HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018 Citizen SurveyTEXAS*STATE
f ST. �84" UNIVERSITY
GEO RG ETOW N 0%%11 R I:Ills 1Z[.Y ARCIt.
TEXAS ill wit Vol In �"l� i 1�AI"1.I,
Georgetown Community Survey 2018
Final Report
Thomas Longoria, Ph.D.
Professor and Director
Center for Public Policy, Research, and Training
Texas State University
Executive Summary
About the Survey
The questionnaire was mailed to a random sample of 2,300 households in May of 2018. There were 469
completed surveys. The response rate for the random sample survey was 20 percent. Based on the
response rate we can be 95% certain that the results for the questions reflect the views of Georgetown
households with a margin of error of +/- 4. In addition, a link to an open survey was also made available
to the public and 873 residents completed the survey.
The survey is generally representative of households in Georgetown when the demographics of the
survey respondents are compared to 2018 American Community Survey Data from the US Census. For
example, in 2018, and estimated 16% of occupied housing units in Georgetown have a non -white head
household according to the US Census and 17 % of the survey respondents indicated that they were
non -white. The estimated percent of residents who have lived in Georgetown 5 years or less is 47%
according to census estimates. Fifty-three percent of survey respondents indicated that they moved to
Georgetown 5 years or less. There are two notable exceptions. The estimated percentage of renter -
occupied housing in Georgetown is 27% compared to 10% of the respondents indicated that they rent.
According to the US Census, 56% of Georgetown residents are 65 years old or younger compared to 25%
of the respondents (see Figures 20 to 24). The survey results were statistically weighted to determine if
these differences influenced the findings, they did not. In addition, when survey responses were
examined by age and home ownership, few differences were found.
It is important to note that the responses reflect respondent perceptions. These perceptions should not
be mistaken for objective "reality." Perceptions are formed in the context of expectations that people
have for the quality of public services in Georgetown. For example, waiting three minutes to get
through an intersection may be perceived to be an excessive amount of time by people expecting small
town traffic. The same three minutes may not be noticed by people expecting rush hour traffic for a
growing community in a booming metro area.
Three contrasts are presented in the report below to provide additional insights including:
• Contrast #1: Comparison to a benchmarks
• Contrast #2: Comparison to the prior survey
• Contrast #3: Comparison across demographic categories
The major findings from these contracts are included in this executive summary.
Contrast #1: Comparison to Benchmarks
Greater than 75 percent of respondents who indicate that the service is good or excellent can be said to
meet or exceed benchmark for quality provision. With a 4 percent margin of error, 76 percent is
potentially 80 percent. Based on this criterion, Georgetown met or exceeded benchmark for quality
provision in 32 of 39 service indicators (82%). Areas for improvement identified in the survey included:
(1) traffic and parking; (2) employment opportunities; (3) housing opportunities; (4) retail options. The
top three priorities volunteered by respondents in an open-ended question are: (1) traffic; (2)
infrastructure and roads; (3) manage growth.
Contrast #2: Changes Over Time
There have been some changes in the percentage of respondents who say that the city is doing a good
or excellent job. Given the margin of error, only changes greater than 4% are considered.
In 8 of 25 cases common questions in the 2016 and 2018 surveys there were improvements of more
than four percent (32%). Improvements were observed in street repair, city beautification, the city as a
place to work, and emergency preparedness.
In 1 of 25 cases, there was a decrease in the percent who rated the service area good or excellent (4%).
The percent of respondents who rated traffic flow as good or excellent decreased by 16%.
Contrast #3: Comparisons Across Demographic Characteristics
Differences in responses were examined for seven different demographic characteristics including:
income, age, race, gender, home ownership, children in the home, number of years living in
Georgetown. In general, there are few statistically significant differences in the views of Georgetown
residents when they are examined in terms of their demographic characteristics. Thirty statistically
significant differences were found out of 231 statistical tests (33 indicators * 7 demographic
characteristics). In other words, statistically significant differences were found in 13% of the possible
cases.
The full results are presented in the report below. Highlights include:
• Lower income residents were less satisfied with employment and housing
• Residents under 65 were less satisfied with the city as place to work and walking for leisure
• Non -white residents were less satisfied with housing opportunities, animal control, and water
services
• Women were less satisfied with the city as a place to work and biking for leisure
• Owners were less satisfied with traffic and parking. Renters are less satisfied with housing
opportunities
• Households that include children were less satisfied with walking for leisure
• Residents for more than 10 years were less satisfied with housing opportunities, animal control,
street repair and traffic signal timing
Results for Specific Items
The remainder of the report presents the frequencies for each of the indicators in the survey. The
information is presented using bar charts to illustrate the range of responses. In each bar chart, the
number of respondents in found in parenthesis next to the indicator. The percent for each response
category is placed above the bars in the bar chart. Notable findings are presented with each bar chart.
List of Figures and Tables
Page
Figure 1: Value of City Services for City Taxes Paid
1
Figure 2: Quality of Government by Level of Government
2
Figure 3: Perceptions of Overall Quality of Life in Georgetown
3
Figure 4: Perceptions of Development
4
Figure 5: Traffic and Parking
5
Figure 6: Walking and Biking
6
Figure 7: Emergency Services
7
Figure 8: Code Enforcement and Permitting
8
Figure 9: Municipal Courts and Traffic Enforcement
9
Figure 10: Streets and Sidewalks
10
Figure 11: Utility Services
11
Figure 12: Waste Services
12
Figure 13: Services and City Beautification
13
Figure 14: Neighborhood Safety
14
Figure 15 Safety in Recreation and Shopping Areas
15
Figure 16: Service Utilization
16
Figure 17: Sources for News about Georgetown
17
Figure 18: Contact with City Employee
18
Figure 19: Rating of City Employee Contact
18
Figure 20: Years Lived in Georgetown
28
Figure 21: Racial Background
29
Figure 22: Age of Householder
30
Figure 23: Home Ownership
31
Table 1: Quality of Life and Quality of Service Perceptions 2016-2018
19
Table 2: Quality of Life and Quality of Service Perceptions 2016-2018, Cont.
20
Table 3: Perceptions about the Quality of Different Levels of Government
21
Table 4: Statistically Significant Differences by Income Groups
22
Table 5: Statistically Significant Differences by Age Groups
22
Table 6 Statistically Significant Differences by Racial Groups
22
Table 7: Statistically Significant Differences by Gender
23
Table 8: Statistically Significant Differences by Home Ownership
23
Table 9: Statistically Significant Differences by Children in the Home
23
Table 10: Statistically Significant Differences by Years in Georgetown
24
Table 11: Resident Perception by Survey Method
25
Table 12: Resident Perceptions by Survey Method, Cont.
26
Table 13: Survey Responses by Survey Method
27
iu
Responses to Key Indicators
Value of City Services
In 2018, 81% of respondents indicated that the value of city services for city taxes paid was excellent or
good. This represents a 3% increase compared to 78% in 2016.
Figure 1: Value of City Services for City Taxes Paid (n=440)
60
54.8
50
40
c
u 30
v 26.1
a
20 16.6
10
2.5
0 1 1 -
Excellent Good Fair Poor
1
Quality of Government by Level of Government
83% of respondents rated the quality of local government as good or excellent in 2018 compared to 82%
in 2016. 80% rate county government as good or excellent, 62% rate state government as good or
excellent, and 55% rate the federal government as good or excellent.
Figure 2: Quality of Government by Level of Government
70
60
50
45.3
40
c
33.3
v
30
20
10
0
12
9.4
Federal Government
(n=393)
I-I&7
30.1
10.1
8.3
State Government (n=396)
64.2
15.5 17.2
3.1
County Government
(n=413)
■ Excellent ■ Good ■ Fair Poor
61.8
20.8
14.8
111
2.6
City Government (n=427)
2
Quality of Life
98% of respondents rated the overall quality of life in Georgetown as good or excellent in 2018. The
same percentage (98%) indicated that overall quality of life was good or excellent in 2016. The quality
of life indicator rated the lowest was the city as a place to work. 81% of respondents indicated that the
city was an excellent or good place to work. However, this is a 7% increase in the percentage who
indicated that the city was a good or excellent place to work in 2016.
80
70
64.5
60
Figure 3: Perceptions of Quality of Life in Georgetown
60.6
50
42.1
40
38.4
a
32.7
34.3
30
20
14.8
10
2.4
3.5 1.6
4.8
In
0.4
0
The City as a Place to
A Place to Raise
A Place to Work
Live (n=468)
Children (n=315)
(n=271)
■ Excellent
■ Good ■ Fair Poor
68.4
7
60.3
37.2
HE
4.4
1.5
11
2.
IL1 0.4
A Place to Retire
Overall Quality of Life
(n=452)
(468)
3
Perceptions of Development
84% rate the quality of businesses and services as good or excellent. 69% rate housing opportunities as
good or excellent, and 68% rate retail options as good or excellent. For these three, there were no
changes from 2016. In 2018, 56% of residents rate employment opportunities as good or excellent, a
3% increase compared to 2016 results.
70
64.4
60
50
40
c
v
U
N
30
Figure 4: Perceptions of Development
45
32.3
52.6
50
27.2
24.4
20
19.7 15.9 18
13.9
10.8 12
10 7.1
4.8
0 2 1110
Quality of Businesses and Employment Opportunities Housing Opportunities Retail Options (n=434)
Service Establishments (n=346) (n=397)
(n=461)
■ Excellent ■ Good ■ Fair Poor
ki
Traffic and Parking
25% of respondents rate traffic flow as good or excellent. In 2016, 41% rated traffic flow as good or
excellent. The percentage who rated traffic flow as poor increased from 18% to 28%
50
45
40
35
30
c
u 25
a�
a
20
15
10
23.2
Figure 5: Traffic and Parking
46.3
28.4
5 2.1
- ■ ■ ■
0
Traffic Flow on Major Streets (n=404)
40.7
36.5
16.2
6.6
moll
Amount of Public Parking (N=457)
■ Excellent ■ Good ■ Fair ■ Poor
k,
Alternative Transportation Modes
45% rate the availability of walking paths and trails as good or excellent. 30% of respondents rated the
ease of biking to work as good or excellent. 22% rated the ease of walking to work as good or excellent.
Note that the number of respondents for these cases is low, likely meaning that for most people walking
or biking to work is not applicable or relevant. In other words, of those who might be able or interested
in walking to work, only 22% rated the ability as good or excellent.
In 2016, 77% rated the availability of paths and walking trails as good or excellent. The decrease of
32% is likely a function of priming. After being asked about all the different walks that paths and
walking trails might be used (for recreation and to get to work), people were primed to think about
walking paths and trails and if they meet their perceived needs.
Figure 6: Walking and Biking
60
50
48.9
41.9
39.5
38 740.2
40
34.5 34.2
30
28.5
30.6
28.7
v
25.5
a
20.5
20
17.8
17.4
16.1
10.9
11.9
10
1
6.3
0
Availability of Paths
Ease of Biking for
Ease of Biking for
Ease of Walking for
Ease of Walking for
and Walking Trails
Leisure (n=270)
Work (n=157)
Leisure (n=455)
Work (n=174)
(n=386)
■ Excellent
■ Good ■ Fair
Poor
11
Emergency Services
96% of respondents rated police services as good or excellent and 97% rated fire services as good or
excellent. 93% of respondents rated emergency preparedness as good or excellent, an increase of 6%
compared to 2016.
Figure 7: Emergency Services
80
70
60
55
50
41
u 40
v
a
30
20
10
11 3.4
- 0.7
0
Police Services (n=444)
68.9
28.1
1■2.5
0.5
Fire sevices (n=441)
■ Excellent ■ Good ■ Fair Poor
51.7
41.3
5.6
11 ■
1.3
Emergency Preparedness (n=375)
7
Code Enforcement and Permitting
78% of respondents rated permitting and inspections as good or excellent. 87% rated animal control as
good or excellent. 78% rated code enforcement as good or excellent.
Figure 8: Code Enforcement and Permitting
70
60
55.3
50
y 40
c
v
U
41
30
22.2
20 M 1 18.1
10
4.4
0 111 ■
Code Enforcement (n=320)
54
32.7
10.2
3.1
Animal Control (n=352)
■ Excellent ■ Good ■ Fair ■ Poor
60.2
17.7
15
7.1
1110
Permitting and Inspection (n=254)
H.
Municipal Courts and Traffic Enforcement
80% of respondents rated traffic enforcement as good or excellent. 92% rated municipal courts as good
or excellent.
Figure 9: Municipal Courts and Traffic Enforcement
70
60.7
60
50
+� 40
v
v 30.8
30
20
10 7.3
11 N 1.2
0 �
Municipal Courts (n=247)
55.1
25.1
15.1
4.6
Traffic Enforcement(n=414)
■ Excellent ■ Good ■ Fair ■ Poor
Oj
Streets and Sidewalks
73% rated street repair as good or excellent, a 12% increase since 2016. 72% rated street lighting as
good or excellent. 53% rated traffic signal timing as good or excellent
Figure 10: Streets and Sidewalks
70
60 57.4
50
Q) 40 .
c
U
v
30
20.7
20 15.9
10 6.1
0 ■
Street Repair (n=460)
52.4
22.8
17.8
7
Street Lighting (n=460)
■ Excellent ■ Good ■ Fair Poor
43.2
31
15.9
9.9
Traffic Signal Timing (n=465)
10
Utility Services
94% of respondents rated sewer services as good or excellent. 92% of respondents rated electric
services as good or excellent. 90% rated city water services as good or excellent.
60
51.2
50
40
c
30
v
a
20
10
n
Figure 11: Utility Services
8.9
111
2
=
City Water Services (n=461)
54.8
38.8
6.2
111
0.2
City Sewer Services (n=436)
■ Excellent ■ Good ■ Fair ■ Poor
47.8
44.3
7.4
111
0.5
City Electric Services (n=431)
11
Waste Services
94% of respondents rated the quality of the garbage collection as good or excellent. 91% rated recycling
as good or excellent. 76% rated yard waste pickup as good or excellent.
v
a
KII
52.6
50
Figure 12: Waste Services
51.8
40.9
40
39
30
20
10
5.8 5.9
3.2
0 . 0.6 110
Garbage Collection (n=462) Recycling (n=438)
■ Excellent ■ Good ■ Fair Poor
43.4
32.8
14.9
8.9
Yard Waste Pickup (n=403)
12
Services and City Beautification
89% of respondents rated services to youth as good or excellent. 88% of respondents rated services to
seniors as good or excellent. 92% rated city beautification as good or excellent.
Figure 13: Services and City Beautification
60
49.7
50
40 37.8
c
u 30
v
a
20
10
I
11.7
111
0.8
Services to Seniors (n=368)
55.6
33.7
9.1
111
1.6
Services to Youth (n=252)
■ Excellent ■ Good ■ Fair Poor
50.4
41.2
11 8
0.4
City Beautification (n=452)
13
Neighborhood Safety
90% of respondents rated neighborhood safety at night as good or excellent. 89% feel safe in their
neighborhood at night. 95% of respondents feel safe in the downtown square. Note how the
percentage who rate safety as good is different across these three indicators. Respondents are less
likely to rate safety in the downtown square and in their neighborhood at night as excellent.
70
64
60
50
+� 40
c
v
U
v
30
30
20
10
0
Figure 14: Neighborhood Safety
11 5.1
■ 0.9
Neighborhood (Day) (n=470)
41.5
9.6
Neighborhood (Night) (n=460)
■ Excellent ■ Good ■ Fair Poor
47.4 47.9
11 4.5
- 0.3
Downtown Square (n=397)
14
Safety in Recreation and Shopping Areas
88% of respondents rated safety in city parks as good or excellent. 79% rated safety in recreational
waters as good or excellent. 95% rated safety in shopping centers as good or excellent. 81% rated the
safety of city drinking water as good or excellent.
Figure 15: Safety in Recreation and Shopping Areas
60
55.1 53.9
50.9
50
44.3
40.9
40 36.9
+, 32.5
c
30 27.8
a�
a
20 17.5
12.1
10.3 10 8.5
0.3
■ 110
0.2 '0
City Parks (n=314) Recreational Waters Shopping Centers Drinking Water (n=447)
(n=234) (n=445)
■ Excellent ■ Good ■ Fair ■ Poor
15
Service Utilization
57% of respondents visited the downtown square often or very often. 32% of respondents visited a city
park often or very often. 32% visited the city library often or very often. 19% utilized a recreation
program often or very often. 17% visited the city website often or very often.
40
35 —
30.4
30
25
c
u 20
v
a
15
10
5
0
Figure 16: Service Utilization
35.4 36.2 35
2.4 31.0
26
4.
1.2 21.
19.]19.2 19.5 19.
16.
15
12. 11.
9.49•9 11.1
1.7 3.2
5.1
1
City Library (n=467) Recreation Programs Visted a City Park
(n=466) (n=382)
Visited the Visted City Website
Downtown Square (n=454)
(n=466)
■ Very Often ■ Often ■ Sometimes ■ Rarely ■ Never
16
Sources of News about Georgetown
20% of respondents used the city social media as a source for news. 63% of respondents used
Community Impact as source for news often or very often. In 2018, top three sources for news based on
the percentage who said they used the source very often, often, or sometimes: (1) Community Impact
(80%); (2) City Newsletter (75%); (3) Williamson County Sun (62%). In 2016, top three sources for news
based on the percentage who said they used the source more than 12 times in the past year: (1)
Williamson County Sun (42%), (2) Community Impact (30%); Local TV Stations (20%). These different
response categories may have influenced the results.
Figure 17: Sources for News about Georgetown
80
70
60
50
43.4
c
40 36.4 34.9
v
a
30 27.
4.3
22.12.6 22.4
20 16.5 13. 14.
8.9
10 0 1ji
74.5
2 3.75.5
.0111
City Newsletter City Social Media Williamson Community GTV Ch. 10
(n=461) (n=454) County Sun Impact (n=456) (n=455)
(n=456)
■ Very Often ■ Often ■ Sometimes ■ Rarely ■ Never
7.5
9.910.1
Local TV Stations
(n=455)
17
Resident -Initiated Contacting
54% percent of residents had contact with a city employee in the last year. 91% rated the service the
employee provided as good or excellent overall.
Figure 18: Percent of Residents Who Had
Contact with a City Employee
■ Yes ■ No
Figure 19: Rating City Employee Contact
2Q
■ Excellent ■ Good ■ Fair Poor
18
Table 1: Resident Quality of Life and Quality of Service Perceptions 2016-2018
Indicators
2016
2018
Change
Value of City Services for
Taxes Paid
78
81
+3
Perceptions of Overall
Quality of Life
Overall Quality of Life
98
98
0
The City as a Place to Live
98
97
-1
Life Choices and Quality
of Life
A Place to Raise Children
95
95
0
A Place to Work
74
81
+7
A Place to Retire
95
94
-1
Perceptions of
Development
Quality of New
Development
Overall Quality of
Businesses
84
84
0
Employment
Opportunities
53
56
+3
Housing Opportunities
70
69
-1
Retail Options
68
Traffic and Parking
Traffic Flow on Major
Streets
41
25
-16
Amount of Public Parking
46
47
+1
Walking and Biking
Ease of Walking for
Leisure [Availability of
walking paths in 2016]
77
79
Emergency Services
Police Services
95
96
+1
Fire/EMS Services
98
97
-1
Emergency Preparedness
87
93
+6
Municipal Courts and
Traffic Enforcement
Municipal Courts
90
92
+2
Traffic Enforcement
77
80
+3
19
Table 2: Resident Quality
of Life and Quality of
Services Perceptions 2016-2018
Indicators
2016
2018
Change
Code Enforcement and
Permitting
Code Enforcement
77
78
-1
Animal Control
83
87
+5
Streets and Sidewalks
Street Repair
61
73
+12
Street Lighting
69
70
+1
Traffic Signal Timing
52
53
+1
Garbage and Sewer
Garbage Collection
92
94
+2
Recycling
91
91
0
Yard Waste Pickup
77
76
-1
Sewer Services
89
94
+5
Parks and Recreation
and Public Library
City Parks
95
95
0
Recreation Programs
91
93
+2
Public Library
96
98
+2
Services
Services to Seniors
88
88
0
Services to Youth
84
89
+5
City Beautification
84
92
+8
20
Table 3: Perceptions of Quality of Government by Level of Government 2016-
2018
2016
2018
Change
City Government
82
83
+1
County
Government
75
80
+5
State Government
62
62
0
Federal
Government
48
55
+7
21
Statistically Significant Differences
Income
Table 4: Statistically Significant Differences by Income
Percent Good
or Excellent
Less than 75K
More than 75K
N
Chi -Square
Sig.
Traffic
33
22
406
6.18
.01
Employment
Opportunities
46
63
221
5.98
.01
Housing
Opportunities
60
77
350
11.84
.001
Traffic
Enforcement
75
86
362
7.40
.007
Yard Waste
Pickup
82
72
349
4.49
.03
Age
Table 5: Statistically Significant Differences by Age
Percent Good or Excellent
Less than 65
More than 65
N
Chi -Square
Sig.
Place to Work
69
83
216
5.54
.02
Walking for
Leisure
68
81
331
6.57
.01
City Drinking
Water
81
90
335
4.60
.03
Race
Table 6: Statistically Significant Differences by Race
Percent Good or Excellent
Non -White
White
N
Chi -Square
Sig.
Housing
Opportunities
58
70
397
3.81
.05
Animal Control
77
89
352
5.88
.02
City Water
Services
78
91
461
10.80
.001
22
Gender
Table 7: Statistically Significant Differences by Gender
Percent Good or Excellent
Male
Female
N
Chi -Square
Sig.
A Place to
Work
86
75
263
5.47
.02
Traffic
19
32
454
10.7
.001
Biking for
Leisure
67
52
261
6.34
.01
Traffic Signal
Timing
48
57
451
3.91
.05
Home Ownership
Table 8: Statistically Significant Differences by Home Ownership
Percent Good or Excellent
Owner
Renter
N
Chi -Square
Sig.
Traffic
24
38
458
4.10
.04
Parking
45
66
447
6.85
.009
Housing
Opportunities
70
54
388
4.54
.03
Recycling
82
76
427
10.7
.001
Children in Home
Table 9: Statistically Significant Differences by Children
in Home
Percent Good or Excellent
No Children
Children
N
Chi -Square
Sig.
Walking for
Leisure
82
65
455
10.7
.001
Street Lighting
68
80
460
3.86
.05
23
Years in Georgetown
Table 10: Statistically Significant Differences by Years in Georgetown
Percent Good or Excellent
Less than 10
Years
More than 10
Years
N
Chi -Square
Sig.
Place to Retire
96
91
443
4.81
.03
Housing
Opportunities
75
61
390
9.02
.003
Police
98
94
435
5.11
.02
Traffic
Enforcement
84
76
406
4.05
.04
Code
Enforcement
84
70
313
7.96
.005
Animal Control
92
81
345
9.81
.002
Street Repair
80
65
451
11.75
.001
Traffic Signal
Timing
57
48
456
3.96
.05
Permits
85
70
247
8.29
.004
24
Table 11: Comparison of Resident Quality of Life and Quality of Service Perceptions for
Open Survey and Random Sample Surveys 2018
Indicators
Open Survey
Random Sample
Difference
Value of City Services for
Taxes Paid
71
81
+10
Perceptions of Overall
Quality of Life
Overall Quality of Life
94
98
+4
The City as a Place to Live
95
97
+2
Life Choices and Quality
of Life
A Place to Raise Children
92
95
+3
A Place to Work
74
81
+7
A Place to Retire
91
94
+3
Perceptions of
Development
Quality of New
Development
58
76
+18
Overall Quality of
Businesses
75
84
+9
Employment
Opportunities
52
56
+4
Housing Opportunities
61
69
+8
Retail Options
63
68
+5
Traffic and Parking
Traffic Flow on Major
Streets
20
25
+5
Amount of Public Parking
42
47
+5
Walking and Biking
Ease of Walking for
Leisure
69
79
+10
Walking to Work
17
22
+5
Ease of Biking for Leisure
48
60
+12
Biking to Work
24
30
+8
Emergency Services
Police Services
94
96
+2
Fire Services
98
97
-1
Ambulance/EMS
Emergency Preparedness
87
93
+6
Municipal Courts and
Traffic Enforcement
Municipal Courts
87
92
+5
Traffic Enforcement
77
80
+3
25
Table 12: Comparison of Resident Quality of Life and Quality of Services Perceptions for
Open Survey and Random Sample 2018
Indicators
Open Survey
Random Sample
Difference
Code Enforcement and
Permitting
Code Enforcement
71
78
+7
Animal Control
84
87
+3
Permitting and Inspection
64
78
+14
Streets and Sidewalks
Street Repair
68
73
+5
Street Lighting
68
70
+2
Traffic Signal Timing
44
53
+9
Waste Services
Garbage Collection
89
94
+5
Recycling
84
91
+7
Yard Waste Pickup
70
76
+6
Utilities
Electric Services
86
92
+6
Water Services
83
89
+6
Sewer Services
89
94
+5
Parks and Recreation
and Public Library
City Parks
92
95
+3
Recreation Programs
90
93
+3
Public Library
96
98
+2
Services
Services to Seniors
85
88
+3
Services to Youth
80
89
+9
City Beautification
86
92
+6
26
Table 13: Comparison of Respondents by Survey Method
Random Sample
Mail
Random Sample
Online
Open Survey
Chi Square
Sig.
Income
Less than 75K
47
23
37
15.07
.001
More than 75K
53
77
63
Children in Home
No
83
57
66
45.93
.0001
Yes
17
43
34
Years in Georgetown
Less than 10
53
57
55
.62
.75
10 or more
47
43
45
Age
Less than 65
23
52
41
31.67
.0001
65 or more
77
48
59
Gender
Male
48
56
41
7.59
.02
Female
52
44
59
Home Ownership
Owner
90
92
90
.279
.87
Renter
10
8
10
Race
Non -White
16
18
23
8.80
.01
White
84
82
77
27
Years Lived in Georgetown
60
50
40
c
u 30
a�
a
20
10
0
Figure 20: Years Lived in Georgetown
53 55 53
47
47 45
Less than 5 years More than 5 years
■ Random Sample (n=466) ■ Open Survey (n=852) ■ US Census
28
Racial Background
Figure 21: Racial Background
90 84 83
80 77
70
60
v 50
u
v 40
a
30 23
20 16 17
10 mom
0
Non -White White
■ Random Sample (n=483) ■ Open Survey (n=922) ■ Census
29
Age of Householder
Figure 22: Age of Householder
80 75
70
60
56 59
50 41
v
40
a 30 25
20
10
0
Under 65 Over 65
44
■ Random Sample (n=343) ■ Open Survey (n=724) ■ Census
30
Home Ownership
Figure 23: Home Ownership
100 90 90
90
80 73
70 —
60
u 50
a 40
30 27
20 10 101
10
Own Rent
■ Random Sample (n=464) ■ Open Survey (n=847) ■ Census
31