in the study. The interview took an average of 18.72 minutes to complete
once a qualified respondent was identified, with a median time of 17.7 minutes.4 The overall
interview production rate (1.75 interviews per hour) is slightly higher than the 2000 survey.
The true response rate depends on how one estimates the percentage of working residential
phones that exist among the many numbers that never answered our many call attempts. An
estimate of 22.4% for RR3 is based on the most conservative assumption (equivalent to the
CASRO rate) that the percentage of residential households among unreachable numbers is the
same as the percentage among those we reached, i.e., 62.3%. However, because CSR completed
multiple attempts to nearly all of the no-answer numbers and based upon prior experimentation
with listed and RDD samples in Virginia, we estimate that the residency rate is around 20% of noanswer numbers and that our true response rate (adjusted RR3) is closer to 28.8%.
The following table summarizes responses by region in Charlottesville.
Table E-1: Response Rates by Charlottesville Region
Complet- Response Refusal &
ions*
Rate**
Break-off
North
East
South
South-Central
West
190
235
179
204
271
35.2%
28.0%
27.8%
28.5%
26.8%
Noncontact
78
96
79
102
116
150
314
222
217
356
Other
Eligible but
Unable
Unknown
11
18
11
13
20
120
228
179
216
341
Ineligible
Number
48
96
82
122
176
* Includes completes and partials
** RR3 measure
Sampling Error and Statistical Testing
Based on a sample of 1,048 respondents, the survey has a sampling error of plus or minus
2.99 percent.5 This means that in 95 out of 100 samples of this size drawn from households in
Charlottesville, the results obtained in the sample would fall in a range of +/- 3 percentage points
of what would have been obtained had every household in the City with a working, listed
telephone been interviewed. For a question asked of 500 respondents, the margin of error is +/- 4.4
3 Calculated according to AAPOR suggested formula RR3, with e1=.18 and e2=.89. We estimated the percent of
working, residential numbers among those that were found to always be busy or no-answer (the residency rate) to be
.20. This estimate is based on the results of prior CSR experiments that compare RDD sample results with directorylisted sample results for Virginia. We estimated e2 by dividing households determined to be eligible by the N of
households overall. The estimated e2 was applied to housing units where eligibility could not be determined. We
derived e1 by taking the product of e2 and the estimated residency rate. This rate was applied to numbers that were
never reached and could not be determined to be residential households. Partial interviews are not counted in the
numerator of the RR3 formula but are counted in the RR4. Our RR4 response rate with partial interviews included
was 26.3%.
4 These times indicate the amount of time that the respondent was actually on the phone. Prior to this year, we have
reported the “completion time”—the time that it took the interviewer to complete the interview. The completion time
for this year was an average of 20.25 minutes, with a median of 19.22 minutes.
5 This is based on the population estimate given in the 2004 census. This estimate does not take into account the
“design effect” that somewhat increases sampling variance due to the over-sampling of smaller districts.
E-4
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Appendix E
percent. Larger sampling errors are present when analyzing subgroups of the sample or questions
that were not asked of all respondents; smaller sampling errors are present when a lopsided
majority gives the same answer (e.g., 80 percent of the sample are satisfied with a given service).
For results reported by sector, the margin of error is approximately +/- 7.0 percent within each
sector.
Statistical significance tests were used for two principal reasons. One was to compare the
results of the 2006 survey with those obtained in previous years. To compare the quality of life
scores in 2006 with earlier years, we used a T-test to determine significance at a p-value of .05 or
less. The other was to verify the existence of differences by sector and among various subgroups in
the 2006 sample. For these tests, we use the Pearson Chi-square test, again using a p-value of .05
or less. A level of .05 indicates that there is only a 5 percent chance that the difference we find is
due to sampling error, rather than reflecting a real relationship within the study population. In
comparisons of satisfaction items, the four response categories were collapsed into two, “satisfied”
and “dissatisfied.” The statistics for evaluating statistical significance do not measure sources of
error, which can occur in any poll or survey, that are not related to sampling.
Weighting
Any telephone survey will produce some systematic differences in rates of response that
can potentially introduce bias into the results. Post-weighting of the survey results is a simple
statistical procedure that can be used to correct for such potential biases. For purposes of analysis,
the data in this study were weighted to compensate for the under-representation of males, minority
groups and home renters in the sample. Where appropriate, the data were also weighted by
neighborhood sector to ensure proper representation of each neighborhood. Weighting values were
based upon the most recent United States Census data (2000).
Since our sample was based on listed telephone households, rental households were
somewhat under-represented in our sampling frame, as renters are generally harder to reach than
homeowners. The final sample also under-represented male respondents and African-American
households, as is common in most telephone surveys. This trend results in differences in
cooperation in voluntary surveys among males versus females, and in racial differences of
telephone subscription rates.
In order to accurately assess citizen attitudes across the whole city, we applied weights
based on the distribution of homeownership, gender, race, and sector population as shown in the
2000 census for Charlottesville. Weights were inversely proportional to the sampling rate for each
group and were calculated so that the original number of cases in the full sample was unchanged
by the weighting. The weights were calculated for the demographic groups using a “raking”
procedure based on the marginal distributions for the two dichotomized variables. The result of
this weighting step is that males and females, homeowners and renters, African-Americans and
non-blacks are represented in the weighted sample for the City as whole in proportion to their
share of the city population. The same weighting criteria used in the 2006 survey were re-applied
to CSR’s 2000 survey of City residents, so the results of this survey could be directly comparable
to those from 2006 with respect to the gender proportion, racial composition, homeownership
percentages, and sector population. Since new weighting values, based on the 2000 Census data,
were re-applied to the previous survey data collected in 2000, the final results of the earlier report
E-5
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Appendix E
are slightly changed. After weighting, the distribution of households across geographic sectors in
the sample remains reasonably close to the distribution of households in the population.
Table E-2
Charlottesville Neighbor Plan 2006 – COMBINED CALLING
[dispositions arranged for calculation of AAPOR standard rates]
Code
1100
1200
2110
2120
2210
2221
2222
2310
2320
2330
2340
3120
3130
3140
3150
3210
3220
4100
4200
4310
4320
4410
4420
4430
4510
4520
4530
4700
4800
Disposition
Complete
Partial
Eligible: Refusal
Eligible: Break-off
Eligible: Resp Never Available
Eligible: Ans Mach, No Message
Eligible: Ans Machine, Message
Eligible: Dead
Eligible: Phys/Mentally Unable
Eligible: Language Unable
Eligible: Misc Unable
Busy
No Answer
Ans Mach (Don't Know if HU)
Technical Phone Problems
HU, Unknown Eligible: NoScrnr
HU, Unknown Eligible: Other
Out of Sample
Fax/Data Line
Non-working Number
Disconnected Number
Number Changed
Cell Phone
Call Forwarding
Business/Government/Other Org
Institution
Group Quarter
No Eligible Respondent
Quota Filled
Total
Total
1044
36
453
18
69
1189
1
0
21
43
9
38
226
98
31
691
0
48
40
347
6
4
2
0
70
0
0
7
0
4491
E-6
Group
Complete Interview
Partial Interview
Group Total
1044
36
Refusal and break-off
471
Non-contact
1259
Other
73
Unknown if household
393
Unknown if other
691
Ineligible Numbers
Total Dialed Attempts
Results [AAPOR RATES]:
(Estimated 1 = 0.193
(Estimated 2 = 0.967
Response Rate 1 = 0.263
Response Rate 2 = 0.272
Response Rate 3 = 0.288
Response Rate 4 = 0.303
Response Rate 5 = 0.362
Response Rate 6 = 0.375
Cooperation Rate 1 = 0.643
Cooperation Rate 2 = 0.665
Cooperation Rate 3 = 0.673
Cooperation Rate 4 = 0.696
Refusal Rate 1 = 0.119
Refusal Rate 2 = 0.132
Refusal Rate 3 = 0.163
Contact Rate 1 = 0.409
Contact Rate 2 = 0.448
Contact Rate 3 = 0.563
524
11615
Notes
Notes
Notes
Notes