2007 Citizen Survey Final Report Results for Total Sample 831 E. Morehead Street, Suite 150 Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 2 Table of Contents Objectives 3 Methodology 4 Rating Scales & Analysis 5 Summary 6 Conclusions24 Detailed Findings for Total Sample31 Perceptions of CMPD and CMPD Services32 Perceptions of Crime and Safety in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Overall and in Neighborhoods36 Crime Prevention at Home and in Neighborhood43 Crime and Victimization in Charlotte-Mecklenburg52 Interaction with CMPD 57 Perceptions of Response Needs for Non-Violent Property Crimes63 Use and Perceptions of CMPD Website70 Respondent Profile74 3 Objectives The 2007 CMPD Citizen Survey was conducted by MarketWise, Inc. The research objectives of the study were the following: Measure overall perceptions of the CMPD Measure satisfaction with the services & perceived need for police Explore perceptions of safety and crime levels for Charlotte-Mecklenburg overall and neighborhoods Examine involvement of citizens in preventing crime Quantify levels crime of victimization Explore citizen interaction with police in person or on the phone Measure perceived need for different types of response for non-violent, property crimes Examine use and perceptions of the CMPD Website Compare changes in perceptions from 2006 to 2007 on key measures 4 Methodology A total of 650 interviews were completed in Oct. - Dec., The sample was stratified by the 13 CMPD Divisions, which were defined by Census track & block groups. 50 interviews were conducted in each Division. 56 interviews were conducted with Hispanics/Latinos. Hispanics and Latinos who did not speak English were interviewed in Spanish. Respondents were selected to be age 18 or older. An over-sampling of adults age was necessary to correct for under- representation of this segment. Margin of error for the total sample of 650 is percentage points at the 95% confidence level. 5 Rating Scales & Analysis To measure perceptions, respondents used rating scales from 1 to 10. For example: 1=Extremely Negative to 10=Extremely Positive With a 10-point scale there is no exact mid-point. Ratings of 5 and 6 are equally in the middle of the scale. To simplify interpretation, the data have been collapsed into categories and labeled. For example: 9,10=Very positive 7,8=Positive 5,6=Mid-scale/Average 1-4=Poor Ratings of 1-2 and 3-4 have been combined due to the low percentage of responses. NOTE: Responses may not add to exactly 100% due to rounding. Mean (or average) ratings are always calculated with dont know responses dropped from the base. Summary 7 Summary Perceptions of the CMPD The majority of adults in Charlotte-Mecklenburg have a positive impression of the CMPD. This year, 74% of respondents (4 percentage points higher than last year), rate the CMPD 7 or higher on a 10-point scale, while only 8% give a low rating (1 to 4). At least three out of four respondents give the CMPD high ratings (7 to 10) on the following measures related to character: Courteous (79%) Professional (81%) Performing job with integrity and honesty (75%) Two out of three respondents give high ratings on: Good judgment in use of force (65%) Ratings on each of these measures have improved or stayed the same since 2006. 8 Summary Perceptions of Services Provided by the CMPD More than two out of three respondents give high ratings (7 to 10) on: 911 Call Center (76%) Officer response to emergencies (73%) Working with communities to solve problems (69%) About 15% of respondents were not able to rate the non-emergency CRU, Animal Control, or drug law enforcement. For these three services results have been calculated by dropping the dont know responses from the base. Most respondents could rate the other services. If dont know responses are dropped from the base, more than 60% of respondents (able to rate) give high ratings (7 to 10) on: Animal Control services (71%) Non-emergency telephone crime reporting unit (68%) (Note: Mean ratings improved significantly from 2005 to 2006, from 6.6 to 7.3, and have stayed at the same high level from 2006 to 2007, from 7.3 to 7.1.) Drug law enforcement (63%) At least 60% of respondents give high ratings (7 to 10) on: Traffic law enforcement (60%) Crime prevention efforts (63%) There has been no significant decline on perceptions of any of the services measured. 9 Summary Perceptions of the Need for Police The majority of respondents agree that the need for police has increased. 80% of respondents agree (rate 7 to 10) the need for police increased over the past year. This finding has not changed since Compared to last year, more respondents (41% vs. 33%) agree Charlotte- Mecklenburg has an adequate number of police. Less than a third believe we do not have an adequate number of police. 10 Summary Perceptions of Safety in Neighborhoods The majority of respondents (77%, up from 74% in 2006) believe they are safe in the neighborhood where they live. The majority of respondents (67%, up from 63% in 2006) believe the CMPD has been effective (ratings of 7 to 10) in working with their neighborhood to solve problems. 27% of respondents (about the same as in 2006) believe they are less safe than a year ago, 54% believe they are as safe and 17% believe they are safer than a year ago. The top concern for neighborhood safety is break-ins (the same as in 2006). 11 Summary Perceptions of Safety in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Overall The majority of respondents (65%, up from 59% in 2006) believe Charlotte- Mecklenburg is a safe place to live. The majority of respondents (75%, up from 69% in 2006) believe the CMPD is effective in making Charlotte-Mecklenburg safer (ratings of 7 to 10). Only 8% believe the CMPD is not effective (ratings of 1 to 4). 36% of respondents (compared to 43% in 2006) believe Charlotte-Mecklenburg is less safe than a year ago. 47% believe they are as safe and 15% believe they are safer than a year ago. Break-ins (18%) and gangs (18%) are the top concerns for Charlotte Mecklenburg overall (the same as in 2006). Other top concerns for 2007 are drug crimes (15%), traffic safety (14%), and robberies (13%). 12 Summary Crime Prevention Practices at Home Top crime prevention practices at home include: Keeping doors locked at all time (94%) Removing valuables from the car, even if it is locked (87%) Keeping the car locked at all times (84%) Alarm system (28%) Security lights (16%) 13 Summary Crime Prevention Practices for Neighborhood 91% of respondents agree (ratings of 7 to 10) that it is their responsibility to take an active part in helping to prevent crime in their neighborhood. Top crime prevention practices for the neighborhood include: Being on the look-out for suspicious activity (88%) Speaking to an officer about neighborhood problems (40%) Attending neighborhood meetings (29%) Being part of other organized neighborhood actions (20%) These actions include: participating in crime watch patrols, talking with neighbors about watching for suspicious activity, alerting neighbors about suspicious activity, belonging to Home Owners Association, posting information on neighborhood website or sendings. Other things (18%) 8% of respondents indicate they have done nothing to prevent crime in their neighborhood. 14 Summary Neighborhood Meetings & Assigned Neighborhood Police Officer 63% of respondents live in neighborhoods that have a neighborhood association, crime watch, or hold meetings about crime prevention. 29% of respondents attend meetings, about the same as in % live in neighborhoods with meetings but do not attend. 5% live in neighborhoods without meetings, but would not attend them if they were available. 32% live in neighborhoods without meetings, but say they would definitely or probably attend if there were meetings. Time conflicts (44%) is the primary reason for not attending neighborhood meetings. About half (51%) of the respondents (about the same as in 2006) are aware they have an assigned community/neighborhood police officer. 15 Summary Crime & Victimization in Charlotte-Mecklenburg About a third (32%) of respondents indicate that either they or another member of their household were victims of a crime, in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, during the past year. (This finding has not changed since 2006.) Many more respondents report being a victim of a property crime (28%), than report being a victim of a violent crime (6%). (This finding has not changed since 2006). 21% of respondents were victims of a property crime and reported it to the CMPD, another 7% did not report the property crime. 5% of respondents were victims of a violent crime and reported the crime to the CMPD, another 1% did not report the violent crime. 16 Summary Crime in Charlotte-Mecklenburg The reasons given for NOT reporting violent crimes (against respondent or other members of household) were that someone else reported it (33%), fear about reporting (33%), not worth reporting (17%), did not know about it until after it happened (17%), and could handle it myself (17%). (Note: These results are based on a very small sample.) The reasons given for NOT reporting property crimes (against respondent or other members of household) were that it was not worth reporting (33%), did not know about it until after it happened (18%), police would not be able to catch criminal anyway (16%), reported it to someone else (11%), someone else reported it (9%), dont know (9%), didnt see or know details ( 7%), more concerned with repairing damage (2%). 17 Summary Interaction with CMPD Interaction with the CMPD, either on the phone or in person, increased from 66% in 2006 to 73% in In 2007, 60% of respondents (compared to 52% in 2006 and 45% in 2005) interacted with the CMPD on the telephone: 31% by calling 911 to report a crime/suspected crime (28% called in 2006) 24% by calling calling 911 for an emergency not related to a crime (21% called in 2006) 26% by calling or being transferred to the non-emergency Crime Reporting Unit (17% called in 2006) 14% by calling about a traffic violation or accident 5% by calling about a community activity 10% by calling for other reasons Note: Percentages add to more than 60% because respondents could have called for multiple reasons. The percentage of respondents satisfied with the time it takes to handle non-emergency calls improved significantly from 2005 to 2006 ( 65% to 72%). Despite the significant increase in call volume, the high level of satisfaction was maintained in 2007 (74%). 18 Summary Interaction with CMPD In 2007, 58% of respondents (compared to 52% in 2006) interacted with the CMPD in person. 15% because they were a victim of a crime (15% in 2006) 19% due to crime related issues (17% in 2006) 20% due to some other type of emergency 19% due to a traffic violation 20% due to a community activity 10% for other reasons Note: Percentages add to more than 58% because respondents could mention multiple reasons. 68% (compared to 66% in 2006) indicated it is appropriate for police to have slower response times for non-emergency situations, another 7% said it is sometimes appropriate, and 25% indicated the police should not be slower for non-emergencies. 19 Summary Perceptions of Response Needs for Non-Violent Property Crimes Respondents were read the following information: Currently the CMPD sends officers to the crime location or to the victim for emergencies, such as a violent crime or any crime in progress. To reduce costs and increase officer availability for high priority needs, the CMPD does not always send an officer to the crime location to take the report for non-violent property crimes, such as breaking into vehicles, theft, or fraud. To report these property crimes, victims who call 911 or 311 get connected to the CMPD non-emergency crime reporting unit. Victims can also file the report on-line through the CMPD Website. After hearing this introduction, 66% of respondents still indicated they would prefer (rating of 7 to 10) to have a police officer create the report in person. The majority of respondents (60%) agreed it is acceptable (ratings of 7 to10) to create the report over the phone, while 21% indicated this is not acceptable (rating of 1 to 4). A strong majority of respondents (74%) agreed it is acceptable (rating of 7 to10) to have a trained civilian take the report, while only 10% indicated this is not acceptable (rating of 1 to 4). Slightly less than half of the respondents (46%) agreed it is acceptable (rating of 7 to 10) to create the report over the internet, while 33% indicated this is not acceptable (rating of 1 to 4). 20 Summary Perceptions of Response Needs for Non-Violent Property Crimes Next, respondents were read this additional information: The average wait time to reach the non-emergency telephone crime reporting unit is 7 minutes. However, to have a CMPD officer respond in person to take the report for a non-violent property crime would require calling and waiting about an hour for the officer to arrive. After hearing this information: 41% of respondents still indicated they would choose to have a police officer create the report in person. (Note: Initial preference for an officer was 66%.) 40% would now choose to create the report over the telephone. 15% would choose to create the report over the Website. 21 Summary Perceptions of Response Needs for Non-Violent Property Crimes Next, respondents were read this additional information: In addition to the longer wait time, having a CMPD officer respond in person to non- violent property crimes would require hiring approximately 110 additional officers and purchasing additional patrol cars and equipment. This would mean an additional annual cost of approximately $8.7 million to the citizens of Charlotte. After hearing this information: Only 32% of respondents still indicated they would choose to have a police officer create the report in person. (Note: Initial preference for an officer was 66%.) 45% would choose to create the report over the telephone. 18% would choose to create the report over the Website. 22 Summary Perceptions of Response Needs for Non-Violent Property Crimes Next, respondents were read this additional information: An alternative to hiring additional police officers to respond in person to a non-violent property crime would be to hire 47 trained CMPD civilian employees. Again, this would also involve additional vehicles and equipment. The additional annual cost to the citizens of Charlotte would be approximately $3.3 million. After hearing this information: Only 19% of respondents still indicated they would choose to have a police officer create the report in person. 40% would choose to create the report over the telephone. 16% would choose to create the report over the Website. 20% would choose to have a trained civilian respond in person. The majority of adults (64%) believe it is acceptable to have a trained CMPD civilian respond in person to a non-injury, vehicle collision. 23 Summary Use and Perceptions of CMPD Website In 2007, 72% of respondents have access to the Internet. (70% had access in 2006.) In 2007, 23% of respondents (the same as in 2006) have visited the CMPD Website. Perceptions of the site have not changed since In 2007, 72% of those who have visited the Website, rated it good (rating of 7 to 10), while only 6% gave a poor rating (rating of 1 to 4). The percentage of respondents who believe it is very important to have the following features on the Website are: Crime prevention information (92%) Ability to obtain a police crime report (91%) Ability to file a police crime report (88%) Crime statistics (86%) Latest news form police department (83%) Homeland security information (76%) Command staff contact information (76%) Traffic reports (69%) Log showing time & nature of 911 calls (59%) Conclusions 25 In Conclusion From 2006 to 2007, overall impressions of the CMPD improved significantly. Perceptions of specific character related issues and services have maintained at a high positive level. Reported use of the non-emergency telephone crime reporting unit increased significantly and perceptions of the service remained positive. The majority of adults believe they are safe in their neighborhood and in Charlotte-Mecklenburg overall. However, more adults believe they are safe in their neighborhood than in Charlotte-Mecklenburg overall. The CMPD is perceived as being effective. The majority of adults believe the CMPD is effective: in making Charlotte-Mecklenburg safer in working with their neighborhood to solve problems. 26 In Conclusion Nevertheless, most adults continue to believe the need for police has increased. While perceptions that the CMPD has an adequate number of police have improved since last year, less than half of the respondents in the study believe the number is adequate. For Charlotte-Mecklenburg overall, the primary safety concerns are break-in, gangs, drug crimes, traffic safety and robbery. For neighborhoods, the primary safety concern is break-ins. 27 In Conclusion Most adults indicate they do take actions to prevent crime at their home. The primary actions are keeping doors locked at all time, keeping the car locked at all time, and removing valuables from their car even if it is locked. Almost all adults indicate it is their responsibility to take an active part in helping to prevent crime in their neighborhood. However, most do not take the time to attend meetings to prevent crime. The primary way most adults prevent crime in their neighborhood is by being on the look-out for suspicious activity. Many adults are not aware of having an assigned community or neighborhood police officer. The CMPD should continue to strive to increase awareness of the assigned officer and how contact the officer. 28 In Conclusion The self-reported results on victimization have remained about the same since last year. About a third of the adults in this survey indicated they or some other member of their household had been a victim of some type of crime in the past year (28% say they were victims of a property crime, 7% say they were victims of a violent crime). The percentage of citizens who have come into contact with the CMPD (on the telephone or in person) increased 7 percentage points since last year (66% to 73%). This means the CMPD has many opportunities to impact citizen perceptions. The majority of adults believe it is appropriate for the police to have slower response times for non-emergency situations. However, one in four adults believe the response time should be the same. 29 In Conclusion Currently, most adults (66%) prefer a police officer to respond in-person to take the report for ALL non-emergency, property crimes. However, the majority (62%) also indicate the current methods of creating the report, by telephone or Website, are acceptable. (Only 19% indicate both telephone and Website are NOT acceptable.) When adults understand what is involved in having an officer create the report in-person for ALL non-emergency, property crimes, preference for having an officer create the report drops significantly. Preference for an officer drops: from 66% to 41% based on waiting time information, and from 66% to 32% based on waiting time and cost information. Many of those who prefer an officer to create the report (regardless of the time or cost) do find the option of having a trained as an attractive option, regardless of the additional cost. However, knowing the cost of having an officer respond and knowing the cost of having a trained civilian respond, the majority (56%) prefer the current way of taking the report (by telephone or Website). 30 In Conclusion Access to the Internet is high, however, use of the CMPD Website is relatively low. The results indicate the site itself is good, however, awareness needs to be improved. Citizens indicate strong beliefs that certain features/information should be on the site. The most important are: crime prevention information the ability to obtain a police crime report the ability to create a police crime report crime statistics the latest news from the CMPD. Detailed Findings for Total Sample Perceptions of CMPD and CMPD Services 33 Overall Perception of the CMPD Total Sample (Q5) Mean Ratings Total positive = 74% 34 Perceptions of the CMPD Total Sample (Q14-17) Mean Ratings Total agree = 79% Total agree = 81% Total agree = 75% Total agree = 65% 35 Perceptions of Services Provided by the CMPD Total Sample (Q6-13) Mean Ratings Total good = 76% Total good = 73% Total good = 69% Total good = 60% Total good = 60%/ Among repsondents able to rate = 71% Total good = 58%/ Among respondents able to rate = 68% Total good = 63% Total good = 53%/ Among respondents able to rate = 63% Perceptions of Crime & Safety in Charlotte-Mecklenburg Overall and in Neighborhoods 37 Perceptions of Need for Police Total Sample (Q18-19) Mean Rating Total agree=41% Total agree=80% 38 Perceptions of Safety Total Sample (Q20-21) Mean Rating Total agree=77% Total agree=65% 2007 39 Effectiveness of CMPD in Making Charlotte-Mecklenburg Safer Total Sample (Q25) Mean Rating Total agree=75% 40 Mean Rating Total agree=67% Effectiveness of CMPD in Working with Your Neighborhood to Solve Problems Total Sample (Q28) 41 Perceptions of Being Safer, as Safe, or Less Safe than a Year Ago Total Sample (Q26 & 29) (Q26) In Charlotte-Mecklenburg Overall 62% 71% (Q29) In Your Neighborhood In 2006, 43% believed they were less safe than in the previous year. In 2006, 28% believed they were less safe than in the previous year. 42 Top Concerns about Crime and Safety Multiple Answers Allowed Total Sample (Q27 & 30) (Q27) For Charlotte-Mecklenburg Overall (Q30) For Your Neighborhood In 2006, the top concerns were gangs (20%), drugs (20%), break-in (18%), robberies (17%), assault/violent crime (10%), and theft (10%) and no concerns (9%). In 2006, the top concerns were break-ins (25%), no concerns (19%), drugs (14%), theft (12%), robberies (11%), vandalism (9%) and need for more police (9%). Crime Prevention At Home and In Neighborhood 44 Things Done To Prevent Crime At Home Total Sample (N31a-e) (N31e) Top Unaided Mentions of Other Things Done (N31a-d) Aided Mentions of Things Done 45 (Agree-Disagree) It Is My Responsibility to Take an Active Part in Helping to Prevent Crime in My Neighborhood. Total Sample (N32a) Mean Rating Total agree = 91% 9.0 46 Things Done To Prevent Crime In Neighborhood Total Sample (N32b,c,f,h,j,k) (N32k) Top Unaided Mentions of Other Things Done (N32b,c,f,h,j) Aided List of Things Done 47 Participation in Organized Neighborhood Actions Total Sample (N32i) Top Unaided Mentions of ORGANIZED Neighborhood Actions 48 Does Your Neighborhood Have Neighborhood Association, Crime Watch, or Hold Meetings about Crime Prevention? Total Sample (N32d) 2007 49 Attendance at Neighborhood Meetings Total Sample (N32e & N32f combined) 50 Why Do You or Would You Not Definitely Attend Neighborhood Meetings About Crime Prevention (N32g) Base=356 respondents who do not attend or would not definitely attend meetings Top Unaided Mentions 51 Awareness of Assigned Community or Neighborhood Police Officer Total Sample (Q33) In 2006, 48% were aware. 2007 Crime and Victimization in Charlotte-Mecklenburg 53 Victims of Any Type of Crime (Respondent/Other Member of Household) in Past Year, Regardless of Whether or Not It Was Reported Total Sample (Q43 & Q46 COMBINED) In 2006, 31% reported being a victim of a crime in the past year. 2007 54 Victims of Crimes (Respondent/Other member of Household) in Past Year Total Sample (Q43 & Q46) (Q46) 2007 Property Crime (Q43) 2007 Violent Crime In 2006, 7% were victims of a violent crime during the past year. In 2006, 28% were victims of a property crime during the past year. 55 Reporting of Crime to CMPD Total Sample (Q44 & Q47) In 2006, 28% were victims of a property crimes; 6% did not report the crime. (Q47) 2007 Property Crimes (Q44) 2007 Violent Crimes In 2006, 7% were victims of a violent crimes; 1% did not report the crime. 28% were victims of property crime 6% were victims of violent crime 56 Reasons for NOT reporting crime Unaided, Multiple Answers Allowed Total Sample (Q45 & Q48) (Q48) 2007 Property Crimes (Crimes against respondent &/or other member of household) (n=45) (Q45) 2007 Violent Crimes (Crimes against respondent &/or other member of household) Note: Very small sample size (n=6) Interaction with CMPD 58 Interaction with CMPD On Phone Or In Person Q49 & Q51 Combined to Create New Variable 2007 In 2006, 66% interacted either on the phone or in person with the CMPD. 59 Interaction with the CMPD On Telephone In Past Year Total Sample (Q49a-f ) ( Responses will sum to more than 100% because multiple answers are possible) 2007 Interaction on telephone in past year In 2006, 52% of respondents interacted with the CMPD on the telephone: 28% interacted with the CMPD by calling 911 about a crime or suspected crime, 21% by calling 911 about an emergency not related to a crime, 17% called the CRU, 13% due to traffic violation or accident, 7% while participating in a community activity and 8% for other reasons. (60% interacted on the telephone) 60 Non-Emergency Reporting (Regardless of Outcome) Was The Time To Handle Report Satisfactory Base=Respondents who called CRU (non-emergency reporting) n=168 (Q50) 2007 In 2006, 72% who called in past year reported that call was handled in a timely manner. 61 Interaction with the CMPD In Person In Past Year Total Sample (Q51a-f) ( Responses will sum to more than 100% because multiple answers are possible) 2007 Interaction in person in past year In 2006, 52% of respondents had interacted with the CMPD in person in the past year: 14% interacted in person with the CMPD because they were a victim of crime, 17% to report a crime or suspected crime, 16% for some other type of emergency not related to a crime, 17% due to a traffic violation or traffic accident,19% while participating in a community activity, and 10% for some other reason. (58% interacted in person) 62 Appropriate for Police to Have Slower Response Times for Non-Emergency Situations Total Sample (Q52) 2007 In 2006, 66% indicated it is appropriate to have slower times. Perceptions of Response Needs for Non-Violent Property Crimes 64 For This Section, Respondents Were Read the Following Information Currently the CMPD sends officers to the crime location or to the victim for emergencies, such as a violent crime or any crime in progress. To reduce costs and increase officer availability for high priority needs, the CMPD does not always send an officer to the crime location to take the report for non-violent property crimes, such as breaking into vehicles, theft, or fraud. To report these property crimes, victims who call 911 or 311 get connected to the CMPD non-emergency crime reporting unit. Victims can also file the report on-line through the CMPD Website. 65 For Non-violent Property Crimes, How Much Do You Agree or Disagree With Each Statement. Total Sample (QD1-D4) Mean Ratings *62% indicate the current methods of creating the report (by telephone OR Website) are acceptable (rate 7 to 10). Only 19% indicate both telephone and Website are NOT acceptable. * Total acceptable = 60% * Total acceptable = 46% Total acceptable = 74% Total prefer = 66% For This Question, Respondents Were Read Additional Information Total Sample (D5) The average wait time to reach the non-emergency telephone crime reporting unit is 7 minutes. However, to have a CMPD officer respond in person to take the report for a non-violent property crime would require calling and waiting about an hour for the officer to arrive. Knowing this, which would you choose... Preference for having a police officer create the report in person dropped from 66% to 41% based on knowledge of waiting time. In addition to the longer wait time, having a CMPD officer respond in person to non-violent property crimes would require hiring approximately 110 additional officers and purchasing additional patrol cars and equipment. This would mean an additional annual cost of approximately $8.7 million to the citizens of Charlotte. Knowing this, which would you choose... For This Question, Respondents Were Read Additional Information Total Sample (D6) Preference for having a police officer create the report in person dropped from 66% to 32% based on knowledge of waiting time and cost. An alternative to hiring additional police officers to respond in person to a non-violent property crime would be to hire 47 trained CMPD civilian employees. Again, this would also involve additional vehicles and equipment. The additional annual cost to the citizens of Charlotte would be approximately $3.3 million. Knowing this, which would you choose... For This Question, Respondents Were Read Additional Information Total Sample (D7) Currently, CMPD officers respond in person to non-injury vehicle collisions. How acceptable is it to you to have trained CMPD civilians respond in person to non-injury, vehicle collisions. Acceptability of Having Trained CMPD Civilians Respond In Person to Non-Injury, Vehicle Collisions Total Sample (D8) Total acceptable = 64% Use and Perceptions of the CMPD Website 71 CMPD Website Total Sample (Q53 & Q54) (Q54) Been to CMPD Website for any reason Total Sample In 2006, 23% of respondents had been to the Website. (Q53) Access to Internet Total Sample In 2006, 70% had access to the Internet. 2007 72 Perception of CMPD Website Among Respondents Who Have Been to Site (Q55) Mean Rating Note: Respondents who have not been to Website are not included in this analysis. 73 Features that are Very Important to Have on CMPD Website Respondents with Access to Internet (Q56) 2007 Respondents were also asked to name any other types of information they would like on the Website. No additional answers were given by 5% or more of the respondents, so they are not shown. Respondent Profile 75 Race/Ethnicity Total Sample (Q2 & Q2b) (Q2) Race/Ethnicity 2007 (Q2b) Age 76 Gender & Education Total Sample (Q3 & Q77) (Q77) Education 2007 (Q3) Gender 77 Employment Status and Marital Status Total Sample (Q78 & Q79) (Q79) Marital Status 2007 (Q78) Employment 78 Children in Household and & Type of Home Total Sample (Q80 & Q81) 2007 (Q80) Children in Household(Q81) Type of Home 79 Income & Years in Charlotte or Mecklenburg County Total Sample (Q82 & Q4) (Q82) Income (Refusals dropped from base, n=567) 2007 (Q4) Years Lived in Charlotte or Mecklenburg County