Washoe County Citizen Survey

December 2010

• 8th Citizen Survey conducted since 1995

• Statistically-valid; proportional to and representative of county population

• Administered by InfoSearch, a professional market research firm

• Cost was $17,500; same as previous survey, less than others

• Goal is to provide BCC and mgmt with info about issues important to citizens and use that info to provide better customer service

Washoe County Citizen Survey

December 2010

Methodology:

• 650 Respondents: 600 General Citizens (120 per district) plus 50 Citizen Volunteer Group (CVG) members

• General citizens took a telephone survey, which averaged 12 minutes each, while CVG members took an online survey of the same content.

• Overall confidence interval was ± 3.8%.

Most Important Issue Facing Washoe County in 2010

Taxes4%

Housing Issues

3%

Other16%

Education7%

Don'tKnow

7%

Economy12%

Budget21%

Jobs30%

Jobs rose from being the #3 issue in 2009 (behind the economy and budget)

to the #1 issue in 2010.

Overall Rating of Washoe County Government

4% 3%

11% 12%

36% 30%

29% 33%

13% 16%

7% 6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

January 2009 December 2010

No Response

Poor

Fair

Good

Very Good

Excellent

45% of respondents said Washoe County generally does a good or better job overall compared with 50% in 2009. The difference between the two time periods is not statistically significant.

2010 Budget Priorities for Washoe CountyTotal Sample

4.2

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.8

3.7

3.7

3.5

3.5

3.4

3.4

3.3

3.1

3.1

2.7

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0HighestPriority

Not at Alla Priority

The results suggest that almost all County services are seen as important and needing funds; priorities are a matter of degree.

Significant Changes in Budget PrioritiesJanuary 2009 to December 2010

3.9

3.8

4.3

4.0

4.0

3.1

3.9

3.3

2.9

4.1

4.1

3.8

3.7

3.6

4.1

3.43.

5

4.2

3.9

3.9

3.1

3.7

3.1

2.7

3.8

3.8

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.7

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0 'Jan-2009

'Dec-2010

PriorityDeclined:

-0.2

Priority LevelsStable

PriorityDeclined:

-0.3

PriorityDeclined:

-0.4

2010 Satisfaction with County ServicesTotal Sample

3.2

3.2

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.1

3.0

3.0

2.9

2.9

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.7

2.6

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Conduc

ting E

lectio

ns

Prose

cutio

n/Jail

Regio

nal P

arks

& R

ec

Court

Syste

m

Anim

al C

ontrol

Comm

unity

Hea

lth

Enviro

nmen

tal S

ervi

ces

Public

Lib

rarie

s

Techn

ology

Child

Pro

tect

ive

Servi

ces

for S

enio

rs

Comm

unica

tion

Juve

nile D

eten

tion

Plann

ing

for W

ater

Socia

l Ser

vice

s

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Mean satisfaction ratings for all County services hovered around “Good.”

3.23.3

2.7

2.72

.82.92.93.0

3.03.13.13

.2

3.2

2.52.6

3.03

.1

2.62.72

.92.93.0

2.93

.1

3.13.13

.2

3.2

2.72.8

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0'Jan-2009 'Dec-2010

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Significant Changes in SatisfactionJanuary 2009 to December 2010

RatingsIncreased

Ratings WereStatistically Stable

RatingsDecreased

2010 Ratings of Services forUnincorporated Washoe County

3.4

3.2

3.2

3.2

3.0

3.0

2.6

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Fire P

rotectio

n

Law Enfo

rcem

ent

Wate

r Serv

ice

Sewer Serv

ice

Parks &

Recre

ation

Maintain

ing R

oads

Land Use P

lanning

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

None of these ratings changed significantly from January 2009 and rankings remained constant.

2010 - Perceived Change in Washoe County Service Levels With Budget Cuts

Don't Know3%

No Noticeable Drop

35%

Dropped Less than Expected

13%

Dropped as Expected

34%

DroppedMore than Expected

14%

• Washoe County had reduced staff by 16% over the prior 18 months due to budget cuts.

• Overall, three out of five respondents (61%) perceived that the level of service had dropped to some degree.

Citizen Contact with County Employees:• 72% had contact with a County employee in the prior 2 years, up

from 59% in 2009.

• Methods of employee contact included in-person (82%), telephone (56%), internet/email (37%), and U.S. mail (25%).

• Among those who had contact, 72% said County employees were very courteous and 65% said they were very helpful.

Communications:• Overall, the primary sources of information about the County were

personal experience (45%), newspapers (21%), and television (18%).

• 53% had used the County’s website, up from 42% in 2009.

• 19% said they would be likely to follow County information on social media sites.

2010 - Citizen Contact and Communications

Key Survey Points• Responses broken down by demographics and

constituencies.

• In general, involved citizens (CVG respondents) rated county services higher, were better able to name county services (awareness), noticed a drop in county service levels more due to budget cuts, used website more, had more contact with county employees both in person and electronically and watched more county programming.

• In general, college graduates and those with incomes of $75k or greater rated county services higher.

• Website Use: Increase from 2009. Of those respondents in the 45-64 age range, 60% use the website. Changes in website from past year include redesign and more online services.

• Contact: Increase since last survey reflective of increased demand for county services.

• Courteous: Similar rating to previous survey; speaks well of employees meeting increased citizen contacts with less workforce/resources available.

• Social Media: Of those in the 18-44 age range, 30% said they would use this to get County information. Of those with incomes between 35-75k, 25% would use. Promising new way to reach audience that is increasingly harder to reach by traditional methods.