Bell Park Walkway

1
Sudbury Toronto Montreal
2003 State of the Community Survey
Results Prepared for The Corporate Strategy and
Policy Office of the CAO
Robert C. Sinclair, Ph.D. Paul A
Seccaspina, Ph.D. Vice President
President
2
Team Members

• Oraclepoll Research
• Paul Seccaspina Bob Sinclair
• City of Greater Sudbury
• Carlos Salazar

3

• CORPORATE PROFILE
• We are a national research firm based in
  Sudbury with offices in Toronto and Montreal.
• Our staff include 3 senior analysts, 8
  support staff, and 40 research staff.
• The company was founded in 1995 and has
  experienced consistent annual growth since then.
• Our call centre is equipped with state of
  the art Voxco Computer Assisted Telephone
  Interview (CATI) software.
• Our experience ranges from client
  satisfaction to program evaluation to
  advertising / product testing tracking.

4

• PARTIAL CLIENT LIST
• BCE (Télébec, Sympatico, Lino, Northern
  Telephone, Northwestel, Nortel Télébec
  Mobility)
• CTV National Sales and Marketing
• Domtar
• Durham Regional Police
• General Motors / Saturn Corporation
• Inco Ltd.
• Johnson Johnson
• Northwest Territories Power Corporation
• OMERS
• Sudbury Regional Hospital
• Toronto Public Health
• World Wildlife Fund

5

• Paul A. Seccaspina, President
• Honours B.A., 1986, Laurentian University
• M.A, 1988, University of Western Ontario
• Ph.D., 1997, University of Warwick
• Lecturer, Department of Political Science,
  Laurentian University, 1988-1993
• Lecturer, Civic Education Project / Yale
  University, Moldova, 1993-1994
• After a career in banking, the securities
  industry and academia, Dr. Seccaspina founded
  Oraclepoll in 1995.
• Since that time he has built a national client
  base that spans government, the private sector
  (including several Fortune 500 firms) and not for
  profit organizations.
• He has built the company by offering a quality
  product and excellent service to the
  corporations clients.
• He regularly deals with media inquires and has
  been cited in all major Canadian news outlets.

6

• Robert C. Sinclair, Vice President
• Honours B.A., 1981, University of Western
  Ontario
• M.Sc., 1984, The Pennsylvania State University
• Ph.D., 1988, The Pennsylvania State University
• Professor, Department of Psychology, Central
  Michigan University, 1987-1991
• Professor, Department of Psychology, University
  of Alberta, 1991-2001
• Dr. Sinclair is listed among The 2000
  Outstanding Scientists of the 21st Century.
• He is listed among The 2000 Eminent Scientists
  of Today.
• He has approximately 100 scientific
  publications / presentations / invited talks.
• He was a member of the Social Sciences
  Humanities Research Council of Canada Grant
  Adjudication Committee.
• He has appeared on national and international
  television networks including CBS, ABC, CNN,
  BBC, CTV, CBC, and Global.
• He has been interviewed by the New York Times,
  Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, National
  Post, Globe and Mail, and numerous other
  newspapers.
• Dr. Sinclair has extensive experience
  consulting in the areas of Organizational
  Development, Organizational Culture, and Program
  Evaluation, both nationally
• and internationally.

7
Methodology Logistics

• Random Sample Survey
• 1200 residences
• 100 businesses

8
Rationale for Survey Research

• Informational Benefits
• Importance of Public Opinion / Community
  Involvement
• Internal Benchmarking
• Development of Action Plan

9
Residential Survey Results
10
Overview of Descriptive Data

• Satisfaction levels among those residents who
  have had contact with the City are low as
  comments reveal citizen discontent over reaching
  the appropriate person and having their needs,
  issues and concerns dealt with.
• Discontent among residents is most evident with
  respect to infrastructure including roads.
• There remains an in and out divide as
  residents of the Greater Sudbury Area (GSA) are
  more likely to be concerned with, infrastructure
  as well as fire and policing issues than those of
  the City core.

11
Quality of Life
12
Community Pride
13
Top of Mind Issues
2001 2002 2003
TAXES 16 JOBS / EMPLOYMENT / UNEMPLOYMENT 15 ROADS 19
HEALTH CARE 16 ROADS 11 JOBS / EMPLOYMENT / UNEMPLOYMENT 15
JOBS / EMPLOYMENT / UNEMPLOYMENT 16 TAXES 10 TAXES 12
ROADS 9 HEALTH CARE 9 HEALTH CARE 8
EQUAL SERVICE ACROSS CGS 5 WATER 8 HYDRO / HYDRO RATES 6
WATER QUALITY 3 ECONOMY 7 HOSPITAL / COMPLETION OF INFRASTRUCTURE 4 each
14
Economic Confidence
15
Healthy Community
16
Level of Interest in Local Politics
17
Budget Issues
18
Contact with City Staff
19
Top 5 Issues in Terms of Importance

• Fire Protection
• Winter Road Maintenance
• Maintenance of Main Roads
• Ambulance Services
• Police Services

20
Bottom 5 Issues in Terms of Satisfaction

• Maintenance of Main Roads
• Winter Road Maintenance
• Economic Diversification
• Providing Quality Land Development
• Child Care Funding

21
Gap Analysis
22
Time-Related Changes in Satisfaction
23
Time-Related Changes in Satisfaction
24
Satisfaction with City Services Collapsed Across
Time
25
Time-Related Changes in Satisfaction
26
Ward-Related Differences Satisfaction
Importance Performance Indicators

• Mean scores were computed based on the ratings of
  the performance indicators falling into each
  organizational unit of the City of Greater
  Sudbury, for both satisfaction and importance
  ratings
• Reliability analyses were also conducted

27
Ward-Related Differences Satisfaction
Importance Performance Indicators

• 7 (City Service) X 6 (Ward) mixed-model analyses
  of variance were conducted on the satisfaction
  and importance ratings based on the performance
  indicators
• Tests
• Are there significant differences among the city
  services?
• Are there differences among the wards?
• Are there City Service X Ward interactions?
  (i.e., are there different patterns of ratings of
  city services in the different wards?)

28
Ward-Related Differences Satisfaction
29
City Services Satisfaction
30
(No Transcript)
31
(No Transcript)
32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
(No Transcript)
36
(No Transcript)
37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
Conclusions Recommendations

• Ensure that the GSA does not feel disenfranchised
• People are most satisfied with Emergency Services
  and Public Health
• People are least satisfied with Public Works and
  Economic Development Planning
• Target Public Works and Economic Development
  Planning
• Target Gaps in Public Works, Police Services,
  Emergency Services, and Economic Development and
  Planning

40
Problems/Solutions Regarding Performance
Indicators

• Halo Error
• On performance indicators involving multiple
  measures/categories (e.g., Economic Development
  Planning), responses on one measure color
  responses on other performance indicators within
  category addressing individual measures could
  be misleading use mean responses
• The general public does not always perceive
  performance indicators as representing the
  appropriate organizational unit in the city
  thus, responses on one organizational unit can
  color responses on another (e.g., providing
  affordable housing can color responses on the
  Social Services indicators) increase public
  awareness regarding the functions of the
  organizational units use multiple indicators
  that map appropriately onto the organizational
  units use mean responses

41
Problems/Solutions Regarding Performance
Indicators

• Single Indicators
• Single indicators (e.g., Police Services, Public
  Health) are notoriously unreliable and lead to
  invalid inferences
• Multiple indicators are needed in order to
  address each aspect of a particular
  organizational unit (e.g., measures of
  satisfaction with the various multifaceted
  aspects of Police Services would increase
  validity and provide more important information
  regarding the aspects of Police Services that
  need to be targeted cf. On a scale from very
  poor to very good, please rate the level of
  Police Service that is currently provided)
  develop multiple indicators and use mean
  responses

42
Problems/Solutions Regarding Performance
Indicators

• Need for Transactional Data
• Satisfaction measures on performance indicators
  on which respondents have no experience are
  extremely problematic (e.g., asking people to
  evaluate satisfaction with libraries, when they
  have not used a library can distort the data
  associated with libraries) move toward
  transaction-based (i.e., experience-based)
  surveys involving multiple indicators and mean
  responses
• Conduct focus groups

43
Business Survey Results
44
Top of Mind Issues
 
(Excluding responses of Dont Know)  
45
EconomicConfidence
46
Budget Issues
 
 
47
Satisfaction withContact with a Municipal Staff
Member

• 58 contacted a municipal staff member
• Only 54 rated the experience as positive (a 10
  decline from 2002)
• A lack of response/action and poor service were
  cited as areas for improvement

48
Top 5 Issues in Terms of Importance

• Fire Protection
• Maintenance of Main Roads
• Winter Road Maintenance
• Planning for the Citys Future
• Ambulance Services

49
Bottom 5 Issues in Terms of Satisfaction

• Maintenance of Main Roads
• Developing Job Creation Initiatives
• Child Care Funding
• Economic Diversification
• Winter Road Maintenance

50
Gap Analysis
51
Satisfaction Importance Performance Indicators

• Mean scores were computed based on the ratings of
  the performance indicators falling into each
  organizational unit of the City of Greater
  Sudbury, for both satisfaction and importance
  ratings

52
Satisfaction Importance
53
(No Transcript)
54
Gaps
55
Area-Related Differences
56



57
Type of Business-Related Differences

• Businesses were categorized as
• 1) Hospitality (tourism, restaurants, lodges,
  hotels, bars, motels, lodges, cottages, tent
  grounds, entertainment and recreation, movie
  theatres, etc.)
• 2) Retail (sell anything to the general public,
  except hospitality services)
• 3) Service (hair dressers, barbers, travel
  agents, couriers, etc.)
• 4) Other (communications/technology, government,
  manufacturing, nonprofit, professional, natural
  resources, transportation, wholesale, and other
  businesses that did not fall into the other
  categories)
• Analyses tested for statistically significant
  differences on all measures as a function of Type
  of Business

58
(No Transcript)
59
(No Transcript)
60
(No Transcript)
61
Conclusions Recommendations Business

• Businesses were most satisfied with Citizen
  Services and Public Health
• Businesses were least satisfied with Public
  Works, Economic Development Planning, and
  Social Services
• Largest Gaps in Public Works, Police Services,
  Economic Development Planning, and Emergency
  Services
• Target Infrastructure (Note Businesses view EDP
  as their realm)
• Conduct focus groups/detailed surveys to
  determine reasons

62
General Conclusions Recommendations

• Residents place a high priority on infrastructure
  issues followed by economic development issues.
• Businesses most want their local government to
  deal with issues related to having a stable
  infrastructure so that they can conduct their
  business and are less concerned with economic
  development issues.
• In summary, the City needs to reach out to the
  community and make people feel empowered (i.e.,
  more a part of the process). As it stands, many
  residents feel left out. Interventions could
  include public consultation and reassurances over
  emergency services and road maintenance.
  Furthermore, providing the general public with
  details regarding plans to shore-up services will
  likely go a long way to increasing public
  confidence. Often, information is power.

63
General Conclusions Recommendations

• Communication
• Consultation
• Inclusion
• Visible Action

64
Benchmarking

• Quality of Life, Satisfaction with the Range of
  City Services, and Confidence in the Communitys
  Economic Future Ratings were Collected from
  Residents of
• North Bay (n 76)
• Timmins (n 75)
• Sault Ste. Marie (n 85)
• Thunder Bay (n 76)
• Toronto (n 74)
• Other (n 242)
• Statistical Tests were Conducted to Test for
  Differences in the Mean (Average) Ratings of
  Residents of These Cities Versus the Ratings of
  Residents of the City of Greater Sudbury

65
Benchmarking
66
Benchmarking

• Sudbury Residents Rate Quality of Life as
  Significantly Lower than do the of Residents of
• 1) North Bay
• 2) Timmins
• 3) Other
• Sudbury Residents do not Differ from the
  Residents of
• 1) Sault Ste. Marie
• 2) Thunder Bay
• 3) Toronto

67
Benchmarking
68
Benchmarking

• Sudbury Residents Rate Satisfaction with
  the Range of City Services as Significantly
  Lower than do the of Residents of All Other
  Areas

69
Benchmarking
70
Benchmarking

• Sudbury Residents have Less Confidence in
  the Economic Future of the Community than do
  Residents of
• 1) Toronto
• 2) Timmins
• 3) Other
• Sudbury Residents do not Differ from
  Residents of
• 1) North Bay
• Sudbury Residents have More Confidence than
  do Residents of
• 1) Sault Ste. Marie
• 2) Thunder Bay

71
Benchmarking
Take Home Messages There are definitely issues
to address! Sudbury should be on top! More
broad-based benchmarking might be useful.