City of Charlottesville
Neighborhood Planning
Needs Survey
REPORT OF RESULTS: 2006
Prepared by:
Michael A. Aquino, M.A.
Research Analyst
Robin A. Bebel
Project Coordinator
Thomas M. Guterbock, Ph.D.
Director
Prepared for:
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT:
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
June 2006
Weldon Cooper
Center for Public Service
University of Virginia
University of Virginia
City of Charlottesville
Neighborhood Planning
Needs Survey
REPORT OF RESULTS: 2006
Prepared by:
Michael A. Aquino, M.A.
Research Analyst
Robin A. Bebel
Project Coordinator
Thomas M. Guterbock, Ph.D.
Director
Prepared for:
DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT:
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
June 2006
Weldon Cooper
Center for Public Service
University of Virginia
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………….....
ii
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………... iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS……………………………………………………………………...
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………….
v
I: INTRODUCTION………………..………………………………………………………….. 1
II: QUALITY OF LIFE IN CHARLOTTESVILLE………………………………………...…
5
III: STRATEGIC GOALS…………………………………………………………………...… 11
IV: SERVICES AND OVERALL CITY GOVERNMENT…………………………………...
19
V: NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS…………………………………………………...
30
VI: HOUSING ISSUES…………………………………………………………....................... 37
VII: SAFETY AND CRIME…………………………………………………………………...
43
VIII: COOPERATION OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND ALBEMARLE COUNTY………... 49
CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………………………………….
53
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A: CITY SECTORS AND MAP……………………………………………...
A-1
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE………………………………………………………..
B-1
APPENDIX C: FREQUENCIES AND SUBSTANTIVE VARIABLES BY
NEIGHBORHOOD SECTOR………………………………………………..…..……….... C-1
APPENDIX D: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE………………………………………………
D-1
APPENDIX E: SURVEY AND SAMPLING METHODOLOGY………………………… E-1
APPENDICES F-J: OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES BY NEIGHBORHOOD SECTOR
(*PROVIDED UNDER SEPARATE COVER)……………………………………………. F-1
Center for Survey Research
i
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Sector Distribution…………………………………………………………………
2
Figure 1.2: Age of Respondents………………………………………………………………..
2
Figure 1.3: Income Levels of Respondents…………………………………………………….
3
Figure 1.4: Race of Respondents……………………………………………………………….
4
Figure 2.1: Charlottesville as a Place to Live (2006 versus 2000)……………………………..
5
Figure 2.2: Rating Charlottesville Over the Years…………………………………………......
6
Figure 2.3: Rating Charlottesville Now and Five Years Ago………………………………….. 6
Figure 2.4: Neighborhood as a Place to Live (2006 versus 2000)……………………………..
7
Figure 2.5: Rating Charlottesville Neighborhoods Now and Five Years Ago…...…………….
8
Figure 4.1: Overall Satisfaction with City Services (2006)……………………………………. 19
Figure 4.2: Overall Ratings of Services (2006 versus 2000)…………………………………... 19
Figure 5.1: Neighborhood Association Participation…………………………………………..
34
Figure 7.1: Neighborhood Safety by Sector (2006)……………………………………………
43
Figure 7.2: Safety in Areas of the City (2006)…………………………………………………
44
ii
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Differences of Neighborhood as a Place to Live Among Sectors (2006)..................
7
Table 3.1: Goals for Comprehensive Plan (2006 Versus 2000)………....……………………..
13
Table 3.2: Importance of Goals by Neighborhood Sector (2006)………………………...........
16-17
Table 4.1: Satisfaction with City Services (2006 Versus 2000 Ranked)………………………. 22
Table 4.2: Ratings of Services by Neighborhood Sector (2006)………………………………. 26-27
Table 4.3: Services and Taxes (2006)………………………………………………………….
29
Table 5.1: Neighborhood Improvements (2006 Versus 2000)…………………………………
31
Table 5.2: Ratings of Neighborhood Improvement Items by Neighborhood Sector (2006).......
35
Table 6.1: Overall Housing Issues (2006 Versus 2000)………………………………………..
37
Table 6.2: Ratings of Housing Issues by Neighborhood Sector (2006)……………………......
40
Table 7.1: Overall Safety Issues (2006 Versus 2000)………………………………………….
45
Table 7.2: Importance of Crime as a Problem in Neighborhood (2006)……………………….
46
Table 8.1: City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County Cooperation (2006)………………..
49
Table 8.2: Ratings of Charlottesville and Albemarle Cooperation by Neighborhood Sector
(2006)…………………………………………………………………………………………... 51
Center for Survey Research
iii
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Acknowledgements
In the spring of 2006, the City of
Charlottesville commissioned the Center for
Survey Research (CSR) to conduct a
neighborhood needs assessment survey of the
citizens of Charlottesville, Virginia. This
report details the results of the findings and
was made possible through the efforts of
several individuals.
Contributions of key staff members of the
City of Charlottesville ensured the efficient
and successful administration of the survey.
In particular, the participation of Mr. Jim
Tolbert, Director of Neighborhood Planning
and Development Services, Mr. Gary
O’Connell, City Manager, and Mr. Ric
Barrick, Communications Director are
appreciated. In addition, the assistance of Mr.
Jim Herndon is also appreciated.
All those connected with the survey and
report are grateful to the members of the
Charlottesville City Council for their support
of the project and to the residents of
Charlottesville who gave their time to answer
the many detailed questions the survey
entailed.
supervising the programming of the
questionnaire into the CATI system and
managing the data collection efforts of
telephone interviewers and supervisors. Mr.
Holmes also provided the disposition report
located in Appendix E. Abdoulaye Diop,
Ph.D., Senior Research Analyst for CSR,
assisted with the initial stages of analysis,
data merging and weighting.
Other key members of CSR’s staff who
contributed to the completion of this project
are Kathy Coker, Project Assistant, who
cleaned and formatted the open-ended
responses, and Kien Le, Graduate Research
Assistant, who assisted in the weighting of
the data.
Ultimately, the success of the survey rested
with the 1,111 city residents who gave their
time to answer questions regarding
neighborhood needs in the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia.
The Center for Survey Research, a unit of the
Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at
the University of Virginia, is responsible for
any errors in this report.1
For the Center for Survey Research, Michael
A. Aquino, M.A., Research Analyst, authored
the final report and managed various aspects
of the project, which included: conducting all
analyses of the data; analysis planning and
methodology;
demographic
research;
merging and weighting of the data; and
creating a crosswalk of the current survey
instrument with the previous survey used in
the 2000 project.
Thomas M. Guterbock, Ph.D., Director of
CSR,
devised
the
sampling
and
methodological plan, assisted in the
development of the analysis, and oversaw all
aspects of the project.
Robin Bebel served as Project Coordinator,
and assisted with the editing of the report.
John Lee Holmes, Manager of Survey
Operations at CSR, was responsible for
iv
1
Inquires may be directed to: Center for Survey
Research, University of Virginia, P.O. Box 400767,
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4767 or by contacting the
Center at (434) 245-5222, [email protected], or on
the web at www.virginia.edu/surveys.
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Executive Summary
The
2006
City
of
Charlottesville
Neighborhood Planning Needs Survey was a
telephone survey conducted by the Center for
Survey Research at the request of
Charlottesville’s City Council and Manager.
Drawn from a sample of listed telephone
numbers, the total number of respondents for
this survey included 1,111 City of
Charlottesville citizens, interviewed during
the months of February and March 2006. The
sample comprised residents living in the
North, East, South, South-Central, and West
neighborhood sectors of Charlottesville. City
residents were contacted by interviewers at
the Center for Survey Research’s CATI
(Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing)
Laboratory located within the University of
Virginia. The margin of error for this
investigation was +/- 3.0 percent.
The study was designed to allow for
statistical comparisons among the five
neighborhood sectors as well as data
collected in the 2000 survey. For purposes of
analysis, the data were weighted to
compensate for the under-representation of
minorities, males, and home-renters in the
sample. Where appropriate, the data were
also weighted by neighborhood sector to
ensure proper representation of each
neighborhood. Population values used in the
weighting
were
assessed
through
demographic data collected by the United
States Census Bureau (2000).
On a scale of 1 to 10, (where 10 is the best),
respondents gave the City of Charlottesville
“as a place to live” a mean rating of 7.72. In
the 2000 survey, the mean score was 7.89.
Ratings of Charlottesville “as a place to live”
varied statistically by neighborhood sector.
The East sector gave the highest mean rating
of 7.98, followed by the West (7.85), the
North (7.77), the South (7.39), and the lowest
mean rating came from residents of the
South-Central sector (7.32).
Center for Survey Research
Respondents were also asked to rate their
“neighborhood as a place to live” on the same
10-point scale. Overall, respondents gave
their neighborhoods a mean rating of 7.47.
However, statistically, there were significant
differences among sectors when rating the
“neighborhood as a place to live.” The East
sector gave the highest mean rating of 8.11,
followed by the North (8.01), the West
(7.34), the South (7.27), and with the lowest
neighborhood rating, the South-Central gave
a mean score of 6.64.
Regarding the strategic goals of the
Charlottesville
Comprehensive
Plan,
“improving the quality of education in the
public schools” emerged as the top ranked
goal of the list with 85.2 percent of
respondents saying this was “very
important.”
“Making housing more affordable for people
of lower income” increased significantly in
importance since the 2000 survey. With 84.4
percent saying this was a “very important”
goal, making housing more affordable
emerged as the second-most important
strategic goal item among residents as a
whole.
“Expanding affordable health” care and
“preserving natural resources and open
space” also emerged as important strategic
goal items. Chapter III illustrates how all 23
goal items ranked overall and by each
neighborhood sector as well.
In regards to services, respondents were
asked to rate their satisfaction with a series of
17 service items. Overall, 87.3 percent of
respondents said they were satisfied with the
job the city is doing in providing services
(64.8% somewhat satisfied and 22.5% very
satisfied). This is a small but significant
decrease in satisfaction from the 90.1 percent
who were satisfied in 2000.
Services receiving the most favorable ratings
were the provision of police protection
(89.8% satisfied), the provision of open green
spaces and parks (86.0% satisfied), and the
v
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
maintenance of streets in the city (80.6%
satisfied).
the neighborhood is too high,” which also
increased significantly since the 2000 survey.
Services receiving the least favorable ratings
among residents as a whole and among all
five neighborhood sectors were: the job the
city was doing to reduce traffic congestion
(43.1% satisfied), promotion of adequate
housing opportunities (48.3% satisfied), and
the reduction of illegal drug use among youth
(49.6% satisfied).
During the daytime, 97.6 percent of
Charlottesville respondents said they felt safe
(81.3% very safe and 16.3% somewhat safe)
in their neighborhood. However, during the
night, this number dropped to 80.4 percent
feeling safe (40.6% very safe and 39.8
somewhat safe). Perceived safety after dark
differed significantly among the five
neighborhood sectors with the East and North
sectors feeling significantly safer than the
West, South, and South-Central sectors.
In regards to services and taxes, 51.3 percent
of respondents said the city should keep
services and taxes the same, while 18.6
percent said the city should increase both
services and taxes, and 15.9 percent said the
city should decrease both services and taxes.
Respondents were asked to rate the
importance
of
seven
Neighborhood
Improvement Items. Emerging as the most
important neighborhood improvement among
Charlottesville residents as a whole was
“increasing home ownership” with 45.8
percent saying this was “very important.”
Respondents also rated “doing more to
maintain
the
neighborhood’s
rental
properties” and having “more effective traffic
and parking controls” as important
neighborhood improvements.
When looking at nine housing issues asked in
the survey, respondents agreed 88.6 percent
of the time that their neighborhood “is clean
and well maintained.” Eighty-four percent of
respondents also agreed that it is “easy to
walk around” in their neighborhood.
Importantly, however, 90.1 percent of
respondents agreed that “the cost of buying a
home in the neighborhood is too high.” This
housing issue received the highest amount of
agreement among respondents and has
increased significantly since the 2000 survey.
This housing issue was worded negatively, so
that high agreement actually indicates
dissatisfaction with the issue. Furthermore,
this result is consistent among all five
neighborhood sectors. Similarly, 72.1 percent
of respondents agreed that “the cost of rent in
vi
On the Downtown Mall, 98.8 percent of
respondents feel safe during the daytime,
while 77.9 percent feel safe after dark.
In Business Areas, 97.9 percent of
respondents feel safe during the daytime,
while 77.8 percent feel safe after dark.
And, on West Main Street, 95.0 percent of
respondents feel safe during the daytime,
while 57.8 percent feel safe after dark.
When asked about the importance of crime as
a neighborhood problem, the South-Central
sector had the highest percentage (15.8%)
saying crime was “the most important
neighborhood problem.” Twelve percent
(12.4%) of South sector respondents also said
that crime was the most important
neighborhood problem. The neighborhood
sector with the smallest percentage saying
crime was the most important neighborhood
problem was the East with just 3.4 percent of
respondents agreeing.
Finally,
respondents
of
the
2006
Charlottesville
Neighborhood
Planning
Needs Survey were asked a series of
questions regarding the cooperation of the
City of Charlottesville and the County of
Albemarle on certain issues. Generally
speaking, 93.9 percent of respondents favor
cooperation between the city and county in
planning for the whole community.
Furthermore, 93.1 percent of respondents
favor the city and county setting up more
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
joint programs and services that would serve
the entire area.
Also, in regards to the City of Charlottesville
and County of Albemarle merging certain
services, there was a favorable amount of
support for a joint fire fighting service
(83.4% favor), and a merging of the park and
recreational
systems
(79.8%
favor).
However, there were far fewer respondents
favoring a merger of the city and county
police departments (52.9%), a merging of the
city and county schools (50.8%), or a
consolidation of the city and county
governments into a single unified
government (48.5%).
Center for Survey Research
vii
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
viii
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Chapter I:
INTRODUCTION
This report details the findings of a survey
conducted by the Center for Survey Research
at the University of Virginia, on behalf of the
City of Charlottesville’s Department of
Neighborhood Planning & Development Services in the spring of 2006. The purposes of
this survey were to:
•
Assess the perceptions of residents
regarding the quality of life in Charlottesville and in their neighborhoods.
•
Determine the opinions of residents
regarding the relative importance of
strategic goals to be included in the
comprehensive plan.
•
Determine residents’ level of satisfaction with a variety of City services.
•
Assess opinion about improvements
that might be needed in neighborhoods.
•
Assess residents’ concerns about
safety and security in the City and in
their neighborhoods.
•
Assess opinions about housing issues
in the neighborhood.
•
Assess opinions about potential cooperative strategies between the City of
Charlottesville
and
Albemarle
County.
•
Where appropriate, assess statistical
changes in opinion from the past surveys conducted in the years 2000,1
1993,2 and 1975.3
Drawn from a sample of directory-listed telephone numbers, a total of 1,111 city residents
were called by interviewers at CSR’s CATI4
Laboratory at the University of Virginia during the months of February and March, 2006.
Statistical tests of significance were conducted between the recent 2006 data and the
data collected in the year 2000. The study
was also designed to allow for statistical
comparisons among five sectors of the City
of Charlottesville: North, East, South, SouthCentral, and West. These sectors have been
used as a basis for the community planning
activities that are part of the City’s comprehensive planning process. A map of the five
neighborhood sectors of Charlottesville can
be observed in Appendix A of this report.
Responses to the survey were analyzed by
Charlottesville residents as a whole, by
neighborhood sector, and by several demographic categories as well. In discussing the
results, the instances in which statistically
significant differences were found are reported. For example, statistically significant
differences between neighborhood sectors
(North, East, South, South-Central, and
West), age groups, levels of household income, educational levels, number of children
in the household, men and women, and racial
groups are reported in the text.
For purposes of analysis, the data were
weighted to compensate for the underrepresentation 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).
The questionnaire was developed in consultation with members of the City of Charlottes-
1
Meekins, Brian J., Kate F. Wood, and Thomas M.
Guterbock, City of Charlottesville Neighborhood
Planning Needs Survey, 2000.
2
Finkel, Steven E. and Thomas M. Guterbock, 1993
Charlottesville Citizen Satisfaction Survey: Report of
Results, Center for Survey Research, University of
Virginia, 1993.
Center for Survey Research
3
Hadden, Jeffrey K. and Edwin E. Erickson, Charlottesville: What We Say, What We Do, What we Hope
for, the final report of the Charlottesville Goals Study
for the Central Piedmont Urban Observatory, 1975.
4
Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing.
1
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
To avoid administering an overly long interview instrument to each respondent, while
simultaneously being able to collect the desired amount of information from the sample,
a technique known as “question rationing”
was used for particular questions in the survey. In rationing, each respondent receives a
random selection of items in a longer series
of questions rather than being asked to answer every item in series. This technique has
been successfully implemented by the Center
for Survey Research in prior surveys and enables a broad representation of data to be collected from respondents while shortening the
length of each interview. The overall results
of the survey have a margin of error of +/- 3.0
percentage points for questions asked of all
respondents. Formal details on our sample
and methods are supplied in Appendix F.
Demographic Profile of Sample
To allow for analysis of the data by personal
and social characteristics, we asked respondents some questions about themselves and
their households. The demographic profile of
this year’s study is as follows, and can be
viewed in full detail in Appendix D of this
report.5
Figure 1.1: Sector Distribution
North
16.3%
East
19.8%
South
10.2%
South-Central
16.6%
West
37.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
About one-quarter (24.1%) of respondents
are in the age category of 26-37 years old,
22.1 percent are 38-49 years old, 21.4 percent
are 50-64 years old, 20.3 percent are 65 years
or older, and 12.2 percent of the sample is
18-25 years of age.
Figure 1.2: Age of Respondents
18-25
Age in Years
ville professional staff and follows a similar
structure as the instrument used in 2000. The
survey instrument used in this more recent
2006 investigation is reproduced in Appendix
B of the report.
12.2%
26-37
24.1%
38-49
22.1%
50-64
21.4%
20.3%
65+
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
In regards to the five neighborhood sectors of
Charlottesville 37.1 percent of respondents
are living in the West, 19.8 percent live in the
East, 16.6 percent live in the South-Central,
16.3 percent reside in the North, and 10.2
percent live in the South neighborhood sector
of Charlottesville. However, our quota sampling design drew respondents fairly evenly
from each sector.
When asked how long they have lived in the
City of Charlottesville, 27.5 percent have
lived there for twenty years or more, and an
additional 13.4 percent said they have lived
in the city their whole life. Eighteen percent
have lived in Charlottesville for five to ten
years, 12.5 percent for three to four years,
11.0 percent for just one to two years, and 7.7
percent for less than one year.
5
In regards to homeownership, 57.2 percent of
the sample rent their place of residence while
42.8 percent own (or are buying) their home.
A majority of respondents (56.6%) described
The percentages reported here are for weighted data.
2
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
the type of place they live as a single-family
home, while 29.1 percent live in an apartment
style home. Additionally, 12.9 percent report
living in a duplex or two-family structure, 0.3
percent said a mobile home or trailer, and another 1.1 percent chose to indicate some
“other” type of home.
When asked how long they have lived at their
current address, fewer than twenty percent
(19.2) said twenty years or more, while 1.2
percent said their whole life. Almost twelve
percent (11.6%) indicated living at their current address for eleven to nineteen years, and
just less than twenty percent (19.1%) said
five to ten years. Nearly fourteen percent
(13.8%) reported living at their current residence for three to four years, just over twenty
percent (20.4%) said one to two years, and
14.7 percent said they have lived at their current address for less than one year.
Fewer than one-half (48.2%) of respondents
indicated two adults living in their household,
while 39.6 percent reported being the only
adult residing in their home. An additional
7.1 percent said there were three adults living
in their household, and 5.1 percent said there
were four or more adults living in their home.
A majority (70.7%) of respondents indicated
that there are no children living in their
household. Of those respondents who have
children living in their home, 11.7 percent
report one child, another 11.7 percent report
two children, and less than six percent (5.9%)
report three children or more. Of respondents
who have children residing in their home,
62.1 percent indicated enrollment at a public
school in the city.
In regards to employment status, a majority
(49.9%) of respondents were working fulltime, while 8.7 percent were working parttime. Just below twenty percent (19.6%) were
retired, 12.3 percent were students, 3.3 percent were homemakers, and 1.9 percent were
looking for work. The remaining 4.4 percent
indicated some ‘other’ type of employment
status.
Center for Survey Research
When looking at educational level, 1.6 percent of our respondents completed elementary school only, 5.0 percent had some high
school but did not finish, and just over eighteen percent (18.2%) went as far as completing high school. Fourteen percent (14.0%)
completed some college but did not finish,
6.4 percent completed a two-year degree, and
19.1 percent obtained a four-year college degree. In regards to higher levels of education,
5.5 percent have some graduate work, 19.6
percent of respondents completed a Masters
or professional degree, and 10.5 percent possess a Ph.D.
In regards to income level, just under fourteen percent (13.6%), earn $0-$14,999 per
year, just over twenty one percent (21.2%)
earn $15,000-$29,999 per year, and 19.9 percent earn $30,000-$44,999 per year. Just below fifteen percent (14.8%) earn $45,000$59,999, 8.7 percent earn $60,000-$74,999,
10.3 percent earn $75,000-$99,999, 7.8 percent earn $100,000-$150,000, and 3.7 percent
earn $150,000 or more per year.
Figure 1.3: Income Levels of Respondents
13.6%
$0 to $14,999
21.2%
$15,000 to $29,999
19.9%
$30,000 to $44,999
14.8%
$45,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $74,999
8.7%
$75,000 to $99,999
10.3%
$100,000 to $150,000
7.8%
Over $150,000
3.7%
0%
5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
A plurality (42.9%) of respondents in the
sample were currently married, while 30.3
percent had never married. Just below fifteen
percent (14.7%) were currently divorced, 3.0
percent were currently separated, and 9.1 percent were currently widowed.
3
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Just over three-fourths (75.9) of respondents
said they were registered voters, while 24.1
percent were unregistered.
Most respondents (73.9%) reported having a
computer in their household, while just over
one-quarter (26.1%) did not. Similarly, 77.5
percent have accessed the internet from home
or work in the past year, while 22.5 percent
have not done so.
In regards to gender, over one-half (53.3%)
of the sample was comprised of females and
46.7 percent were male.
Among racial categories, 73.6 percent indicated being Caucasian or White, 20.8 percent
indicated African-American or Black, and the
remaining 5.6 percent described themselves
as Asian (2.7%), American Indian (0.4%),
Pacific Islander (0.1%), or another group altogether (2.4%). Of all respondents, just 2.4
percent considered themselves to be of Hispanic origin.
Figure 1.4: Race of Respondents
73.6%
White
20.8%
African-American
2.7%
Asian
American Indian
0.4%
Pacific Islander
0.1%
Other
2.4%
0%
4
20%
40%
60%
80%
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Chapter II:
QUALITY
OF
LIFE
CHARLOTTESVILLE
IN
This section of the report serves to assess
residents’ perceptions of the City of Charlottesville and the five neighborhood sectors
within the city (North, East, South, SouthCentral, and West).
Specifically, respondents were asked to “rate
Charlottesville as a place to live” on a scale
of 1 to 10 (where 1 represents the worst possible community and 10 represents the best
possible community). In addition to this
topic, qualified participants were asked to
rate the city as a place to live “five years
ago.”
To narrow the focus on specific neighborhood sectors, respondents were also asked to
rate the neighborhood in which they live, and,
if applicable, rate the neighborhood “five
years ago” using the same ten-point scale.
This ten point scale provided the basis for a
mean score reflecting how residents felt
about the City of Charlottesville overall as
well as each of the city’s five neighborhood
sectors.
Rating the City of Charlottesville as a
Place to Live, Now and Five Years Ago
As a whole, the City of Charlottesville received a favorable mean rating of 7.72 on the
ten-point scale. Reflecting the favorable
mean score, nearly three of ten (29.1%) respondents rated Charlottesville with either a
score of “9” (14.7%) or “10” (14.4%). Over
one-third (34.9%) of the participants rated
Charlottesville with a score of “8,” and another 18.5 percent rated the city with a score
of “7.” In addition, just below 18 percent
(17.6%) ranked Charlottesville in the lowest
six categories.
When analyzed by neighborhood sector, there
was some notable variation in rating Charlottesville as a place to live. As observed in
Center for Survey Research
Figure 2.1, the East neighborhood sector of
the city gave the highest mean rating of 7.98,
followed closely by the West sector, which
gave a mean score of 7.85, and the North
with a mean rating of 7.77. The lowest mean
ratings came from South sector (7.39), and
the South-Central sector (7.32).
Figure 2.1: Charlottesville as a Place to Live
(2006 versus 2000)
2000
2006
7.72
7.89
Overall City
7.77
8.28
North
7.98
8.03
East
South
7.39
7.89
South-Central
7.32
7.73
West
7.85
7.67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Mean Rating
Statistical analysis reveals a significant difference between the five neighborhood sectors and ratings of Charlottesville as a place
to live. With the highest mean score, the East
sector gave significantly higher ratings than
the South-Central and the South sector. The
West sector also gave a significantly higher
mean rating for the city than the SouthCentral and South sectors.
Figure 2.2 compares the city’s overall rating
this year (2006) with the previous data collected in the years 2000, 1993, and 1975.
Since 2000, it appears that the overall assessment of Charlottesville as a place to live
has decreased from a mean rating of 7.89
(2000) to a more recent mean score of 7.72
(2006). Although this difference seems relatively small at 0.17, the decrease in means is
statistically significant.
5
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Figure 2.2: Rating Charlottesville Over the
Years
Figure 2.3: Rating Charlottesville Now and
Five Years Ago
* Mean for 2006 is statistically different from 2000 rating.
* Only respondents living in the City of Charlottesville for
five years or more are analyzed in this graph.
10
Five Years Ago
Now
9
7.19
7.56
7.89
7.72*
10
7
9
6
8
5
7
Mean Rating
Mean Rating
8
4
3
2
1
7.69
8.04
7.78
7.81
6
5
4
3
1975
1993
2000
Year
2006
2
1
“I would like to see the city present a
face, in regards to development issues,
that is accessible and transparent to the
citizens. Our residents need to have an
advocate.”
To understand past perceptions of Charlottesville, tenured respondents (or those living in
Charlottesville for five years or longer) were
also asked to rate the city as a place to live
“five years ago.” On the same ten-point scale,
tenured respondents gave the City of Charlottesville an overall mean rating of 7.81
(n=748) when rating the city “now.” When
asked to rate the city “five years ago,” tenured respondents of 2006 gave a retrospective
mean of 7.78 (n=725). Figure 2.3 illustrates
these results, as well as the results for the
same questions asked in the 2000 survey.
6
2000
2006
Year
“I would like to see improvement in public
transportation and a better control over
the growth of our city.”
After being asked to rate the city now and
five years ago, respondents were asked an
open-ended question:
If you had to name the one thing that
could be done to make Charlottesville
a better place to live, what would it
be?
“My number one priority is the high cost
of living in this area.”
The complete responses to this question are
located in a separate Appendix provided in
addition to this report.
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Rating the Neighborhood as a Place to
Live, Now and Five Years Ago
To understand perceptions of neighborhoods
in the City of Charlottesville, respondents
were specifically asked to rate the neighborhood in which they live. As a whole, respondents gave the neighborhoods an overall
mean rating of 7.47 (0.25 points lower than
observed for the city as a whole). As seen in
Figure 2.4, the highest mean score (8.11)
came from respondents living in the East
neighborhood sector of the city, while the
second highest mean rating (8.01) came from
participants living in the North sector of
Charlottesville. The West sector of the city
gave the third highest mean score of 7.34. In
contrast, the lowest neighborhood ratings
came from the South-Central (6.64) and
South sectors (7.27) of Charlottesville.
“I like the neighborhood sense of community, and the proximity to the campus
and all of the services.”
Figure 2.4: Neighborhood as a Place to Live
(2006 versus 2000)
“I like the atmosphere and the convenience of an old suburban neighborhood.”
“The cost of housing keeps going up, and
there is no clear plan for development either residential or commercial.”
Table 2.1 lists the five neighborhoods and the
mean differences between each sector. The
biggest disparity in neighborhood ratings is
observed for the South-Central sector, where
residents gave significantly lower ratings
than those living in the other four sectors.
With the highest neighborhood ratings coming from the East sector, residents of this
neighborhood gave significantly higher ratings than the South-Central, the South, and
the West sectors. With the second highest
ratings, residents of the North sector rate
their neighborhood significantly higher than
the South-Central, the South, and the West.
Table 2.1: Differences of
Neighborhood as a Place to Live
Among Sectors (2006)
Sector
2000
2006
North
7.47
7.45
Overall Hood
North
8.01
7.89
East
8.11
8.10
East
7.27
7.43
South
South
6.64
6.36
South-Central
7.34
7.32
West
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
South-Central
9
10
When looking at the differences between ratings of neighborhoods, statistical tests reveal
significant differences between all five
neighborhood sectors.
Center for Survey Research
West
East
South
South-Central
West
North
South
South-Central
West
North
East
South-Central
West
North
East
South
West
North
East
South
South-Central
Mean
Difference
-.104
.734
1.366
.670
.104
.839
1.470
.774
-.734
-.839
.631
-.064
-1.366
-1.470
-.631
-.696
-.670
-.774
.064
.696
* Significant differences are indicated in bold type
(p<.05).
7
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
“There are too many cars. The roads are
not designed to handle traffic. It is not
easy to get around for pedestrians, bikers, or children.”
Respondents living in their neighborhood for
five years or more were asked to rate their
neighborhood now and then again in retrospect. On the same ten-point scale, tenured
respondents of 2006 rated their neighborhood
with an overall current score of 7.73 (n=539).
When asked to rate their neighborhood five
years ago, respondents of 2006 gave a similar
mean rating (7.72; n=543) as compared to
their present neighborhood ratings. Figure 2.5
illustrates neighborhood ratings from this
year’s survey (2006) as well as previous data
collected in 2000. Since 2000, it appears that
the overall assessment of neighborhoods
among tenured residents has increased.
Figure 2.5: Rating Charlottesville Neighborhoods Now and Five Years Ago
* Only respondents living in their current neighborhood for five years or more are analyzed in this graph.
Five Years Ago
Now
10
9
8
7.65
7.63
7.72
7.73
Mean Rating
7
Overall Ratings of Charlottesville and
Neighborhood as a Place to Live by
Demographics
When looking at city and neighborhood ratings, demographic indicators reveal some
notable differences among social groups.
Aside from 18-25 year olds, respondents
aged 65 years and older rated Charlottesville
significantly higher than other age categories.
Similarly, respondents aged 65 years and
older rated their neighborhoods significantly
higher than all other age groups.
It appears that income plays a role in how
participants rated Charlottesville as a place to
live, however, the results do not indicate a
clear trend. Most notably, respondents earning anywhere from $75,000-$150,000 per
year rated the city significantly higher than
residents earning lower incomes, anywhere
from $15,000-$59,999. When it comes to rating the neighborhood by respondents’ level
of income, similar results emerge.
Respondents with “some college, but did not
finish” rated Charlottesville significantly
lower than participants with a college degree,
a Master’s, or a Ph.D. When looking at overall neighborhood ratings, similar results appear.
“It’s a multigenerational, mixed, diverse
neighborhood.”
6
5
4
3
2
1
2000
2006
“I think we need to make sure the old
neighborhoods do not deteriorate.”
8
Subgroup Analysis
Respondents living in Charlottesville 20
years or more rated the city significantly
higher than residents living in the city for one
to two years. When looking at neighborhood
ratings, respondents living in Charlottesville
20 years or more also rated their neighborhood significantly higher than participants
living in the city less than one year, one to
two years, three to four years, and residents
living in Charlottesville their whole lives.
When analyzed by gender and number of
children within a household, no significant
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
differences arise when examining ratings of
the City of Charlottesville and neighborhoods.
Married or widowed residents rated the city
significantly higher than separated residents.
When rating the neighborhood, respondents
who had never married gave significantly
lower ratings than married and widowed residents. Separated respondents also rated the
neighborhood significantly lower than widowed respondents.
In regards to race, African-American respondents rated the City of Charlottesville significantly lower than Caucasian participants and
respondents of other racial backgrounds.
Overall, African-American respondents also
rated their neighborhoods significantly lower
than Caucasian respondents.
Center for Survey Research
9
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
10
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Chapter III:
STRATEGIC GOALS
The City of Charlottesville will be updating
its comprehensive plan during the coming
year. This section of the report serves to examine the ratings of 23 goal items asked in
the 2006 City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Needs Assessment questionnaire.
For each item, respondents were asked
whether they would judge the goal to be
“very important,” “somewhat important,” or
“not that important.” To manage the time of
each survey respondent efficiently, each participant was asked 10 of the 23 goal items in
a random order. This technique is referred to
as “rationing” because it provides equal representation of all the goal items while also
reducing the length of the questionnaire.
Items were asked in a random order to minimize the influence of any idea presented on
the following questions.
In analyzing the data, the 23 goal items were
ranked according to the percentage of respondents selecting the item as “very important.” The results of the 2006 data are also
compared with the 2000 data to provide an
analysis of the changing perceptions held by
residents over time. The means for 2006 and
2000 goal items were statistically tested to
see if any significant differences exist between the two years.6 Table 3.1 provides a
detailed description of this analysis.
Top 10 Goals for 2006 Among
Charlottesville Residents
• #1 - Improving the quality of education in the public schools
6
•
#2 - Making housing more affordable
for people of lower income
•
#3 - Expanding affordable health care
services in the area
Significance was assessed using an independent
samples t-test for the difference in means.
Center for Survey Research
•
#4 - Preserving natural resources and
open space
•
#5 - Making the area’s neighborhoods
and streets safer
•
#6 - Emphasizing prevention and development programs for youth
•
#7 - Encouraging racial and cultural
diversity in neighborhoods
•
#8 - Expanding services for the elderly
•
#9 - Expanding and improving affordable child care services
•
#10 - Keeping taxes at or below their
current level
In 2006, the goal at the top of the list for
Charlottesville residents remains “improving
the quality of education in the public
schools.” Eighty-five percent (85.2%) of respondents said this was very important for
the comprehensive plan. On a three-point
scale,7 improving quality in public schools as
a goal received a mean rating of 2.83, the
highest of all goal items. The mean rating for
this goal category did not change significantly since the 2000 survey.
Ranked at number two was “making housing
more affordable for people of lower income.”
In the year 2000, this goal item was ranked
fourth but increased significantly from a
mean of 2.70 (2000) to 2.80 (2006). The percentage of respondents indicating more affordable housing as a “very important” goal
also increased from 74.4 percent (2000) to
84.4 percent (2006). This increase may be
linked in part to the substantial increase in
housing prices that has taken place in this
period.
The third goal on the list was “expanding affordable health care services in the area,”
with 75.1 percent of respondents rating this
as “very important.” Among 2006 partici7
Where 1=not that important 2=somewhat important,
and 3=very important.
11
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
pants, the mean rating for this item remained
2.67, which is the same as the 2000 survey.
The fourth most important goal among Charlottesville residents was “preserving natural
resources and open space.” With a mean of
2.67 (on a 3-point scale), 72.1 percent of respondents indicated that the preservation of
resources and open space is a “very important" goal. As preserving resources and open
space remains a high priority for Charlottesville residents, the mean score for this item
did not change significantly from the results
of the 2000 survey.
In 2006, the fifth most important goal for
Charlottesville residents was “making the
area’s neighborhoods and streets safer” with
71.7 percent of respondents indicating this as
a “very important” goal. However, compared
to the year 2000, the mean score for this goal
dropped significantly from 2.77 (2000) to
2.65 (2006). The percentage of residents indicating that making the neighborhoods and
streets safer as a “very important” goal also
dropped from 80.3 percent (2000) to 71.7
percent (2006). The results of this analysis
may indicate that a significant portion of
Charlottesville residents feel safer in 2006
than in 2000.
identifying this as a “very important” goal,
the mean score dropped significantly from
2.33 (2000) to 2.20 (2006). Other goals that
gained fewer than 50 percent of respondents
saying “very important” were: “concentrating
future growth of the university on or near the
UVA grounds” (41.5% very important;
mean=2.12); “promoting economic growth
through redevelopment in selected commercial areas” (43.6% very important;
mean=2.13); and “continuing to support cultural and entertainment opportunities”
(49.2% very important; mean=2.40).
See Table 3.1 for a complete listing of the 23
goal items and their ratings among Charlottesville residents.
Other goal items receiving high mean scores
and “very important” ratings were: “emphasizing prevention and development programs
for youth” (69.8% very important;
mean=2.66); “encouraging racial and cultural
diversity in neighborhoods” (67.6% very important; mean=2.60); “expanding services for
the elderly” (62.6% very important;
mean=2.54); “expanding and improving affordable child care services” (60.4% very important; mean=2.50); and “keeping taxes at
or below their current level” (59.6% very important; mean=2.46).
The goal receiving the lowest ranking for
2006 was “making it more convenient to access services and information from city government.” With 37.7 percent of respondents
12
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Table 3.1: Goals for Comprehensive Plan (2006 Versus 2000)
* Indicates a significant difference between the means (p<.05).
** Mean rating is on a three-point scale (where 1=not that important and 3=very important).
2006
Ranking
(2000)
Variable
Name
1 (1)
Goal_1
2 (4)
Goal_4
3 (5)
Goal_19
4 (3)
Goal_5
5 (2)
Goal_8
6 (6)
Goal_14
7 (9)
Goal_10
8 (8)
Goal_16
9 (7)
Description
Improving the quality of education in the public
schools
Making housing more affordable for people of
lower income
Expanding affordable health care services in the
area
2006
% Very
Important
Mean**
2000
% Very
Important
Mean**
85.2
2.83
85.7
2.84
84.4
2.80*
74.4
2.70*
75.1
2.67
72.6
2.67
Preserving natural resources and open space
72.1
2.67
75.1
2.71
Making the area’s neighborhoods and streets safer
71.7
2.65*
80.3
2.77*
69.8
2.66
72.2
2.69
67.6
2.60
63.1
2.55
Expanding services for the elderly
62.6
2.54*
69.2
2.65*
Goal_15
Expanding and improving affordable child care
services
60.4
2.50*
70.8
2.67*
10 (13)
Goal_20
Keeping taxes at or below their current level
59.6
2.46
57.6
2.47
11 (18)
Goal_13
Controlling the rate of growth of our area
57.9
2.44*
49.9
2.34*
12 (10)
Goal_2
Bringing more higher–paying jobs to our area
56.4
2.47
61.9
2.52
13 (20)
Goal_12
Providing better public transportation
55.1
2.42*
47.2
2.29*
14 (12)
Goal_3
Improving the quality of existing housing
54.8
2.44
57.5
2.49
15 (15)
Goal_11
Reducing traffic in neighborhoods
54.4
2.38
54.3
2.38
16 (16)
Goal_21
52.3
2.40
54.3
2.44
17 (17)
Goal_22
52.3
2.39
51.4
2.41
18 (21)
Goal_7
52.3
2.21
54.3
2.27
19 (11)
Goal_17
50.9
2.40*
60.6
2.52*
20 (14)
Goal_9
49.2
2.40*
56.8
2.50*
21 (23)
Goal_6
43.6
2.13*
43.5
2.25*
22 (22)
Goal_23
41.5
2.12
40.0
2.15
23 (19)
Goal_18
37.7
2.20*
46.9
2.33*
Emphasizing prevention and development programs for youth
Encouraging racial and cultural diversity in
neighborhoods
Expanding cooperation between the University
and Charlottesville
Expanding cooperation between the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County
Providing better parks and recreation facilities
Emphasizing prevention and self-sufficiency programs for adults
Continuing to support cultural and entertainment
opportunities
Promoting economic growth through redevelopment in selected commercial areas
Concentrating future growth of the University on
or near UVA grounds
Making it more convenient to access services and
information from City government
Center for Survey Research
13
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Top 5 Most Important Goals by
Neighborhood Sector (2006)
By looking at the 23 goal items by neighborhood sector (North, East, South, SouthCentral, and West), a better understanding of
goal ratings can be achieved. The results of
the analysis reveal that rankings and mean
ratings of goals between neighborhood sectors have some similarities as well as some
statistically significant differences.
Table 3.2 provides the list of goals with the
ranking, percent indicating “very important”
and the mean of each goal by neighborhood
sector of the City. Table 3.2 also illustrates
significant differences among neighborhood
sectors when rating each goal item. Mean
ratings that are significantly different are
highlighted with an asterisk and bold type.
As noted earlier, mean ratings are based upon
a three-point scale where 1 equals “not that
important” and 3 equals “very important.”
•
Goal 1
In three of the five sectors (North, East, and
South) “making housing more affordable for
people of lower income” ranked as the number one goal item for the city. With a mean of
2.88, 88.4 percent of residents in the North
sector of Charlottesville said making housing
more affordable is “very important.” Similarly, 85.2 percent of residents in the South
(mean=2.83), and 84.1 percent of residents in
the East (mean=2.76) identified affordable
housing as “very important.”
Improving the quality of education in public
schools also ranked highly amongst all five
neighborhood sectors. In particular, the
South-Central (mean=2.91) and West
(mean=2.83) sectors prioritized the quality of
education as the most important goal (91.8%
and 85.1% “very important”).
•
Goal 2
For the North, East, and South neighborhood
sectors of Charlottesville, improving the
14
quality of education in public schools was the
second-most important goal. With a mean
rating of 2.85, 85.1 percent of the South
neighborhood sector found improving the
quality of education to be “very important.”
Similarly, 81.3 percent of residents in the
North (mean=2.77) and 80.7 percent of residents in the East (mean=2.78) said improving
the quality of education in public schools is
“very important.”
Making housing more affordable was ranked
second among the South-Central (91.6% very
important; mean=2.88) and West (77.9%
very important; mean=2.71) neighborhood
sectors.
•
Goal 3
For the North and East neighborhood sectors,
the goal of preserving Charlottesville’s natural resources and open space ranked third.
With a mean rating of 2.71, 77.8 percent of
residents living in the East sector rated this
goal as “very important.” In similar fashion,
nearly three-fourths of the North neighborhood sector (mean=2.69, 73.4%) felt the
preservation of natural resources and open
space was “very important.”
The third highest goal for residents of the
South neighborhood sector was “expanding
affordable health care services in the area” as
80.8 percent (mean=2.78) of South residents
said this goal was “very important.”
For residents in the South-Central sector of
Charlottesville, “emphasizing prevention and
development programs for youth” was the
third highest goal with 86.3 percent saying
this is “very important.” Statistically, the
South-Central (mean=2.85) gave a significantly higher mean rating for this particular
goal than the South and East neighborhood
sectors.
The third goal for residents of the West sector was “making the area’s neighborhoods
and streets safer” (mean=2.69, 75.9% very
important).
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
•
Goal 4
The fourth ranked goal item for the East,
South-Central, and West sectors was “expanding affordable health care services in the
area.” With a mean rating of 2.75, 81.3 percent of respondents residing in the SouthCentral sector said this was “very important.”
Similarly, 77.0 percent (mean=2.69) of East
sector respondents, and 70.9 percent
(mean=2.60) of West sector respondents said
this was a very important goal.
For the North sector, the fourth ranked goal
item was “emphasizing prevention and development programs for youth” as 69.4 percent (mean=2.64) said this goal was “very
important.”
Preserving Charlottesville’s natural resources
and open space was the fourth highest goal
for residents of the South neighborhood sector. With a mean rating of 2.71, 77.8 percent
of South sector respondents said “preserving
natural resources and open space was a “very
important” goal.
•
Goal 5
Making the area’s neighborhoods and streets
safer was the fifth highest goal in importance
for the South-Central (80.9% very important;
mean=2.80) and North (68.9% very important; mean=2.56) sectors.
For West sector respondents, “preserving
natural resources and open space” was
ranked fifth, as 70.7 percent (mean=2.66)
said this was a “very important” goal.
Expanding services for the elderly was the
fifth-most important goal for the South
neighborhood sector. Among South sector
respondents, 74.7 percent (mean=2.67) said
that “expanding services for the elderly” was
“very important.”
For 65.5 percent of East sector respondents,
“emphasizing prevention and development
programs for youth,” was the fifth most important goal item (mean=2.60).
Center for Survey Research
15
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Table 3.2: Importance of Goals by Neighborhood Sector (2006)**
* Indicates a significant difference of the mean at the p<.05 level.
** Mean rating is on a three-point scale (where 1=not that important and 3=very important).
Sector
Item
Goal_1
Goal_4
Goal_19
Goal_5
Goal_8
Goal_14
Goal_10
Description
Improve quality of
education in schools
Make housing more
affordable
Expand affordable
health care services
Preserve natural resources & open space
Make neighborhood
& streets safer
Emphasize prevention and development
programs for youth
Encourage racial &
cultural diversity
North (a)
%Very
Rank
Imp.
Mean
Rank
East (b)
%Very
Imp.
Mean
South-Central (d)
%Very
Rank
Imp.
Mean
Rank
West (e)
%Very
Imp.
Mean
2
81.3
2.77
2
80.7
2.78
2
85.1
2.85
1
91.8
2.91
1
85.1
2.83
1
88.4
2.88
1
84.1
2.76
1
85.2
2.83
2
91.6
2.88
2
77.9
2.71
7
67.8
2.59
4
77.0
2.69
3
80.8
2.78
4
81.3
2.75
4
70.9
2.60
3
73.4
2.69
3
77.7
2.75
4
77.8
2.71
13
65.7
2.57
5
70.7
2.66
5
68.9
2.56
7
62.5
2.56
9
63.8
2.54
5
80.9
2.80
3
75.9
2.69
4
69.4
2.64
5
65.5
14
57.1
3
86.3
7
68.0
2.63
6
68.3
2.61
9
60.9
2.60*
(d)
6
68.8
Expand services for
elderly
18
47.1
Goal_15
Improve affordable
child care services
14
52.4
2.38
6
64.8
Goal_20
Keep taxes at or below current level
10
62.3
2.48
16
49.5
Goal_13
Control rate of
growth in area
8
65.8
Goal_2
Bring higher–paying
jobs to area
15
51.3
Goal_16
South (c)
%Very
Rank
Imp.
Mean
2.62
2.39*
8
59.5
9
56.8
(d)
2.54
2.47*
2.55*
(d)
(b) (c)
10
63.8
2.51
8
75.3
5
74.7
2.67
6
76.0
(d)
2.55
2.30*
2.32*
(c) (d)
10
56.6
18
47.4
2.44
2.40*
(d)
2.66
2.75*
2.48*
(a) (b) (e)
13
58.1
2.51
12
66.1
11
63.3
2.48
11
67.2
(d)
2.50
2.85*
2.60
2.59*
(d)
10
58.3
2.47
11
57.6
2.46
8
61.3
2.49
14
52.3
(b)
16
53.8
7
67.1
2.39
2.62*
(a)
20
47.1
9
72.7
2.33
2.68*
2.44*
(b) (e)
(d)
Table continued…
16
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Sector
North (a)
%Very
Imp.
Rank
Mean
Rank
East (b)
%Very
Imp.
Mean
South (c)
%Very
Imp.
Rank
Mean
South-Central (d)
%Very
Imp.
Rank
Mean
2.58*
10
68.4
Rank
West (e)
%Very
Imp.
Mean
2.30*
46.7
Item
Description
Goal_12
Provide better public
transportation
12
Improve quality of
existing housing
21
Reduce traffic in
neighborhood
Expand cooperation
between UVA and
City
Expand cooperation
between the City and
Albemarle
Better parks & recreation
Emphasize selfsufficiency programs
for adults
Support cultural &
entertainment opportunities
Promote economic
growth
Future growth of
University on or near
UVA grounds
Improve access to
service and information from City government
9
63.9
2.50
15
50.0
2.34
18
48.6
2.29
15
57.1
2.47
15
52.2
2.33
11
55.7
2.39
14
52.5
2.42
21
39.1
2.23
19
48.6
2.39
12
56.2
2.46
13
53.4
2.41
13
53.9
2.44
20
40.0
2.22
18
55.4
2.44
16
51.8
2.38
22
35.3
20
36.5
2.25
17
50.0
16
57.0
23
30.8
Goal_3
Goal_11
Goal_21
Goal_22
Goal_7
Goal_17
Goal_9
Goal_6
Goal_23
Goal_18
Center for Survey Research
54.9
2.48
12
55.1
2.43
8
64.9
2.47
19
(e)
37.7
2.20*
11
55.6
2.49
6
70.8
(c) (d)
2.13*
2.68*
7
75.8
(a) (e)
(d)
2.38*
2.71*
(d)
20
46.1
(a) (e)
(e)
2.47*
2.33*
(c) (d)
(a) (e)
2.06*
(c) (d)
19
45.2
2.34
17
48.3
2.36
12
58.2
2.49
14
59.6
2.53
18
48.1
2.36
16
49.3
2.41
19
44.2
2.31
15
56.0
2.49
21
47.0
2.39
17
50.4
2.42
20
42.9
2.19
23
32.1
2.02
22
28.9
2.04
22
46.2
2.30
21
34.1
2.13
17
48.3
22
34.1
23
24.7
23
25.5
13
54.5
2.20*
(d)
23
32.8
2.08*
(d)
2.03*
(e)
21
35.2
2.16*
(d)
1.84*
(e)
19
41.5
2.21*
(d)
1.81*
(a) (e)
2.51*
17
55.7
(a) (b) (c)
(e)
2.35*
(b) (c) (d)
22
31.4
2.13*
(d)
17
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Subgroup Analysis
Overall Importance Ratings of
Strategic Goals by Demographics
When looking at importance ratings of the 23
strategic goals listed in the 2006 survey,
demographic indicators reveal some notable
differences among social groups.
There are some significant differences in ratings of goal items among age groups. Respondents aged 65 years and older rated
“keeping taxes at or below their current
level” significantly higher in importance than
respondents aged 26-37 years old and respondents aged 38-49 years old. Residents
aged 65 years and older were also more likely
to rate “expanding cooperation between the
city of Charlottesville and Albemarle
County” significantly higher in importance
than residents aged 18-25 years old and residents aged 26-37 years old. Residents aged
38-49 years old and 65 years and older rated
“reducing traffic in neighborhoods” significantly higher in importance than residents
aged 18-25 years old.
When looking at importance ratings of goal
items and income, there are only a few notable differences. The most notable difference
is observed with the goal item “improving the
quality of existing housing.” For this item, all
income groups rated this goal significantly
higher in importance than residents earning
more than $150,000 per year. The same result
occurs for the goal item “making the area’s
neighborhoods and street safer,” where respondents earning more than $150,000 rated
this goal significantly lower in importance
than all the other income groups.
Respondents with a high school degree or
less rated the item “providing better parks
and recreation facilities” significantly higher
in importance than residents with Bachelor’s
or an advanced degree. Residents with a high
school degree rated “expanding and improving affordable child care services” signifi18
cantly higher in importance than residents
with a college degree or higher. Those who
completed high school or just some high
school rated “improving the quality of existing housing” significantly higher in importance than all higher educational levels.
In regards to the number of children within a
household, respondents with three or more
children rated “improving the quality of existing housing” and “providing better parks
and recreation facilities” significantly higher
in importance than respondents with no children. Marital status does not appear to have a
significant impact on importance ratings of
the goal items.
For a great majority of the 23 goal items, female respondents gave significantly higher
importance ratings. The largest mean differences were observed for “expanding affordable health care services in the area,” “emphasizing prevention and self-sufficiency
programs for adults,” and “expanding and
improving affordable child care services.”
Finally, the analysis revealed some difference
in ratings when considering the race of the
respondent. For example, African-American
respondents were more likely to rate the majority of goal items significantly higher in
importance than Caucasian respondents. On a
three-point scale, the biggest difference was
in the importance rating of “improving the
quality of existing housing” where AfricanAmerican respondents rated this item significantly higher than Caucasians and respondents of other races. However, when it came
to “preserving natural resources and open
space,” and “concentrating future growth of
the University on or near UVA grounds,”
Caucasians gave significantly higher ratings
of importance to these goals.8
8
For more information on this trend, refer to:
Mohai, Paul, and Bunyan Bryant. “Is there a ‘Race’
Effect on Concern for Environmental Quality?” Public
Opinion Quarterly, Volume 62: 475-505, 1998.
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
of Charlottesville in providing services overall.
Chapter IV:
SERVICES AND OVERALL
CITY GOVERNMENT
An important aspect of the 2006 City of
Charlottesville
Neighborhood
Planning
Needs Survey was to assess how satisfied
residents were with specific services the city
provides and the city government’s overall
ability to provide those services. In this series, questions were rationed so that respondents were randomly asked to rate twelve of
seventeen service items and one overall government services question on a four-point
scale of very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,
somewhat dissatisfied, and very dissatisfied.
Figure 4.1: Overall Satisfaction with City Services
Very
Dissatisfied,
4.3%
On a four-point scale, the city received a
mean rating of 3.06 (n=1057) among Charlottesville residents for its ability to provide
services overall. This mean score dropped
0.13 points from the 2000 survey when respondents gave a mean score of 3.19
(n=1075). This mean difference of the 2006
and 2000 ratings of providing services overall is statistically significant. Figure 4.2 compares the City’s overall job approval ratings
in providing services over the 2006 and 2000
data. Compared with the year 2000’s survey
(90.1% satisfied), a smaller percentage of
year 2006 respondents (87.3% satisfied) indicated that they are satisfied with the city’s
overall performance in providing services.
Figure 4.2: Overall Ratings of Services (2006
versus 2000)
2000
Very
Satisfied,
22.5%
Somewhat
Dissatisfied,
8.4%
Somewhat
Satisfied,
64.8%
Center for Survey Research
22.5%
Very
Satisfied
31.2%
64.8%
Somewhat
Satisfied
58.9%
8.4%
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very
Dissatisfied
Overall, 87.3 percent of respondents to the
2006 survey said they were satisfied overall
(64.8% “somewhat satisfied” and 22.5%
“very satisfied”) with the job the city is doing
in providing services. With the exception of
police protection, a notable aspect of this result is that this “overall” rating is higher than
each of the specific services when considered
individually. Figure 4.1 provides an illustration of how 2006 respondents rated the City
2006
8.0%
4.3%
1.9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
19
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Top 10 Services Among
Charlottesville Residents (2006)
• #1 - Providing police protection in
your area
•
#2 - Providing open green spaces and
parks
•
#3 - Repairing and maintaining streets
and roads in the city
•
#4 - Controlling litter and weeds on
the city streets
•
#5 - Providing garbage and solid
waste collection
•
#6 - Providing adequate public transportation
•
#7 - Providing adequate recreation
programs for the city’s young people
•
#8 - Maintaining and improving the
drainage system for rain and storm
water
•
#9 - Repairing and building sidewalks
in the city
•
#10 - Providing public assistance to
families in need
Of the city’s services provided, the service
with the highest level of satisfaction among
all neighborhoods as a whole was provision
of police protection, which satisfied 89.8 percent of respondents. Just under forty-four
percent (43.6%) of respondents said they
were “very satisfied,” while 46.2 percent said
they were “somewhat satisfied” with “police
protection” in their area. On a four-point
scale,9 the provision of police protection received a mean rating of 3.30, also the highest
of all service items. The mean rating for this
goal category increased significantly since
the 2000 survey.
The service ranked at number two was “providing open green spaces and parks,” which
satisfied 86.0 percent of respondents living in
the City of Charlottesville. Thirty-eight percent (38.2%) of city respondents said they
were “very satisfied,” while 47.8 percent said
they were “somewhat satisfied” with the provision of open green spaces and parks. Overall, the mean rating for this service was 3.20.
Third on the list of services was “repairing
and maintaining streets and roads in the city,”
which satisfied 80.6 percent of respondents
and received a mean rating of 3.04. Among
respondents, 28.5 percent said they were
“very satisfied,” while 52.1 percent said they
were “somewhat satisfied” with the job the
city is doing repairing and maintaining
streets.
The fourth ranked service among Charlottesville residents was “controlling litter and
weeds on the city streets,” which satisfied
78.8 percent of respondents overall. Over
one-third (36.6%) of Charlottesville residents
said they were “very satisfied” and 42.2 percent said they were “somewhat satisfied”
with the control of litter and weeds on the
city streets. Overall this service received a
mean rating of 3.08.
The service ranked at number 5 for 2006 was
“providing garbage and solid waste collection.” This service satisfied 77.0 percent of
city respondents with 34.7 percent saying
they were “very satisfied” and 42.3 percent
“somewhat satisfied” with garbage and waste
collection. Since 2000 this service’s mean
rating dropped significantly from a score of
3.17 (2000) to 3.02 (2006).
Other service items receiving moderate mean
scores and satisfactory ratings were: “providing
adequate
public
transportation”
(mean=2.92; 72.6% satisfied); and “providing adequate recreation programs for the
city’s young people” (mean=2.84; 70.8% satisfied). Table 4.1 provides a detailed listing
of the 17 service items that were included in
both the 2006 and 2000 surveys.
9
Where 1=very dissatisfied, 2=somewhat dissatisfied,
3=somewhat satisfied, and 4=very satisfied.
20
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Bottom 5 Services Among
Charlottesville Residents (2006)
The service item receiving the lowest rating
for 2006 was “reducing traffic congestion and
noise” (mean=2.31), in which 32.8 percent of
respondents said they were “somewhat dissatisfied” and 24.0 percent “very dissatisfied”
with this service.
Another service area receiving poor ratings
was “promoting adequate housing opportunities for city residents.” Just under one-third of
city respondents said they were “somewhat
dissatisfied” and 19.9 percent “very dissatisfied” with the promotion of adequate housing
opportunities. Since the year 2000, the mean
rating for this service dropped significantly
from 2.72 (2000) to 2.43 (2006).
“Reducing the use of illegal drugs among
youth” was a service area in which 26.7 percent of respondents said they were “somewhat dissatisfied” and 23.7 percent “very dissatisfied.” Although the ranking of this service area remains low, since the year 2000,
the mean rating increased significantly from
2.23 (2000) to 2.39 (2006): a change from
43.1 percent satisfied in 2000 to 49.6 percent
satisfied in 2006.
The fourth lowest service item was “promoting higher paid employment opportunities for
city residents,” in which just over one-half
(52.1%) of respondents indicated satisfaction
with this provision. Since the year 2000, the
mean rating for the promotion of higher paid
employment decreased significantly from a
score of 2.58 (2000) to 2.44 (2006).
Although ranking as the fifth lowest service
item (57.6% satisfied), the item “reducing the
use of illegal drugs among adults,” showed a
significant increase from a mean score of
2.37 (2000) to a recent score of 2.53 (2006): a
change from 48.8 percent satisfied in 2000 to
57.6 percent satisfied in 2006.
Refer to Table 4.1 for rankings, ratings, and
mean scores for all city service items included in this study.
Center for Survey Research
21
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Table 4.1: Satisfaction with City Services (2006 Versus 2000 Ranked)
* Indicates a significant difference between the means (p<.05).
** Mean rating is on a four-point scale (where 1=very dissatisfied and 4=very satisfied).
2006
% Satisfied
Mean**
2000
% Satisfied
Mean**
2006
Ranking
(2000)
Variable
Name
Description
1 (2)
serv1
Providing police protection in your area
89.8%
3.30*
79.1%
3.13*
2 (1)
serv2_10
Providing open green spaces and parks
86.0%
3.20
87.4%
3.27
3 (3)
serv2_1
Repairing and maintaining streets and roads in the
city
80.6%
3.04
78.7%
3.08
4 (5)
serv2_3
Controlling litter and weeds on the city streets
78.8%
3.08
77.1%
3.04
5 (4)
serv2_12
Providing garbage and solid waste collection
77.0%
3.02*
78.4%
3.17*
6 (7)
serv2_11
Providing adequate public transportation
72.6%
2.92
72.8%
3.00
7 (6)
serv2_6
70.8%
2.84
73.0%
2.94
8 (8)
serv2_4
69.9%
2.81
71.0%
2.88
9 (9)
serv2_2
Repairing and building sidewalks in the city
68.7%
3.04
70.8%
2.90
10 (10)
serv3_4
Providing public assistance to families in need
65.7%
2.73
69.6%
2.83
11 (11)
serv3_3
65.6%
2.68
65.5%
2.77
12 (13)
serv2_5
62.1%
2.66
58.8%
2.61
13 (15)
serv3_1
Reducing the use of illegal drugs among adults
57.6%
2.53*
48.8%
2.37*
14 (14)
serv2_8
Promoting higher paid employment opportunities
for city residents
52.1%
2.44*
57.1%
2.58*
15 (17)
serv3_2
Reducing the use of illegal drugs among youth
49.6%
2.39*
43.1%
2.23*
16 (12)
serv2_7
Promoting adequate housing opportunities for city
residents
48.3%
2.43*
63.8%
2.72*
17 (16)
serv2_9
Reducing traffic congestion and noise
43.1%
2.31
48.7%
2.39
~ (~)
overall
Job the City is doing in providing services to its
residents
87.3%
3.06*
90.1%
3.19*
22
Providing adequate recreation programs for the
city’s young people
Maintaining and improving the drainage system for
rain and storm water
Protecting children from abuse or neglect in the
home
Maintaining the appearance of neighborhoods in
the city that are less well off
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Services Rated by Neighborhood
Sector (2006)
A more in-depth understanding of the ratings
is provided by looking at the 17 service items
by neighborhood sector (North, East, South,
South-Central, and West). The results of the
analysis reveal that rankings and mean ratings of services among specific neighborhood
sectors have some similarities as well as
some statistically significant differences.
Table 4.2 provides the list of services with
the ranking, percent satisfied (e.g. “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” combined)
and the mean of each service by neighborhood sector of the city. Table 4.2 also illustrates
significant
differences
among
neighborhood sectors when rating each service item. Mean ratings that are significantly
different are highlighted with an asterisk and
bold type. Mean ratings are based upon a
four-point scale where 1 equals “very dissatisfied” and 4 equals “very satisfied.”
•
North Sector Ratings of Services
Overall, 87.7 percent (mean=3.06) of North
sector respondents were satisfied with the
“job the city is doing in providing services to
its residents.” Refer to Table 4.2 for a complete listing of how North sector ratings
compared to the other four neighborhood sectors.
Respondents of the North sector were most
satisfied with the provision of “police protection in the area,” as 91.9 percent (mean=3.35)
said they were satisfied with this service.
When it comes to “controlling litter and
weeds on the city streets,” 88.1 percent of
respondents residing in the North sector said
they were satisfied with this particular service (mean=3.35). The service item with the
third highest rating among North sector respondents was the provision of “open green
spaces and parks” in which 87.3 percent
(mean=3.27) said they were satisfied with the
job the city is doing. North sector respondents also appeared to be satisfied with the
repair and maintenance of city streets (86.6%
Center for Survey Research
satisfied) and the provision of “garbage and
solid waste collection” (78.6% satisfied).
Service items receiving the least favorable
ratings among North sector residents were as
follows. When it comes to “reducing the use
of illegal drugs among youth” only 46.4 percent (mean=2.33) of North respondents said
they were satisfied. North sector respondents
were also less satisfied with the job the City
is doing in “reducing traffic congestion and
noise” as only 51.0 percent (mean=2.51) said
they were satisfied with this service. In addition, North sector respondents gave lower
ratings for “promoting higher paid employment opportunities” (52.3% satisfied), and
when it comes to “promoting adequate housing opportunities” (52.6% satisfied).
•
East Sector Ratings of Services
When asked about the overall “job the City is
doing in providing services to its residents”
88.9 percent of East sector respondents said
they were satisfied (mean=3.11).
The service receiving the most favorable ratings among East respondents was the provision of police protection with 92.6 percent
(mean=3.41) saying they were satisfied. The
second-most favorable item for East sector
respondents was the provision of “open green
spaces and parks” as 90.0 percent
(mean=3.39) said they were satisfied with
this service. Ranked as the third-most favorable item was the repair and maintenance of
streets with 83.8 percent (mean=3.15) of East
sector respondents satisfied. East sector respondents also appear to be satisfied with the
job the City is doing in “controlling litter and
weeds” (81.7% satisfied) and “providing garbage and solid waste collection” (79.8% satisfied).
In contrast, there are some notable service
items receiving less favorable ratings among
East sector residents. When it comes to the
City’s performance in “reducing traffic congestion and noise,” 45.2 percent (mean=2.33)
of East sector respondents were satisfied. The
second-least favorable service item was the
23
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
promotion of “adequate housing opportunities for residents” as 49.6 percent of respondents indicated satisfaction (mean=2.46). Respondents of the East neighborhood sector
are also less satisfied with the reduction of
illegal drug use among youth (56.5%) and the
maintenance of neighborhoods that are less
well off (57.4%).
•
South Sector Ratings of Services
Overall, 82.5 percent (mean=2.93) of South
sector respondents were satisfied with the
“job the City is doing in providing services to
its residents” (the lowest rating of the five
neighborhood sectors).
For the South neighborhood sector, the provision of “open green spaces and parks” ranked
first (92.3% satisfied; mean=3.29). The second-most favorable service item among
South sector respondents was the provision
of “police protection in the area”
(mean=3.22, 86.7% satisfied). When it comes
to “providing garbage and solid waste collection,” 79.5 percent (mean=3.12) of South sector respondents were satisfied. In addition,
over three-quarters (78.9%) of respondents
from the South were satisfied with the “controlling of litter and weeds, and the maintenance of the drainage system (75.5%).
Among South sector respondents, there are
some notable service items receiving less favorable ratings. When it comes to the job the
City is doing in “reducing traffic congestion
and noise,” just 41.3 percent (mean=2.34) of
South sector respondents were satisfied. The
second-least favorable service item was the
promotion of “adequate housing opportunities for residents” as half (50.0%) of South
sector
respondents
were
satisfied
(mean=2.52). Respondents of the South
neighborhood sector also had lower satisfaction ratings for the reduction of illegal drug
use among youth (50.5% satisfied) and the
promotion of higher paid employment opportunities (55.2% satisfied).
24
•
South-Central Sector Ratings of
Services
When asked about the “job the City is doing
to provide services” overall, 84.3 percent of
respondents from the South-Central sector
were satisfied (mean=2.96).
The highest rated service item among SouthCentral respondents was the provision of police protection, as 85.6 percent (mean=3.21)
were satisfied. With 72.2 percent satisfied
(mean=3.00), the provision of “adequate public transportation” ranked second-highest
among South-Central neighborhood respondents. South-Central respondents appeared to
be moderately satisfied with “garbage and
solid waste collection” (71.9% satisfied) and
the provision of “open green spaces and
parks” (71.7% satisfied).
South-Central respondents were the least satisfied with the promotion of “adequate housing opportunities” as just 40.9 percent
(mean=2.22) said they were satisfied with
this service. For the South-Central, there also
appears to be low satisfaction ratings for the
“promotion of higher paid employment opportunities” as just 45.3 percent (mean=2.27)
said they were satisfied with this service. In
addition, South-Central respondents gave low
ratings to the services of “reducing the use of
illegal drugs among youth” (45.9% satisfied)
and “reducing traffic congestion and noise”
(50.7% satisfied).
•
West Sector Ratings of Services
Overall, the “job the City is doing in providing services” satisfied 89.2 percent
(mean=3.11) of West sector respondents.
When it comes to the provision of police protection, West sector respondents gave a favorable rating with 90.6 percent (mean=3.30)
satisfied. West sector respondents also appeared to be pleased with the City’s efforts in
“providing open green spaces and parks”
(mean=3.20, 88.4% satisfied). The maintenance of streets received satisfactory ratings
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
amongst West sector respondents as well
(83.2% satisfied). In addition, 78.6 percent of
West sector respondents were satisfied with
the provision of “adequate public transportation.”
West sector respondents rated the City’s performance in “reducing traffic congestion and
noise” the least favorable service, as just 35.2
percent were satisfied (mean=2.14). As compared to the other sectors, the residents of the
West gave this service the lowest rating of
all. For the reduction of drug use among
youth, West sector respondents generally
gave low ratings (mean=2.37, 49.3% satisfied). Additionally, West sector respondents
gave lower ratings for the City’s promotion
of “adequate housing opportunities” (49.3%
satisfied) and “higher paid employment opportunities” (51.8% satisfied).
Center for Survey Research
25
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Table 4.2: Ratings of Services by Neighborhood Sector (2006)**
* Indicates a significant difference of the mean at the p<.05 level.
** Mean rating is on a four-point scale (where 1=very dissatisfied and 4=very satisfied).
Sector
North (a)
Item
serv1
serv2_10
serv2_1
serv2_3
serv2_12
serv2_11
serv2_6
serv2_4
serv2_2
serv3_4
Description
Providing police
protection in the
area
Providing open
green spaces and
parks
Repairing and maintaining streets and
roads in the city
Controlling litter
and weeds on the
city streets
Providing garbage
and solid waste collection
Providing adequate
public transportation
Providing adequate
recreation programs
for young people
Maintaining and
improving the drainage system
Repairing and building sidewalks in the
city
Providing public
assistance to families in need
East (b)
South (c)
South-Central (d)
West (e)
Rank
%Satisfied
Mean
Rank
%Satisfied
Mean
Rank
%Satisfied
Mean
Rank
%Satisfied
Mean
Rank
%Satisfied
Mean
1
91.9
3.35
1
92.6
3.41
2
86.7
3.22
1
85.6
3.21
1
90.6
3.30
3
87.3
2
90.0
1
92.3
4
71.7
2
88.4
3.27*
(d)
4
86.6
3.11
3.39*
(d)
3
83.8
3.15*
88.1
3.35*
4
81.7
3.15
6
73.6
78.6
3.17*
2.83*
4
78.9
2.99*
5
70.3
79.8
3.03
3
79.5
3.12
3.20*
(d)
2.86*
3
83.2
3.08
5
78.4
3.06
6
76.9
3.03
4
78.6
2.96
7
76.7
2.89
(b)
8
69.1
(a)
5
(a) (b) (c)
(e)
(b)
(c) (d)
5
2.88*
(d)
(c) (d)
2
3.29*
2.87*
(a)
3
71.9
(d)
2.83*
(a)
11
64.7
2.79
10
69.5
6
76.0
2.94
7
75.8
2.91
3.02*
10
68.0
2.88
2
72.2
8
72.0
2.86
12
54.9
(d)
3.00
2.57*
(b)
8
68.6
2.84
6
77.5
2.99
5
75.5
2.94
6
70.1
2.80
10
64.9
2.70
7
72.9
2.89
11
61.7
2.72
12
62.5
2.65
7
70.0
2.82
8
71.6
2.88
9
68.0
2.75
8
69.9
2.86
11
63.2
2.69
9
67.5
2.67
12
62.5
2.70
Table continued…
26
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Sector
North (a)
Item
serv3_3
serv2_5
serv3_1
serv2_8
serv3_2
serv2_7
serv2_9
Description
Protecting children
from abuse or neglect in the home
Maintaining the appearance of hoods
less well off
Reducing the use of
illegal drugs among
adults
Promoting higher
paid employment
opportunities
Reducing the use of
illegal drugs among
youth
Promoting adequate
housing opportunities for residents
Reducing traffic
congestion and noise
Job the City is doing
overall in providing services
East (b)
South (c)
South-Central (d)
West (e)
Rank
%Satisfied
Mean
Rank
%Satisfied
Mean
Rank
%Satisfied
Mean
Rank
%Satisfied
Mean
Rank
%Satisfied
Mean
13
56.6
2.51
9
69.7
2.80
7
72.4
2.85
10
66.7
2.67
11
64.6
2.64
10
65.9
14
57.4
2.64
9
70.6
13
51.7
9
66.7
2.68
2.78*
(d)
2.84*
(d)
2.43*
(a) (c)
12
57.5
2.57
12
58.4
2.61
13
55.4
2.51
11
58.6
2.52
13
58.6
2.51
15
52.3
2.43
13
57.5
2.62
14
55.2
2.53
16
45.3
2.27
14
51.8
2.42
17
46.4
2.33
15
56.5
15
50.5
2.34
15
45.9
16
49.3
2.37
15
49.3
2.47
17
35.2
2.61*
(d)
14
52.6
16
51.0
2.49
2.51*
(b)
16
49.6
2.46
16
50.0
2.52
17
40.9
17
45.2
2.33
17
41.3
2.34
14
50.7
(e)
~
87.7
3.06
2.27*
2.22
2.46*
(e)
~
88.9
3.11
~
82.5
2.93
~
84.3
2.96
2.14*
(a) (d)
~
89.2
3.11
to its residents
Center for Survey Research
27
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Subgroup Analysis
Overall Importance Ratings of Service
Items by Demographics
When looking at mean ratings of the 17 service items listed in the 2006 survey, demographic indicators reveal some notable differences among social groups.
Among age groups, there are a few significant differences in the ratings of service
items. For example, respondents aged 65
years and older were significantly more satisfied with the promotion of higher paying employment opportunities than respondents
aged 18-25 years old or 26-37 years old.
Residents aged 65 years and older also rated
the service of “providing adequate public
transportation” significantly higher than residents aged 38-49 years old and residents aged
26-37 years old.
When looking at income and ratings of service items, there are some notable differences. The most notable difference is observed for the service of providing police protection. Respondents earning $75,000$99,999 per year rated the provision of police
protection significantly higher than those
earning $15,000-$29,999 and those earning
$30,000-$44,999. Interestingly, respondents
earning more than $150,000 per year gave
significantly lower ratings for the service of
police protection than respondents earning
anywhere from $45,000 to $150,000 per year.
The service of providing recreational programs for youth also had some significant
differences in mean ratings. Specifically, respondents earning $75,000-$99,999 rated the
provision of youth recreational programs
much higher than respondents earning anywhere from $0 to $44,999 per year.
When looking at educational levels, there was
some variation, however, no notable patterns
emerged in regards to educational level and
ratings of services either increasing or decreasing.
28
In regards to number of children within a
household, respondents with 3 or more children rated the service of “reducing traffic
congestion and noise” significantly higher
than respondents with no children, one child,
or two children.
Interestingly, widowed respondents rated the
city’s overall services significantly higher
than those who were married, divorced, separated or never married. Those who have
never married rated the employment opportunities in the city significantly lower than
respondents who were married or widowed.
The same pattern emerged for the service of
assisting families in need.
Overall, male respondents tended to give
higher ratings on services provided by the
city than females. This is a contrast to Chapter 3 where female respondents tended to
give higher importance ratings than males
when it came to goals. Statistically, males
were more satisfied than females with the
maintenance of streets, housing opportunities, the controlling of litter, child abuse protection, and employment opportunities.
When looking at race, whites and respondents of other races rated the services of the
city overall significantly higher than AfricanAmericans. The biggest difference was in
ratings of recreation programs for youth,
where white respondents gave a significantly
higher mean (3.04) than African-American
respondents (2.39). People of other races
tended to be more satisfied than AfricanAmerican respondents when it came to rating
the service of providing housing opportunities in Charlottesville. African-American respondents were less satisfied than whites and
people of other races in regards to employment opportunities for residents in the city.
The same patterns emerged for the services
of providing open green spaces and parks,
and police protection in the area.
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Services and Taxes
In conclusion to the survey’s section on city
services, respondents were specifically asked:
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:
Table 4.3: Services and Taxes (2006)
Frequency
Percent
Keep taxes and ser509
51.3
vices the same
Increase services and
taxes
184
18.6
-
The City should decrease services and
taxes
Decrease services and
taxes
157
15.9
-
The City should keep taxes and services about where they are
Increase services and
decrease taxes
41
4.2
-
The City should increase services and
taxes
Keep services as they
are and decrease taxes
40
4.1
-
Increase services, keep taxes the same
(volunteered)
Other
35
3.5
Increase services and
keep taxes the same
25
2.5
Total
991
100.0
-
Increase services, decrease taxes
(volunteered)
-
Keep services as they are, decrease
taxes (volunteered)
-
Other
As seen in Table 4.3 a majority of respondents (51.3%) said that the City of Charlottesville should keep taxes and services
about the same as they are now. Just over
eighteen percent (18.6%) said the city should
increase both services and taxes, while 15.9
percent said the city should decrease both
services and taxes.
Center for Survey Research
29
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
30
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Chapter V:
NEIGHBORHOOD
IMPROVEMENTS
As part of the focus on a neighborhood needs
assessment, the survey asked respondents:
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 living someplace
else?
In response to this question, more than sixty
percent (60.9%) said they would like to stay
in their current neighborhood, while 39.1
percent said they would like to be living
someplace else. Compared to the city as a
whole, this response varied significantly by
sector with the East (75.9%), North (75.0%),
and South (65.1%) all having more residents
who wanted to stay in their neighborhood as
compared to the South-Central (50.2%) and
West10 (50.2%) sectors.
An additional series of questions asked survey respondents to rate the importance of
seven specific improvements that might be
made in their neighborhood (see Table 5.1
and Table 5.2). The responses to these questions are presented in similar fashion to the
results of the previous chapters, for the city
overall and by each sector of Charlottesville.
Importantly, the focus of this section of the
survey was specific improvements that could
be made in the neighborhood. For this reason, it is expected that the issues will be more
accurately reflected when grouped by sector
than by the city as a whole. Neighborhood
Improvement questions were asked on a
three-point scale, where 1 equals “not important” and 3 equals “very important.” Specifically, the wording of the question series was:
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.
Table 5.1: Neighborhood Improvements (2006 Versus 2000)
* None of the means differ significantly from 2000 to 2006.
** Mean rating is on a three-point scale (where 1=not that important and 3=very important).
2006
Ranking
(2000)
Variable
Name
1 (3)
improv7
2 (1)
improv4
3 (2)
improv6
4 (4)
improv2
5 (5)
improve3
6 (6)
improv1
7 (7)
improv5
Description
Increasing home ownership among neighborhood
residents
Doing more to maintain the neighborhood’s rental
properties
To have more effective traffic and parking controls
Doing more to maintain the neighborhood’s
streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and alleyways
To create a neighborhood that is more unified and
better organized to solve its problems
To create and maintain a more visually attractive
neighborhood
To improve the quality of housing in the
neighborhood
2006
% Very
Important
Mean**
2000
% Very
Important
Mean**
45.8
2.18
42.2
2.09
43.6
2.21
48.3
2.24
42.3
2.13
44.1
2.14
38.2
2.19
38.5
2.12
34.7
2.08
38.2
2.12
34.2
2.07
37.3
2.06
33.3
2.02
34.3
1.97
10
It should be noted that University of Virginia students, fundamentally a transient group, make up a significant proportion of residents in the West.
Center for Survey Research
31
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
A bit of caution should be taken in interpreting Tables 5.1 and 5.2. For instance, a low
“very important” percentage for a neighborhood improvement item does not necessarily
indicate that respondents consider the item to
be unimportant. Rather, they might be satisfied with the current status of their neighborhood on that particular issue. Therefore, these
tables should be read as a list of needed
changes, rather than a list of goals.
Top 3 Neighborhood Improvements
Among Charlottesville Residents
(2006)
• #1 – Increasing home ownership
among neighborhood residents
•
#2 – Doing more to maintain the
neighborhood’s rental properties
•
#3 – To have more effective traffic
and parking controls
Of the seven neighborhood improvements the
item with the highest importance rating
among Charlottesville residents as a whole
was “increasing home ownership among
neighborhood residents.” Forty-six (45.8) of
respondents judged this to be very important.
On a three-point scale,11 the mean rating of
importance for the neighborhood improvement of increasing home ownership was 2.18.
Although this rating increased from the 2000
survey, the higher ranking is not statistically
significant.
hood improvement that would be very important (42.3%). On the same three-point scale
the mean importance rating for more effective traffic and parking controls was 2.13.
Ranked at number four, respondents also
gave a high mean importance rating (2.19)
for the item “doing more to maintain the
neighborhood’s streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and alleyways,” in which 38.2 percent
said this was a very important neighborhood
improvement.
As noted earlier, improvement items at the
bottom of the list in Table 5.1 do not necessarily indicate that those particular items are
unimportant to Charlottesville residents.
Lower rankings seen in Table 5.1 may be due
to current levels of satisfaction among certain
respondents in specific neighborhood sectors.
To gain a better understanding of the improvements that are important to each
neighborhood sector, Table 5.2 provides an
analysis of the seven improvement items and
their rankings among the five sectors (North,
East, South, South-Central, and West) of the
City of Charlottesville.
The second-most important neighborhood
improvement was “doing more to maintain
the neighborhood’s rental properties,” in
which 43.6 percent of Charlottesville respondents said this was very important. The mean
importance rating for this item was 2.21, and
did not change significantly since the 2000
survey.
Respondents also perceived “more effective
traffic and parking controls” as a neighbor11
Where 1=not important, 2=somewhat important, and
3=very important.
32
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Top 3 Neighborhood Improvements
Rated by Neighborhood Sector (2006)
Looking at the seven improvement items by
neighborhood sector (North, East, South,
South-Central, and West) adds depth to the
understanding of the ratings. The results of
the analysis reveal that a comparison of rankings and mean importance ratings of improvement items between specific neighborhood sectors will show some similarities as
well as some substantial differences.
Table 5.2 provides the list of neighborhood
improvement items with the ranking, percent
“very important,” and the mean of each improvement item by neighborhood sector of
the city. Table 5.2 also illustrates significant
differences among neighborhood sectors
when rating each neighborhood improvement
item. Mean ratings that are significantly different are highlighted with an asterisk and
bold type. Mean ratings are based upon a
three-point scale where 1 equals “not that
important” and 3 equals “very important.”
•
Improvement 1
The number one neighborhood improvement
item varied significantly for the five
neighborhood sectors. This variation indicates that certain improvement items are perceived as more important in areas that may
have more need, and less important in areas
that have more satisfaction with the issue.
Both the East (48.8% very important) and the
North (39.8% very important) ranked “more
effective traffic and parking controls” as the
most important neighborhood improvement.
For the South sector “doing more to maintain
the neighborhood’s rental properties”
emerged as the most important neighborhood
improvement as 56.7 percent of South sector
residents said this was “very important”
(mean=2.43). Statistically, respondents of the
South sector rated this improvement item
significantly higher than respondents of the
North and East sectors.
Center for Survey Research
Although improvements in “the quality of
housing in the neighborhood” ranked as the
seventh-most important goal among Charlottesville residents as a whole, it ranked first
for the South-Central sector (55.4% very important; mean=2.38). Statistically, SouthCentral respondents rated the improvement of
“the quality of housing” significantly higher
than the North, East, and West sectors. This
disparity may indicate that South-Central
residents are less satisfied with the quality of
housing in their neighborhood and thus perceive this item to be more important as compared to the other neighborhood sectors.
Respondents of the West sector prioritized
“increasing
home
ownership
among
neighborhood residents” as the most important neighborhood improvement (mean=2.18,
44.3% very important).
•
Improvement 2
The improvement of “increasing home ownership among neighborhood residents”
ranked as the second-most important item for
the South-Central (51.1% very important),
East (45.3% very important), and North
(39.1% very important) sectors of Charlottesville.
For respondents of the West sector “doing
more to maintain the neighborhood’s rental
properties” ranked as the second-most important improvement item with 43.7 percent saying this was very important (mean=2.24).
Respondents of the South sector ranked the
improvement of “the quality of housing in the
neighborhood” as the second-most important
item (50.5% very important). The “quality of
housing” was a significantly more pressing
issue for the South and South-Central than
the North and East sectors.
•
Improvement 3
For the South neighborhood sector “increasing home ownership among neighborhood
residents” ranked favorably as the third-most
important improvement item. With a mean
rating of 2.26, 49.5 percent of residents living
33
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
in the South sector said this was very important.
The creation of “a neighborhood that is more
unified and better organized to solve its problems” emerged as the third-most important
improvement for South-Central sector respondents (mean=2.36, 49.3% very important). Statistically, South-Central respondents
rated this improvement item significantly
higher than respondents of the North, East,
and West.
The third-most important improvement item
for residents of the East sector was “doing
more to maintain the neighborhood’s streets,
sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and alleyways”
(mean=2.26, 42.7% very important).
Residents of the West sector ranked having
“more effective traffic and parking controls”
as the third-most important improvement
item as 38.7 percent said this was very important (mean=2.10).
The third-most important improvement item
for the North sector was “doing more to
maintain the neighborhood’s rental properties” (mean=1.90, 37.8% very important).
Statistically, however, respondents of the
North sector rated this improvement lower in
importance as compared to the South, SouthCentral, and West sectors.
See Table 5.2 for a complete listing of the
neighborhood improvement items and their
ranking among the five sectors of the City of
Charlottesville.
34
Neighborhood Association Membership
As part of the information collected on
neighborhood improvements, respondents
were also asked if they participate in a
“neighborhood association or homeowner’s
association.” A majority of respondents
(40.2%) said they know of an association but
do not participate, while another 31.5 percent
said they do not know of a neighborhood association. A total of 28.3 percent of respondents said they actually participate in a
neighborhood or homeowner’s association.
Figure 5.1: Neighborhood Association Participation
Yes, participate
Know of, but do not participate
Do not know of, do not participate
31.5%
28.3%
40.2%
Only respondents who were not participants
of a neighborhood or homeowner’s association were subsequently asked “would you be
interested in participating in a neighborhood
association in your area?” Of those respondents, a majority said “no” (60.1%), while
39.9 percent said “yes” they would be interested.
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Table 5.2: Ratings of Neighborhood Improvement Items by Neighborhood Sector (2006)**
* Indicates a significant difference of the mean at the p<.05 level.
** Mean rating is on a three-point scale (where 1=not that important and 3=very important).
Sector
North (a)
Item
improv7
improv4
improv6
improv2
improve3
improv1
improv5
Description
Increasing home ownership among
neighborhood residents
Doing more to maintain the neighborhood’s rental properties
To have more effective
traffic and parking
controls
Doing more to maintain the neighborhood’s streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters,
and alleyways
To create a neighborhood that is more unified and better organized to solve its problems
To create and maintain
a more visually attractive neighborhood
To improve the quality
of housing in the
neighborhood
Center for Survey Research
East (b)
South (c)
South-Central (d)
West (e)
Rank
%Very
Imp.
Mean
Rank
%Very
Imp.
Mean
Rank
%Very
Imp.
Mean
Rank
%Very
Imp.
Mean
Rank
%Very
Imp.
Mean
2
39.1
2.00
2
45.3
2.13
3
49.5
2.26
2
51.1
2.30
1
44.3
2.18
3
37.8
5
35.5
1
56.7
4
48.7
2
43.7
1.90*
(c) (d) (e)
1
39.8
5
32.1
2.06
1.99*
2.13*
(c)
(a) (b)
1
48.8
2.24
7
35.1
3
42.7
2.26
4
47.4
(c)
4
33.7
1.95*
27.7
1.82*
6
35.1
21.1
1.71*
(c) (d)
2.07*
5
44.9
(d)
4
41.1
(b) (d)
7
2.01
2.37*
2.35*
(a)
2.24*
(a)
5
48.4
2.21
3
38.7
2.10
7
41.8
2.24
4
34.4
2.16
3
49.3
7
25.7
(a)
(c) (d)
6
2.43*
2.15*
2.29*
(a) (e)
6
41.2
2.11
6
43.3
(a)
7
25.2
1.82*
(c) (d)
2.36*
(a) (b) (e)
2.27*
1.95*
(c) (d)
6
26.9
5
27.5
2.02
(a)
2
50.5
2.37*
(a) (b)
2.38*
1
55.4
(a) (b)
(d)
1.99*
(c) (d)
35
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Subgroup Analysis
Overall Importance Ratings of
Neighborhood Improvement Items by
Demographics
When looking at mean ratings of the 7
neighborhood improvement items listed in
the 2006 survey, demographic indicators reveal some notable differences among social
groups.
Some noteworthy differences in the importance ranking of neighborhood improvement
items are seen when respondent income levels are factored. The most notable difference
is observed for the item of improving the
“quality of housing in the neighborhood.”
Respondents earning $29,999 or less per year
rated the improvement of housing quality
significantly higher in importance than those
earning anywhere from $60,000-$150,000 or
more per year. Those in the $15,000-$29,999
per year income bracket rated the improvements of maintaining rental properties and
creating a unified neighborhood significantly
higher in importance than respondents earning anywhere from $75,000- $150,000 per
year. Also, respondents earning over
$150,000 per year rated the improvement of
increasing home ownership significantly
lower in importance than respondents earning
$59,999 per year or less.
There were no significant differences in the
importance ratings of neighborhood improvement items among age groups.
In regards to number of children within a
household and marital status, no significant
differences emerged in importance ratings of
neighborhood improvement items.
Overall, female respondents tended to give
higher importance ratings on all neighborhood improvement items than males. This is
indicative of the trend occurring in Chapter 3
where female respondents tended to give
higher importance ratings than males when it
came to goals. Statistically, females rated a
more visually attractive neighborhood, a
more unified neighborhood, maintaining
rental properties, quality of housing, and increasing home ownership significantly higher
in importance than males.
When analyzing the importance of neighborhood improvement items by race, AfricanAmerican respondents and respondents of
other races rated the improvement of creating
and maintaining “a more visually attractive
neighborhood” significantly higher in importance than white respondents. In regards to
creating “a neighborhood that is more unified
and better organized to solve its problems,”
African-American respondents also rated this
improvement item significantly higher in importance than both white respondents and
respondents of other races. Furthermore, African-American respondents rated the improvements of rental properties, the quality of
housing, more effective traffic controls, and
the increasing of home ownership statistically
higher in importance than white respondents.
When looking at educational levels, respondents with a high school degree or only some
high school rated the improvement of a more
visually attractive neighborhood significantly
higher in importance than respondents with at
least a four year degree or more. A similar
pattern emerged for the improvements of creating a more unified neighborhood, maintaining rental properties, and improving on the
quality of housing.
36
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Chapter VI:
HOUSING ISSUES
Another important aspect of the Charlottesville Neighborhood Planning Needs Assessment Survey was a series of questions focused specifically on housing issues. Respondents were asked to indicate whether
they agreed or disagreed with nine statements
pertaining to housing in their neighborhoods.
First, we examine the results of this series
among Charlottesville respondents as a
whole. To gain a clearer picture of housing
issues specific to each neighborhood, we then
analyze the series by sector.
Table 6.1 provides the results for the series of
housing questions among Charlottesville respondents as a whole. Mean ratings were
based upon a four-point scale, where 1 equals
“strongly disagree” and 4 equals “strongly
agree.” It is important to note that six of the
nine questions were worded positively, while
on the other hand, three of the nine statements were worded negatively (so that
agreement actually indicates dissatisfaction
with the issue).
Considering city respondents as a whole, one
housing issue in which residents agree is that
their “neighborhood is clean and well maintained” (88.6% agree; mean=3.38). Generally
speaking, respondents also agreed that “it is
easy to walk around” in the neighborhood
(84.0% agree; mean=3.34) and that the
“neighborhood’s houses are well maintained”
(83.7% agree; 3.22). Just under three-fourths
(74.0%) agreed that “there is satisfactory bus
service” in the neighborhood (mean=3.06).
Although housing issues in Charlottesville
appear to be generally positive, there are
some issues that received negative ratings.
Primarily, over ninety percent (90.1%) agree
that “the cost of buying a home in the
neighborhood is too high.” This result indi-
Table 6.1: Overall Housing Issues (2006 Versus 2000)
* Indicates a significant difference between the means (p<.05).
** Mean rating is on a four-point scale (where 1=strongly disagree and 4=strongly agree).
2006
2006
Variable
Ranking
Name
Description
Positively Worded Items
*** Higher means indicate satisfaction
Overall this neighborhood is clean and well main2
housing3
tained
It’s easy to walk around in my neighborhood
%
Agreeing
2000
Mean**
%
Agreeing
Mean**
88.6
3.38
86.5
3.35
84.0
3.34*
89.9
3.57*
83.7
3.22
82.5
3.22
74.0
3.06*
77.4
3.19*
3
housing7
4
housing4
5
housing8
7
housing9
It’s easy to park in my neighborhood
70.2
2.97
68.9
3.00
8
housing5
Housing in this neighborhood is all pretty much
the same
54.5
2.61
~
~
90.1
3.54*
65.3
2.90*
The neighborhood’s houses are very well maintained
There is satisfactory bus service in my neighborhood
Negatively Worded Items
*** Higher means indicate dissatisfaction
The cost of buying a home in the neighborhood is
1
housing2
too high
6
housing1
The cost of rent in the neighborhood is too high
72.1
3.07*
57.9
2.74*
9
housing6
There is too much noise in the neighborhood
29.9
2.10
37.1
2.14
Center for Survey Research
37
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
cates that Charlottesville residents have a
growing negative perception that housing is
expensive as the mean score of this statement
increased significantly from 2.90 (2000) to a
recent score of 3.54 (2006). It should be
noted that this was the highest mean rating of
all housing issues, and the high mean rating
for this statement actually indicates dissatisfaction among Charlottesville residents in
regards to the cost of buying a home in their
neighborhood. The increased concern over
housing costs is related in part to the rapid
rise in housing prices that has occurred since
the year 2000.
Respondents also appeared to be somewhat
dissatisfied with rental prices as 72.1 percent
agreed that “the cost of rent in the neighborhood is too high.” There also appears to be a
negatively growing perception of this issue as
the mean rating increased significantly from
2.74 (2000) to 3.07 (2006). Once again, in
the case of negatively worded questions such
as this, higher mean ratings indicate more
dissatisfaction.
Housing Issues Rated by Neighborhood Sector (2006)
Table 6.2 provides the list of housing issues
with the ranking, percent “agreeing,” and the
mean of each improvement item by
neighborhood sector of the city. Furthermore,
Table 6.2 also illustrates significant differences among neighborhood sectors when rating each housing issue item. Mean ratings
that are significantly different are highlighted
with an asterisk and bold type. Mean ratings
are based upon a four-point scale where 1
equals “strongly disagree” and 4 equals
“strongly agree.”
For purposes of analysis and reporting, this
section of the report focuses upon each
neighborhood sector to better identify the
housing issues that are most prevalent for
each neighborhood area.
•
38
North Sector Housing Issues
Respondents of the North sector were most
satisfied with the overall cleanliness and
maintenance of their neighborhood (96.3%
agreeing; mean=3.69), the houses of the
neighborhood being well maintained (93.9%
agreeing; mean=3.48), and the ability to walk
around in the neighborhood (85.3% agreeing;
mean=3.43). North sector respondents rated
the overall cleanliness and maintenance of
houses significantly higher than the South,
South-Central, and West neighborhood sectors of Charlottesville.
The analysis also reveals that North sector
respondents were most dissatisfied with the
cost of buying a home, as 84.0 percent agreed
that the cost of housing in their neighborhood
is “too high.” Similarly, North sector respondents also indicated that the “cost of rent in
the neighborhood is too high” as 66.4 percent
agreed with this statement. Furthermore,
North sector respondents were less satisfied
with the bus service in their neighborhood as
only 58.9 percent (mean=2.73) found the bus
service in the neighborhood to be “satisfactory.” The mean rating for satisfactory bus
service within the North sector was significantly lower than all four of the other sectors.
•
East Sector Housing Issues
Following a similar pattern as the North sector, East sector respondents were most satisfied with the overall cleanliness and maintenance of their neighborhood (93.3% agreeing; mean=3.57), the houses of the neighborhood being well maintained (91.8% agreeing;
mean=3.52), and the ability to walk around in
the
neighborhood
(87.9%
agreeing;
mean=3.50). East sector respondents rated
the maintenance of houses in the neighborhood significantly higher than respondents of
the South, South-Central, and West sectors of
Charlottesville.
The results of the analysis reveal that East
sector respondents were most dissatisfied
with the cost of buying a home, as 91.8 percent agreed that the cost of housing in their
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
neighborhood is “too high.” Similarly, 70.7
percent of East sector respondents also indicated that the “cost of rent in the neighborhood is too high.”
•
South Sector Housing Issues
For South sector respondents, they were most
satisfied with the overall cleanliness of the
neighborhood (87.0% agreeing; mean=3.25),
the ease of parking (79.9% agreeing;
mean=3.52), and the ability to walk around in
the
neighborhood
(79.1%
agreeing;
mean=3.16). Although overall cleanliness of
the neighborhood received favorable ratings
among South sector respondents, it should be
noted that the mean rating for this issue was
significantly lower than respondents of the
North and East sectors.
South sector respondents were most dissatisfied with the “cost of buying a home in the
neighborhood” as 92.7 percent agreed that
housing prices are “too high.” In similarity,
79.0 percent also agreed that the “cost of rent
in the neighborhood” is “too high.”
•
South-Central Sector Housing Issues
Respondents living in the South-Central sector of Charlottesville were most satisfied with
the bus service in the neighborhood (80.8%
agreeing; mean=3.15), the overall cleanliness
of the neighborhood (80.2% agreeing;
mean=3.11), and the ability to walk around in
the
neighborhood
(77.9%
agreeing;
mean=3.11).
dents also agreed that the “cost of rent in the
neighborhood is too high.”
•
West Sector Housing Issues
In regards to housing items of the survey,
West sector respondents were most satisfied
with the neighborhood’s overall cleanliness
and
maintenance
(87.1%
agreeing;
mean=3.36), the ability to walk around in the
neighborhood (85.8% agreeing; mean=3.37),
and the maintenance of the neighborhood’s
houses (81.1% agreeing; mean=3.11). Although respondents of the West sector favorably rated the overall cleanliness and the
maintenance of houses in the neighborhood,
the mean ratings for these issues were actually significantly lower than ratings given by
respondents from the North and East sectors.
Following the same trend as the other four
sectors, respondents of the West sector were
most dissatisfied with the “cost of buying a
home in the neighborhood” as 92.4 percent
agreed that housing prices are “too high.” In
concordance with that issue, 69.7 percent of
West sector respondents also agreed that the
“cost of rent in the neighborhood is too
high.”
Refer to Table 6.2 for a complete listing of
the nine housing issues and results for each
neighborhood sector.
Although South-Central respondents rated
the overall cleanliness of their neighborhood
favorably, it should be noted that the mean
rating for this housing issue among SouthCentral respondents was significantly lower
than respondents of the North and East sectors of Charlottesville.
South-Central residents were most dissatisfied with the “cost of buying a home in the
neighborhood” as 88.3 percent agreed that
the price of housing is “too high.” In similarity, 77.8 percent of South-Central responCenter for Survey Research
39
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Table 6.2: Ratings of Housing Issues by Neighborhood Sector (2006)**
* Indicates a significant difference of the mean at the p<.05 level.
** Mean rating is on a four-point scale (where 1=strongly disagree and 4=strongly agree).
Sector
North (a)
Rank
%Agree
ing
Overall hood is clean
and well maintained
1
96.3
It’s easy to walk
around in my hood
3
The hood’s houses are
very well maintained
2
There is satisfactory
bus service in hood
7
It’s easy to park in my
neighborhood
4
Housing in hood is all
pretty much the same
6
Item
Description
Positively Worded Items
High mean indicates satisfaction
housing3
housing7
housing4
housing8
housing9
housing5
East (b)
Mean
Rank
%Agree
ing
1
93.3
3.69*
(c) (d)
3.43*
3
87.9
91.8
1
87.0
3.50*
(c) (d)
4
73.3
3.10*
3
79.1
5
75.2
(b) (d)
6
64.2
2.83*
%Agree
ing
2
80.2
3.16*
2.99*
4
75.8
3.10*
79.9
3.17*
3.11*
Rank
%Agree
ing
1
87.1
77.9
(a) (b)
Mean
3.36*
(a) (b)
3.11*
3
2
85.8
3.37*
(d)
(e)
5
75.3
3.01*
3
81.1
(a) (b)
1
80.8
(a)
2
Mean
West (e)
(a) (b)
3.15*
3.11*
(a) (b)
4
76.5
3.13*
(a)
4
75.7
(b) (e)
(e)
64.6
3.83*
3.25*
Rank
(a) (b)
3.37*
80.4
Mean
(b)
(a)
(d) (e)
South-Central (d)
(a) (b)
(e)
2.73*
(b) (c)
(c) (d)
3.52*
2
(e)
58.9
%Agree
ing
(c) (d)
3.48*
(c) (d)
Rank
(e)
(d)
93.9
Mean
3.57*
(e)
85.3
South (c)
3.02*
(a)
6
64.4
(a)
2.80*
(a) (c)
(a) (c)
7
49.0
(b) (c)
2.50*
7
44.1
(a)
2.39*
7
62.6
(a) (d)
2.72*
7
52.0
2.56
9
92.4
3.51
8
69.7
(c)
Negatively Worded Items
High mean indicates dissatisfaction
housing2
Cost of buying a home
in the hood is too high
9
housing1
The cost of rent in the
hood is too high
8
housing6
There is too much
noise in the hood
5
40
84.0
3.42*
9
91.8
(b) (c)
66.4
2.87*
3.65*
9
92.7
(a)
8
70.7
3.08
1.84*
(d) (e)
9
88.3
(a) (d)
8
79.0
(c) (d)
22.6
3.70*
3.27*
(c)
8
77.8
(a) (e)
5
28.0
1.98*
(e)
6
28.0
2.08
3.48*
3.25*
(a) (e)
6
29.5
2.16*
(a)
2.98*
(c) (d)
5
34.9
2.26*
(a) (b)
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Subgroup Analysis
Overall Ratings of Housing Issues by
Demographics
When looking at mean ratings of the nine
housing items listed in the 2006 survey,
demographic indicators reveal some notable
differences among social groups.
In regards to income, respondents earning
$150,000 or more per year were less likely to
agree that the “cost of buying a home in the
neighborhood is too high” than all other income groups. Respondents earning $15,000$49,999 were more likely to agree that the
“cost of rent in the neighborhood is too
high,” and less likely to agree that the
neighborhood and houses were clean and
well-maintained.
Number of children in the household did not
appear to have a significant impact on the
ratings of housing issues.
Married respondents were more likely than
respondents who were divorced or never
married to agree that the cost of buying a
home in the neighborhood is too high.
Respondents aged 26-37 years old were less
likely to agree that the neighborhood and
houses were clean and well-maintained than
older respondents, and more likely to agree
that there is too much noise in the neighborhood.
Respondents possessing an advanced degree
(Master’s or Ph.D.) were less likely to agree
that the “cost of rent in the neighborhood is
too high.”
When looking at race, African-American respondents were more likely to agree that the
“cost of rent in the neighborhood is too
high,” while Caucasian respondents were
more likely to agree that the neighborhood
and houses were clean and well-maintained.
Respondents of “other” races were more
likely to agree that it is easy to walk around
in the neighborhood than both Caucasian and
African-American respondents.
Respondents living in Charlottesville for less
than one year were less likely to agree that
the neighborhood and houses were clean and
well-maintained, and more likely to agree
that the cost of rent is too high. Respondents
living in Charlottesville for one to two years
were less likely to agree that there is adequate bus service in their neighborhood.
Female respondents were more likely than
males to agree that the cost of rent and buying a home in the neighborhood is too high.
Center for Survey Research
41
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
42
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Perceptions of Neighborhood Safety
Chapter VII:
Among city respondents overall, 97.6 percent
of respondents said they felt very safe
(81.3%) or somewhat safe (16.3%) in their
neighborhood during the day. This number
decreased during the night, as 80.4 percent
said they felt safe (very safe 39.8%; and
somewhat safe 40.6%) in their neighborhood
after dark. As to be expected, the difference
in perceived neighborhood safety from day to
night carried through sectors of the city. In all
sectors of the city, respondents felt safer in
the daytime than they did after dark. However, when analyzed by sector there are statistically significant differences in perceived
neighborhood safety.
SAFETY & CRIME
Respondents of the 2006 City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Needs Assessment Survey were asked to think about safety and security issues in their neighborhood as well as
other parts of the city. As reported in Chapter
III (Goals), making the neighborhood streets
safer ranked as the fifth-most important goal
item among Charlottesville residents as a
whole with 71.7 percent of respondents rating
this as very important. The issue of safety
and the concerns of respondents are reflected
in this section of the report where we analyze
a series of survey questions regarding this
particular issue. On a four-point scale12,
questions asked how safe respondents felt
during the daytime and after dark.
During the daytime the East (100%) and
North (98.8%) felt the safest, followed by the
West (97.5%), South (96.6%), and South-
Figure 7.1: Neighborhood Safety by Sector
(2006)
Daytime
100%
100.0%
98.8%
90.0%
Nighttime
96.6%
97.5%
94.2%
89.2%
90%
80.4%
Percent Feeling Safe
80%
73.7%
70%
65.3%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
North
12
East
Where 1=very unsafe, 2=somewhat
3=somewhat safe, and 4=very safe.
Center for Survey Research
South
South-Central
West
unsafe,
43
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Perceptions of Safety in Business Areas,
West Main Street & The Downtown Mall
Central (94.2%). Compared to the East
(88.8%), North (82.2%), West (80.6), and
South (78.0%), the South-Central sector had
the lowest percentage of respondents who
indicated that they felt “very safe” in their
neighborhood during the daytime (71.3%).
Pertaining to the City of Charlottesville as a
whole, respondents were asked to rate how
safe they felt in three particular areas of the
city: business areas in general, the West
Main Street area, and the Downtown Mall.
As expected, there was a difference between
feelings of safety during the daytime and
nighttime hours. Figure 7.2 illustrates the
results of these three areas and respondents
ratings of safety.
During the nighttime, perceived safety decreased within each sector; however, there
are some significant differences between
each neighborhood. For example, the North
(90.0%) and East (89.2%) felt the safest after dark, followed by the West (80.4%),
South (73.7%), and South-Central (65.3%).
Of those respondents saying they felt “very
safe” in their neighborhood after dark, the
East (51.2%) and North (47.5%) sectors had
significantly higher percentages as compared to the West (37.2%), South (35.1%)
and South-Central (27.9%) sectors. Results
of perceived daytime versus nighttime safety
in the five neighborhood sectors are illustrated in Figure 7.1.
In all three areas, at least 95.0 percent of respondents said they felt safe during the daytime. In contrast, 77.9 percent said they felt
safe in the Downtown Mall at night, while
77.8 percent said they felt safe in business
areas at night, and 57.8 percent said they felt
safe in the West Main Street area at night. It
should be noted that a large proportion (15%
to 20%) of respondents were unable to
Figure 7.2: Safety in Areas of the City (2006)
Daytime
100%
97.9%
Nighttime
98.8%
95.0%
90%
Percent Feeling Safe
80%
77.8%
77.9%
70%
57.8%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Business Areas
44
West Main Street
Downtown Mall
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
answer questions of safety for the West
Main Street area. It is likely that these respondents infrequently visit these areas after
dark or did not know the location.
Comparing Ratings of Safety: 2006
versus 2000
When comparing the mean ratings of safety
from the 2006 survey versus the 2000 survey, there are some significant differences in
perceived safety over the years among Charlottesville residents as a whole. Table 7.1
provides a complete listing of the results for
ratings of perceived safety ranked by percent
feeling safe (very safe or somewhat safe).
Interestingly, all mean ratings of safety increased in 2006 as compared to the year
2000’s Charlottesville Neighborhood Planning Needs Assessment Survey. This is a
notable achievement for the city as a whole.
Compared to the 2000 survey, respondents
of 2006 feel significantly safer on the downtown mall and in the West Main Street area
during the daytime. After dark, respondents
are feeling safer on the Downtown Mall in
business areas, and in the West Main Street
area. Since 2000, there were no significant
changes for perceived safety among respondents in their neighborhoods.
Table 7.1: Overall Safety Issues (2006 Versus 2000)
* Indicates a significant difference between the means (p<.05).
** Mean rating is on a four-point scale (where 1=very unsafe and 4=very safe).
2006
Ranking
(2000)
Variable
Name
1 (2)
safety7
2 (1)
safety3
3 (3)
safety1
4 (4)
safety5
5 (5)
safety2
6 (7)
safety8
7 (6)
safety4
8 (8)
safety6
Description
How safe do you feel on the Downtown Mall
during daylight
How safe do you feel in business areas of the
city during daylight
How safe do you feel in your neighborhood
during the day time
How safe do you feel in the West Main Street
area during daylight
How safe do you feel in your neighborhood
after dark
How safe do you feel on the Downtown Mall
after dark
How safe do you feel in business areas of the
city after dark
How safe do you feel in the West Main Street
area after dark
Center for Survey Research
2006
% Feeling Safe Mean**
2000
%Feeling Safe Mean**
98.8
3.82*
96.7
3.73*
97.9
3.72
96.8
3.71
97.6
3.78
96.5
3.76
95.0
3.57*
92.9
3.51*
80.4
3.14
77.7
3.11
77.9
3.10*
62.9
2.72*
77.8
3.00*
68.3
2.77*
57.8
2.63*
46.3
2.35*
45
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Perceptions of Crime in Neighborhood
In another question pertaining to safety issues, respondents were asked:
Compared with other problems facing the people who live in [AREA
NAME], how important a problem is
crime in this area?
Participants were given a choice between
three responses: not that important a problem in [AREA NAME], one of the more important problems in [AREA NAME], or the
most important problem in [AREA NAME].
For the city overall, 9.2 percent said it was
“the most important problem” while 33.5
percent said it was “one of the more important problems.” When considering crime as
an issue, 57.3 percent of Charlottesville respondents said that crime was “not that important a problem” in their neighborhood.
As displayed in Table 7.2, responses to this
question varied significantly by neighborhood sector. Of the five neighborhood sectors, the South-Central had the greatest percentage (15.8%) of respondents who felt that
crime was the “most important” safety issue
Table 7.2: Importance of Crime as a Problem in
Neighborhood (2006)
* Bold type indicates statistically significant difference between sectors (p<.05).
Area
“Law enforcement officers should get to
know the community. People are more
comfortable with police they know.”
Following this importance of crime question
was an open-ended response item which
asked:
What do you think is the most important thing the City could do to make
people in [AREA NAME] feel safer
and more secure?
“It would help to have the police out and
around where they can be seen and interacting more with people.”
All verbatim comments from respondents of
this follow-up question regarding safety can
be read in an Appendix provided to the City
in addition to this report.
Percent Indicating
One of
Most
the
Not
More
Importhat
tant
Important Important
North
8.8
29.6
61.6
East
3.4
16.1
80.5
South
12.4
44.7
42.9
South-Central
15.8
40.7
43.4
West
8.4
38.7
52.9
Overall
9.2
33.5
57.3
46
in the neighborhood, while the South sector
had the second-highest percentage (12.4%).
Compared to the other sectors, the North and
West fell in between, with 8.8 percent and
8.4 percent saying that crime was the “most
important” safety issue in the neighborhood.
The neighborhood with the least percentage
of respondents indicating crime as the “most
important” safety issue was the East sector
(3.4%).
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Subgroup Analysis
Overall Ratings of Safety & Crime in
the Neighborhood by Demographics
When looking at ratings of safety and crime
in the neighborhood, demographic indicators
reveal some notable differences among social
groups.
Among age groups, people aged 65 years and
older felt significantly less safe in business
areas during the day than all other age
groups. A similar pattern emerged when rating perceived safety on West Main Street
during daylight and in the downtown mall
after dark. However, respondents aged 18 to
25 years old were more likely to rate crime as
an important issue in their neighborhood.
significantly more often than respondents
who were married.
In regards to race, there was little variation
when it comes to ratings of perceived safety
and crime. One notable difference, however,
was that people of “other” races felt significantly safer in business areas after dark than
both Caucasian and African-American respondents. Also, African-American respondents rated crime as an important problem in
their neighborhood significantly more often
than Caucasian respondents.
Respondents earning anywhere from $0$29,999 per year were more likely to rate
crime as an important neighborhood issue
than respondents of other income levels.
In regards to education, respondents with a
college degree through a Ph.D. were more
likely to feel safer in the downtown mall both
during the day and after dark than respondents with a high school degree or less.
Interestingly, those who have lived in Charlottesville for a long period of time (20 years
or more and “all my life”) were more likely
to feel less safe in the downtown mall both
during daylight and after dark.
There are no significant differences for number of children in a household and ratings of
perceived safety and crime in the neighborhood.
In general, males had significantly higher ratings of perceived safety than females for all
eight safety items. However, there was no
difference between genders in regards to
crime being the most important neighborhood
issue.
Respondents, who have never married, rated
crime as an important neighborhood issue
Center for Survey Research
47
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
48
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Chapter VIII:
COOPERATION OF
CHARLOTTESVILLE AND
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
The City of Charlottesville was interested in
the perceptions of residents in regards to the
cooperative structure of the city with the
county of Albemarle. To ascertain public
opinion on this issue, the 2006 version of the
Charlottesville Neighborhood Needs Assessment Survey contained a series of questions regarding this topic. Question topics
ranged from the merging of programs and
services to the merging of schools, government, and police/fire-fighting protection. A
total of seven City and County cooperative
questions were asked on a four-point scale,
where 1 equals “strongly oppose,” 2 equals
“somewhat oppose,” 3 equals “somewhat favor,” and 4 equals “strongly favor.”
Table 8.1 presents the seven items in ranked
order according to the percent favoring each
item. The two items at the top of the list are
worded in a more general fashion, while the
items at the bottom of the list tend to be more
specific.
The item receiving the greatest support was
“The City and County should work together
more closely in planning for the whole community” with 93.9 percent saying they favor
this strategy (mean=3.59). Following closely
was the item “The City and County should
set up more joint programs and services that
would serve the entire area” with 93.1 percent of respondents saying they favor this
action (mean=3.54). There also appears to be
strong support for the merging of firefighting services between Charlottesville and
Albemarle County as 83.4 percent
(mean=3.27) said they favor this cooperative
strategy. Furthermore, respondents seemed to
support the cooperative action of merging the
park and recreational systems of the City and
County into one (79.8% favor; mean=3.17).
Although hovering just above the fifty percent mark, there appears to be a little less
support for the merging of the Charlottesville
and Albemarle police departments (52.9%
favor; mean=2.59) and the merging of the
two school systems (50.8% favor;
mean=2.50). The creation of a single, unified
government between the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County area received the
least support among the items with 48.5 percent saying they favor this cooperative strategy (mean=2.50).
Table 8.1: City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County Cooperation (2006)
* Mean rating is on a four-point scale (where 1=strongly oppose and 4=strongly favor).
2006
Ranking
Variable
Name
1
coop1
2
coop2
3
coop7
4
coop3
5
coop5
6
coop6
7
coop4
Center for Survey Research
Description
The City and County should work together more
closely in planning for the whole community
The City and County should set up more joint programs and services that would serve the entire area
The City and County should provide joint firefighting services
The City and County should merge their park and
recreation systems into one area-wide system
The City police department and the County police
department should be merged
The City schools and the County schools should be
merged
The City and County should consolidate into a single, unified government that serves the whole area
% Favor
Mean*
93.9
3.59
93.1
3.54
83.4
3.27
79.8
3.17
52.9
2.59
50.8
2.50
48.5
2.50
49
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Top 3 Cooperative Strategies Rated by
Neighborhood Sector (2006)
When looking at the seven cooperative items
by neighborhood sector (North, East, South,
South-Central, and West), a better understanding of the ratings can be achieved. The
results of the analysis reveal that rankings
and mean importance ratings of improvement
items among specific neighborhood sectors
have many similarities and just a few statistically significant differences.
Table 8.2 provides a list with the ranking,
percent favoring and the mean of each cooperative item by neighborhood sector of the
city. If applicable, Table 8.2 also illustrates
significant differences among neighborhood
sectors when rating each cooperative item.
Mean ratings that are significantly different
are highlighted with an asterisk and bold
type. Mean ratings are based upon a fourpoint scale where 1 equals “strongly oppose”
and 4 equals “strongly favor.”
•
Cooperative Strategy 1
The number one cooperative item was relatively consistent among the five neighborhood sectors. This consistency may indicate
consensus among respondents of the five
neighborhood sectors when it comes to the
support for cooperative items of Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
Four of the five neighborhood sectors (East
97%, South 92.9%, South-Central 88.4%,
and West 95.4%) rated “The City and County
should work together more closely in planning for the whole community” as the most
favorable cooperative item.
•
Cooperative Strategy 2
The cooperative strategy of “The City and
County should set up more joint programs
and services that would serve the entire area”
ranked as the second-most favorable item for
the East (96.0% favoring), South (92.9% favoring), South-Central (87.9% favoring), and
West (95.4% favoring) sectors of Charlottesville. Although all neighborhood sectors
rated this cooperative item favorably the East
sector gave significantly higher mean ratings
than the South, South-Central, and West sectors.
For respondents of the North sector “The
City and County should work together more
closely in planning for the whole community” ranked as the second-most favorable
item with 93.5 percent saying this was very
important.
•
Cooperative Strategy 3
All five neighborhood sectors ranked “The
City and County should provide joint firefighting services” as the third most favorable
cooperative item (West 95.4%, South 92.9%,
South-Central 87.9%, East 84.9, and North
79.8%).
See Table 8.2 for a complete listing of the
cooperative strategic items and their ranking
among the five sectors of the City of Charlottesville.
For the North sector, the item of “The City
and County should set up more joint programs and services that would serve the entire area ranked as the number one cooperative strategy (94.0% favoring).
50
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Table 8.2: Ratings of Charlottesville and Albemarle Cooperation by Neighborhood Sector (2006)**
* Indicates a significant difference of the mean at the p<.05 level.
** Mean rating is on a four-point scale (where 1=strongly oppose and 4=strongly favor).
Sector
North (a)
Item
coop1
coop2
coop7
coop3
coop5
coop6
coop4
Description
The City and County should
work together more closely in
planning for the whole community
The City and County should set
up more joint programs and
services that would serve the
entire area
The City and County should
provide joint fire-fighting services
The City and County should
merge their park and recreation
systems into one area-wide system
The City police department and
the County police department
should be merged
The City schools and the
County schools should be
merged
The City and County should
consolidate into a single, unified government that serves the
whole area
Center for Survey Research
Rank
%
Favor
2
93.5
East (b)
Mean
3.67*
Rank
%
Favor
1
97.0
(d)
1
94.0
3.62
South (c)
Mean
3.71*
South-Central (d)
Rank
%
Favor
Mean
Rank
%
Favor
1
92.9
3.52
1
88.4
(d)
2
96.0
3.70*
Mean
3.45*
West (e)
Rank
%
Favor
Mean
1
95.4
3.58
2
93.8
(a) (b)
2
92.1
(c) (d) (e)
3.47*
2
87.9
(b)
3.43*
(b)
3.50*
(b)
3
79.8
3.19
3
84.9
3.33
3
83.5
3.27
3
85.3
3.36
3
83.6
3.23
4
78.9
3.14
4
75.7
3.11
4
83.0
3.18
4
79.6
3.12
4
81.8
3.25
6
58.2
2.68
6
48.6
2.49
5
59.3
2.70
5
60.6
2.72
6
48.1
2.52
5
58.5
2.63
5
54.4
2.56
7
41.4
2.26
7
48.9
2.49
5
48.6
2.48
7
49.3
2.47
7
46.9
2.46
6
47.3
2.51
6
59.3
2.69
7
43.3
2.42
51
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
Subgroup Analysis
Overall Support for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County Cooperation by Demographics
When looking at demographic variables and
ratings of possible Charlottesville and Albemarle County cooperative strategies, there
are a few notable differences in ratings.
dents. On the other hand, African-American
respondents rated the consolidation of a single, unified government for the whole area
significantly more favorably than Caucasian
respondents.
In regards to age, respondents aged 50 to 64
years and 65 years or older tended to rate the
merging of the Charlottesville and Albemarle
firefighting services significantly higher than
younger respondents. Interestingly, respondents aged 18 to 25 years old rated the potential for joint programs and services between
the City and County significantly less favorably than respondents aged 38 years and
older.
When looking at income, respondents earning $150,000 or higher per year rated the potential for joint programs and services between the City an County less favorably than
respondents earning $30,000-$150,000 per
year.
Although there is a slight statistical variation,
a respondent’s level of education does not
appear to have a significant impact on ratings
of the City and County planning cooperative
strategies. Similarly a clear pattern did not
emerge for length of residency in Charlottesville. Furthermore, gender and number of
children within a household do not have statistical impacts on ratings for a potential City
and Albemarle cooperative strategic plan.
Respondents who have never married rated
the merging of City and County firefighting
services less favorably than respondents who
were married, divorced, or separated.
Statistically, Caucasian respondents rated the
possibility of the City and County working
together to plan for the whole community and
to establish joint programs and services more
favorably than African-American respon52
University of Virginia
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Conclusions
Generally speaking, the City of Charlottesville Neighborhood Planning Needs Survey
reveals that most residents are satisfied with
the services they receive and the job the city
is doing to provide those services. Residents
of Charlottesville continued to give favorable
ratings for the services the city provides, and
also gave higher ratings of perceived safety.
However, since the previous survey (2000),
the cost of housing has had a significant impact on the perceptions of Charlottesville
residents. The “overall” ratings of the city,
the neighborhoods, and the city’s job performance were down as compared to six
years ago.
Residents of Charlottesville also continued to
give high ratings of importance to strategic
goals and neighborhood improvements, with
some statistically significant changes since
the previous survey. The change in level of
importance for certain strategic goal items
suggests that there are different areas in need
of attention from six years ago. Likewise,
reductions in certain satisfaction levels on
some service items may indicate new areas in
need of attention.
These figures are subject to change as people’s life circumstances and expectations
change. We must also stress that a neighborhood assessment survey is only one of many
possible indicators of the actual quality of the
work a local government is doing, and our
findings should be weighed against other objective and qualitative indicators when policy
and resource allocation decisions are made.
With this being said, the City of Charlottesville can continue to take pride in the high
levels of satisfaction its citizens have indicated toward most services, as well as the
favorable “overall” ratings of the city and its
performance in providing those services. It is
our hope that this survey series will continue
to be of help to decision-makers and citizens
as they work toward continuous improvement
of public services and programs for the people of Charlottesville, Virginia.
It is also important to note that our results
reveal statistically significant differences in
ratings when the data are analyzed by the five
neighborhood sectors of Charlottesville. This
suggests that the need for improvements and
services varies from neighborhood to
neighborhood and can provide useful information as to how resources could be distributed to better meet the needs of each
neighborhood sector.
We wish to stress once again, as we have in
previous reports, that the reasons for residents’ satisfaction with any particular service
relates not merely to its actual quality, but
also to residents’ expectations of its quality.
Ratings of satisfaction and importance may
also be related to residents’ own informal
cost-benefit analyses regarding the usefulness
of a given service (or improvement) to them.
Center for Survey Research
53
NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING NEEDS SURVEY 2006
54
University of Virginia