Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
General Plan Update Community Survey
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT July 16, 1998 MAYOR AND TO 1 OUNCI TOWN MANAGER GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COMMUNITY SURVEY A. DISCUSS INTENT OF COMM UNITY B. INTERVIEW AMERICAN INSTITUTESV FOR AND RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS. RESEARCH RECOMMENDATION: AND GODBE 1. 2 Discuss intent of community survey; Interview American Institutes for Research and Godbe Research and Analysis. REMARKS: MEETING DATE: 7/20/98 STUDY SESSION The Council considered the community survey on June 15, 1998 and July 6, 1998 meetings, staff recommended that Godbe Research and Analysis conduct the survey. continued to July 20, 1998. The Council has voiced concern about their goal forth (Attachments 1,2 and 3 . meet thatgoal. ) At both Godbe Research and Analysis responded to the Council's concerns(expressed On July 6, 1998 the item was Memorandum included as Attachment 6. The Council stated on June il' 1998 e survey and how the consultant will satisfaction or dissatisfaction with Town services is not the goal. The Council agreed ure on July 6, 1998) with the Town satisfaction on identifying options for Towns, directions andf pgoal. in theuithat a at the survey y she should shinalid evaluate the strength solutions, communities feelings abouteTown wide issues that the se process. The assist the space and housing.General Plan update rsurvey es such as growth, circulation, open The Council will adjourn to a study session to discuss the intent of the community consultants that submitted proposals for conducting the survey and analyzing the results. as Attachments 4 and 5. Representatives from both American Institutes for Research and survey and then interview both will Attachments present Julyd , 1998. The Researchras are included and Godbe and Analysis CONCLUSION: Since this item includes a study session and interviews, no action may be taken by continue the item to a date certain and request staff to prepare a report recommending agreement with one of the consultants. the Council. The Council may Council authorization to enter an ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: Consultant services for a community survey are not a project defined under CEQ q ,and no further action is required. Since no action may be taken, there will be no fisc1 impact. PREPARED BY: Reviewed by: Reformatted: 10/23/95 LEE E. BOWMAN PLANNING DIRECTOR Attorney mance Revised: 7/16/98 10:58 am 1 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: COMMUNITY SURVEY July 16, 1998 Attachments: 1. Council Report dated June 4, 1998 for Community Survey 2. Town Council minutes from June 15, 1998 3. Town Council Report dated July 1, 1998 4. Proposal for Community Survey from American Institutes for Research, received May 12, 1998 5. Proposal for Community Survey from Godbe Research and Analysis, received May 15, 1998 (Resident Satisfaction Reports not included) 6. Memo from David Kaefer, Godbe Research and Analysis, received July 7, 1998 DISTRIBUTION: John C. Flanagan Research Center, Attn: Dr. Robert Rossi, 1791 Arastradero Road, P.O. Box 1113, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Godbe Research and Analysis, 225 South Cabrillo Highway, Suite 200, Building B, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-1738 LEB:KS:sm N:1DE V\CNCLRPTS1S UR VEY3. STD COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: June 4, 1998 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: 6/15/98 ITEM NO. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COMMUNITY SURVEY A. CONCUR WITH GENERAL PLAN COMMII-I'EE RECOMMENDATION TO CONDUCT A TOWN WIDE COMMUNITY SURVEY; B. ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH GODBE RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES TO PREPARE A SCIENTIFICALLY BASED COMMUNITY SURVEY. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Concur with General Plan Committee recommendation to conduct a Town wide community survey; 2. Adopt Resolution authorizing Town Manager to execute an agreement with Godbe Research and Analysis for consulting services to prepare a scientifically based community survey. BACKGROUND: The first General Plan Task Force conducted an informal survey in October 1997. The survey results were useful for the Task Force and the Town appreciates the efforts of the subcommittee that compiled the results. Although the survey response included 1,397 Town residents, it was not scientifically controlled. The respondents were not randomly selected, they were self selected for inclusion. Over -representation by special interest groups and/or particular neighborhoods may have skewed the data. Survey results may not have represented the entire community. Therefore, the General Plan Committee recommends that the Town conduct a scientifically based survey that will better represent the entire community. To conduct such a survey, the Town needs the assistance of a firm with expertise in the area of community assessment. On March 2, 1998, Town Council authorized staff to send Requests for Proposals (RFP's) to consulting firms for meeting facilitation, community survey, planning, data collection and environmental services related to the General Plan update. On April 22, 1998 the General Plan Committee approved the final draft of the RFP for the survey consultant and recommended that the Council select a consultant to conduct the Town wide community survey. A subcommittee of the General Plan Committee was formed to work directly with the consultant to ensure that the survey will provide information and address issues that will assist with the General Plan update. In May 1998, the RFP for the survey was sent to five consultants and two consultants submitted proposals. On May 26, 1998 Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates was selected for meeting facilitation, planning, data collection and environmental services for the General Plan update. This report provides a discussion and recommendation about the proposals submitted for the survey consultant. Proposals were submitted by the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and Godbe Research and Analysis. PREPARED BY: LEE E. BOWMAN PLANNING DIRE TOR Reviewed by: Attorney ' Finance Revised: 6/4/98 12:36 pm Reformatted: 10/23/95 ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: Community Survey Consultant June 4, 1998 DISCUSSION: The proposals were evaluated based on the criteria identified in the "Comparison of Proposals for the Community Survey" (Attachment 2). Highlights from the proposals submitted by each consultant are discussed below. American Institute for Research (AIR) AIR stresses the importance of using a tested set of community concepts and assessment processes in a community survey and needs assessment. The proposal states that the community needs assessment should be thought of as a methodology that relates residents' sense of community to their perceptions of local needs. As a result, the survey results will have more promise for guiding the decisions of the General Plan Task Force II and General Plan Committee in the General Plan update process in a way that strengthens the entire community, rather than satisfying the immediate needs of a selected interest group. The qualifications of the project manager and assistant are extensive. Dr. Robert Rossi has worked with AIR since 1974, performing various research, evaluation and technical assistance roles aimed at building community in organizations, groups and regional settings. Project Assistant Dr. Kaaren Hanson has experience using quantitative and qualitative research methods to measure community in the workplace, schools, neighborhoods and congregations. The tasks in the scope of work include meetings and focus groups, survey design, survey administration, analysis and reporting. The scope involves meetings with Town staff and General Plan Task Force II. The survey design involves structured items with one or two free response items, guarded against bias in the form of nonresponse. The survey administration involves 750 Los Gatos residents, selected at random using a computer assisted telephone interview. (A drawback with this type of survey is that merchants may not be involved.) The survey will ensure that well-defined geographic areas of the Town are represented. The overall project approach demonstrates an understanding of what information the Town needs during the General Plan update process. The work product is not clear. The total cost for AIR services is $44,888. For more detailed information, see Attachments 2 and 3. Godbe Research and Analysis (GRA) GRA's experience in surveying the needs and opinions of residents and merchants in California Communities is extensive. The proposal stresses the importance of a comprehensive, actionable and easy to understand research product. It is also stated in the proposal that the survey will assess community needs, not just measure public opinion. Focus groups will be used to test ideas and refine the research objectives for the telephone survey. Once the qualitative data from the focus groups is analyzed, GRA will design the quantitative survey. A fmal report will summarize the focus group outcome and serve as a tool for survey development. GRA provides several alternatives for the survey process. In each alternative, attention is paid to residents and businesses. Stakeholder focus groups are included in each alternative, with an additional business and resident focus group option. GRA includes two alternatives for the survey: Random Digit Dial (RDD) or a registered voter survey. The sample group for the survey is recommended as 400 residents. GRA recommends the RDD survey in combination with the mail -back business survey. The fmal research product will be in the form of a written report, including but not limited to: • A question by question summary of the data; • A complete set of cross -tabulations; • A detailed matrix grouping the responses to two question sets in four quadrants; • A graph that plots responses to the two question sets, importance of Town service/issue and satisfaction with Town service / issue. Issues that rank high on the importance scale but low on the satisfaction scale will stand out as areas for improvement or attention in the Town. The final report will demonstrate the use of qualitative and quantitative data based in social and scientific principle. PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: Community Survey Consultant June 4, 1998 Staff recommends the alternative including the stakeholder focus groups, RDD survey, and mail -back business survey for a total cost of $29,417. For more detailed information about the proposal, please see Attachments 2 and 4. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that Council adopt the Resolution authorizing an agreement with Godbe Research and Analysis (Attachment 1 ). This recommendation is based on the following factors: • ' GRA's scope of work clarity and related work products ; • Project managers Bryan Godbe and David Kaefer's extensive community research experience for municipalities that includes research for Strategic Plan updates; • GRA research will focus on assessment of community needs rather than reaction to public opinion; • Both quantitative and qualitative research methods will be employed; • GRA realizes the importance of both businesses and residents in the community wide survey; • GRA places importance on a research product that is "actionable" and easy to understand; • Timely completion of the survey proposed (October 1998); ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS: Consultant services for a community survey are not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs for conducting the survey will be funded from the General Plan Update fee. The following cost breakdown sub -totals task costs as outlined in the Godbe Research and Analysis scope of work. GRA will invoice the Town for services based on task completion and work products. A 10% contingency is included (based on the total project cost) to cover required work that may be beyond the scope of services. Funding for the cost for GRA to conduct the survey has been included in 1998-99 Operating Budget. The project tasks are summarized below: Facilitation: Task 1 Focus Groups $ 4,980 Task 2 Telephone Survey (RDD) $16,260 Task 3 Mail -Back Business Survey $ 8,180 Total $29,420 10 % Contingency $ 2,940 TOTAL COST WITH CONTINGENCY: $32,360 State law requires that a General Plan is updated periodically. Therefore, staff will continue to collect the General Plan update fee on development applications and Account 100-26751 will be ongoing. The revenue stream will continue and the balance will apply toward future General Plan update tasks. Attachments: 1. Resolution authorizing Town Manager to execute an agreement with Godbe Research and Analysis for consulting services to conduct a community survey. Exhibit A: Agreement with Godbe Research and Analysis for contract services to conduct a community survey. 2. Comparison of proposals for community survey 3. Proposal from American Institutes for Research 4. Proposal from Godbe Research and Analysis PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: Community Survey Consultant June 4, 1998 Town Council Report and Attachment 2 distributed to: John C. Flanagan Research Center, Attn: Dr. Robert Rossi, 1791 Arastradero Road, P.O. Box 1113, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Godbe Research and Analysis, 225 South Cabrillo Highway, Suite 200, Building B, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-1738 LEB:KS:cm N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\SURVEY.REC Town Council Minutes June 15, 1998 Redevelopment Agency Los Gatos, California BUS STOP ADDITION/MAIN STREET/NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER (16.40) Mayor Lubeck stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to consider prohibiting parking at 208 East Main Street (Neighborhood Center) and approving bus stop addition at 208 East Main Street. The following people from the audience spoke to this issue: Ed LaVeque, 149 Calle Larga, spoke against the new bus stop and the loss of parking spaces in this location. Joel Gambord, 16250 Greenwood Lane, Monte Sereno, 300 East Main Street Office Building, spoke of the many reasons for having an additional location for the students to wait for a bus. Vandalism and loitering are persistent problems that may be lessened if the students are spread about other bus stops. This ongoing problem should also be addressed annually since there are always new students who are no aware of the rules and regulations. No one else from the audience addressed this issue. Council Consensus to continue this item to September 8, 1998. Staff will meet with school representatives, property owners and transportation agency to identify alternatives. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE/COMMUNITY SURVEY (25.20) Mayor Lubeck stated that this was the time and place duly noted to consider concurring with General Plan Committee recommendation to conduct a Town -wide community survey. Council consensus to continue this item for two weeks so Council can have a sample of a quantitative study. JACKSON 150/ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS/REFUND OF FEES (26.09) Mayor Lubeck stated that this was the time and place duly noted to consider request for refund of development fees for proposed accessory living quarters. Property location: 150 Jackson. Property Owner/Appellant: Yolanda Olsen. Architect: Twain Reed. Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Blanton, to deny the request, since the application has one through the DRC twice and through the Planning Commission where neighbors have participated. Application fees are charged to pay for this process and the application received the full services provided. Council noted that the fees are charged for all applications and are not refunded to those projects which are denied. Carried by a vote of 3 ayes. Mr. Attaway and Mr. Hutchins absent. COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE AMENDMENT (27.10) Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mrs. Lubeck, that Council amend the Town Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting Schedule for 1998-99 fiscal year cancelling the September 12, 1998 Joint Town Council/Parking Commission Study Session. Carried by a vote of 3 ayes. Mr. Attaway and Mr. Hutchins absent. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Mayor Lubeck noted that the Council had a bacci ball team organized for the Cities Association meeting this coming Thursday. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lubeck adjourned this evening's meeting at 8:56 p.m. ATTEST: TC: D10: MM061598 6 Marian V. Cosgrove, Town Clerk ATTACHMENT 2 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: July 1, 1998 TO: MAYOR AND TOWNCOUNCIL FROM: TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: MEETING DATE: 7/6/98 ITEM NO. aa, GENERAL PLAN UPDATE COMMUNITY SURVEY A. CONCUR WITH GENERAL PLAN COMMIT ILE RECOMMENDATION TO CONDUCT A TOWN WIDE COMMUNITY SURVEY; B. ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH GODBE RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES TO PREPARE A SCIENTIFICALLY BASED COMMUNITY SURVEY. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Concur with General Plan Committee recommendation to conduct a Town wide community survey; 2. Adopt Resolution authorizing Town Manager to execute an agreement with Godbe Research and Analysis for consulting services to prepare a scientifically based community survey (Attachment 5). BACKGROUND: On June 15, 1998, Council considered this matter and continued it so Godbe Research and Analysis (GRA) could provide a sample of survey questions. The Council was concerned that GRA would not meet the Town's goal for the survey if questions only address the community's satisfaction or dissatisfaction with Town services (as illustrated in GRA work samples). Greg Harrison, Research Coordinator for GRA, has discussed Council's concerns with staff. He has indicated that GRA will work closely with the subcommittee of the General Plan Committee to construct the survey questions and that the qualitative data from the focus groups will be a tool for GRA and the subcommittee when designing the survey questions. He also understands that the focus of the survey is not to assess the community's satisfaction with Town services. Mr. Harrison does not think he can accurately construct survey questions to address the Council's concerns identified on June 15, 1998 prior to working with the General Plan Committee subcommittee (Jan Hutchins, Michael Burke and Gary Ehlert) and analyzing the focus group results. A GRA representative will be available at the July 6, 1998 Council meeting to answer questions. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends the GRA alternative including the focus groups, Random Digit Dial survey, and mail -back business survey for a total cost of $29,417. It is important to note that the two focus groups may include residents, merchants, commercial property owners, etc. Two alternatives are attached to the scope of work and budget, the first includes the staff recommendation (Attachment 6) and the second includes the additional focus groups per Council's request (Attachment 7). The costs for the two alternatives are addressed in the Fiscal Impact section of this report. PREPARED BY: LEE E. BOWMAN PLANNING DIRECTOR Reviewed by: ✓ Attorney k ance (Continued to Page 2) Revised:7/1/98 5:11 pm Reformatted: 10/23/95 ATTACHMENT 3 PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: COMMUNITY SURVEY CONSULTANT July 1, 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS: Consultant services for a community survey are not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required. FISCAL IMPACT: The costs for conducting the survey will be funded from the General Plan Update deposit account. The following project costs (Alternatives 1 and 2) include task specific costs as outlined in the Godbe Research and Analysis scope of work. Staff recommends Alternative 1. GRA will invoice the Town for services based on task completion and work products. A 10% contingency is included (based on the total project cost) to cover required work that may be beyond the scope of services. Funding for the cost for GRA to conduct the survey has been included in 1998-99 Operating Budget (Expenditure Account 3150-61753). This account is currently funded for $32,360 (amount in Alternative 1). If the Council chooses Alternative 2, it will need to authorize increasing the expenditure by $12,320 from the deposit account (100-26751). The project tasks are summarized below in the form of two alternatives: Alternative 1: Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Focus Groups Telephone Survey (RDD) Mail -Back Business Survey Total 10 % Contingency TOTAL COST WITH CONTINGENCY: Alternative 2: Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Focus Groups Optional Focus Groups Telephone Survey (RDD) Mail -Back Business Survey Total 10% Contingency $ 4,980 $16,260 $ 8.180 $29,420 $ 2,940 $32,360 $ 4,980 $11,200 $16,260 $ 8.180 $40,620 $ 4,060 TOTAL COST WITH CONTINGENCY: $44,680 State law requires that a General Plan is updated periodically. Therefore, staff will continue to collect the General Plan update fee on development applications and Account 100-26751 will be ongoing. The revenue stream will continue and the balance will apply toward future General Plan update tasks. Attachments: 1 through 4 Attached to report dated June 4, 1998 5. Resolution authorizing Town Manager to execute an agreement with Godbe Research and Analysis for consulting services to conduct a community survey. Exhibit A: Revised Agreement with Godbe Research and Analysis for contract services to conduct a community survey 6. Alternative 1 Project Budget / Scope of Work 7. Alternative 2 Project Budget / Scope of Work DISTRIBUTION: John C. Flanagan Research Center, Attn: Dr. Robert Rossi, 1791 Arastradero Road, P.O. Box 1113, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Godbe Research and Analysis, 225 South Cabrillo Highway, Suite 200, Building B, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-1738 LEB:KS:sm N:1DEV\CNCLRPTS\SURVEY2.REC AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH May 11, 1998 Lee M. Bowman, Director Town of Los Gatos Planning Department Civic Center 110 East Main Street PO Box 949 Los Gatos, CA 95031 Dear Mr. Bowman: REGE! VE : MAY 121998 TOWN OF LOS GA TOS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8y The American Institutes for Research (AIR) is pleased to submit the attached proposal to conduct a communitywide survey for the Town of Los Gatos that will inform the General Update process. If questions should arise concerning any of the technical aspects of our proposal, please contact Dr. Robert Rossi at 650.493.3550. For matters related to the cost estimates, please contact Mr. Thomas Jesulaitis in our corporate business office at 202.342.5031. The enclosed budget estimates are firm for 90 days from the date of this submission. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to work with you in Los Gatos. Sincerely, Kevin J. Gilmartin, Ph.D. Vice President and Office Director JOHN C. FLANAGAN RESEARCH CENTER 1 7 9 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD P.O. BOX 1 1 1 3 PALO ALTO. CA 94302 J� �" R`%� (415) 493-3550 .AT ACIIMENT Communitywide Survey f ,NAY 4,998 To Inform Plan Review rc,,v,v °F CC. S' 17, Submitted to the Town of Los Gams, Cakfar+ b the Center for Community Research at the American Institutesfor Research Bidder Information 1. Organization: Corporate headquarters — American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences (AIR) 3333 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20007 (202) 342-5000 Federal Tax ID: 25-0965219 Contact: Thomas Jesulaitis, Director, Contracts and Grants AIR site from which proposed work will be carried out — John C. Flanagan Research Center (JCFRC) P.O. Box 1113 Palo Alto, CA 94302 (650) 493-3550 Contacts: Kevin Gilmartin, Office Director Robert Rossi, Director, Center for Community Research 2. Staff for the Proposed Work: Drs. Robert Rossi, Kaaren Hanson, and Ms. Chris Huber Proposal Contents 1. Introduction 2. Detailed Outline of Services to be Performed 3. Budget and Town Business License 4. Organizational Experience 5. References 6. Example Products 7. Staff Resumes 8. Time Schedule 1. Introduction The American Institutes for Research (AIR) is pleased to submit this proposal to assist the Town of Los Gatos and its General Plan Task Force II in updating the General Plan for the community. The aims and requirements of the information gathering process described in the Request for Proposal (RFP) fit well with our corporate mission and the capabilities of our Center for Community Research. We understand that this information gathering process will include meetings, focus groups, and a scientific survey of Los Gatos residents. We also understand that this process is an important next step in efforts to provide the General Plan Task Force II with a clear sense of the extent of shared community values, visions, and purposes among Los Gatans. Finally, we know that instead of a simple canvassing of resident opinions, the proposed survey in particular must relate residents' shared values, visions, and goals to perceived community needs, thereby identifying alternative actions and projects for the Town to consider in the years ahead. In seeking consultants for this effort, the Town of Los Gatos requires special expertise in the area of community assessment. Based on our work with John W. Gardner since 1991, we will bring a tested set of community concepts and assessment processes and strategies to the General Plan Update process. Operationally in our view, community needs assessment should be thought of as a methodology that relates residents' sense of community to their perceptions of local needs. In this way, the actions and projects identified for further development will be ones that have the greatest promise for strengthening the Los Gatos community over the next decade, not ones that merely satisfy the immediate needs of selected interest groups. For us, the sense of community in a group, an organization, or a city is defined in terms of 11 elements: 1. shared vision 2. shared values 3. shared sense of purpose 4. trust 5. respect 6. recognition 7. caring 8. communication 9. participation 10. teamwork 11. incorporation of diversity Identifying these 11 elements through empirical studies, measuring them reliably in neighborhoods, residential facilities, workplaces, schools, civic associations, and congregations, and relating them to needs, goals, and desired outcomes within each of these settings has been our sole focus for the past seven years. 2. Detailed Outline of Services to be Performed Meetings and focus groups. To ensure that our communitywide survey will provide the General Plan Task Force II with what it requires to evaluate possible future directions for the Town 2 of Los Gatos, we will meet a minimum of three times with Town staff and facilitate discussions with other representatives knowledgeable about Town issues. In our experience, interviews with key staff are essential for setting expectations and clarifying issues that must be included within the survey scope. For example, the rationale(s) for possible decisions (e.g., to rezone previously buildable sites as open -space areas) can be probed for in these interviews, as can the possible root causes of current issues of concern. Similarly, we know that focus groups with various other representatives —including resident/neighborhood groups —are important both for gaining insights useful to the survey design process and for providing opportunities to inform and to educate the public concerning the purposes and uses to be made of the survey information. For our approach in particular, these focus groups will serve as a stage to familiarize residents with the key elements of community in terms of which we will be evaluating current and projected needs. Depending on the travel schedules of Town staff and key representatives, we estimate that these interviews and focus groups will take from two to three months to organize and carry out. including the time to review and analyze the data that are collected. Survey design. We envision that the survey design process will be an iterative one, whereby we will work with Town staff to set the community assessment items we have developed and used over the past seven years in the context of the Los Gatos General Plan Update. From our experience, this will likely involve the development of two types of additional items that will be added to the Los Gatos survey form. First, needs assessment items will be crafted to gauge the perceived gap between what Los Gatos residents say they value personally in their lives and what they experience on a daily basis in Los Gatos in terms of assurance of personal safety and protection of property, land use and development, availability of services and programs, historic and community preservation, and quality and accessibility of public facilities. Second, background items will be crafted that permit the disaggregation of survey results in terms of resident groups and residential areas important for the policy development process. As a test of the coverage of the survey instrument prior to administration, we will prepare hypothetical statements of findings based on the items that are included and share these with Town staff and task force members for reflection and comment. Depending on the travel schedules of Town staff and key representatives, we estimate that the process of survey design will take from two to four weeks. Survey administration. We propose a computer -assisted telephone interview (CATI) survey administration that will involve 750 Los Gatos residents selected at random. Using a random - digit dialing technique with Los Gatos prefixes (and a survey "screen" to ensure Town residence), we will interview adult heads of households with listed and unlisted telephone numbers. We will use quota -constraints to ensure that about as many men as women are interviewed and that as many respondents from well-defined geographic areas of the Town are interviewed (e.g., using zip codes as area referents). We expect that the survey will contain mostly structured, or close -ended items, but 3 we have also planned for one or two free -response items. These free -response items will be coded, and they will serve to underscore our intent to hear from residents in their own words about issues and trends that are of concern. Using a CATI approach, which automatically creates an edited data file, we estimate that the data collection and data file preparation will require three weeks. It is particularly important to note that our approach will guard against possible bias due to nonresponse in two ways. First, each Los Gatos telephone number that is dialed without a resident connection will be tried five times —three times at different times of the day on three different weekdays and twice at different times on weekend days. Second, all Los Gatos telephone numbers that are dialed five times in the manner described but still fail to produce a connection with a resident will be catalogued. A ten percent sample of these catalogued numbers will then (a) be followed up five additional times, and, if a connection is still not made, (b) traced to zip codes for comparison with sampling quotas (i.e., to ensure geographic representativeness). Of course, the most effective way of minimizing nonresponse is to publicize the important aims of the survey to all Los Gatos residents, so we will work with Town staff from the outset of the project to identify as many communication channels as possible that can be used for this purpose. Analysis and reporting. We will analyze the survey data and report findings to Town staff and members of the General Plan Task Force II. Our quantitative analyses will include comparisons of views for different resident populations and estimation of the relationships among variables describing community and community needs. We will also work with staff and task force members to determine the best formats and vehicles (e.g., community forums, Town meetings) for sharing the survey information meaningfully with residents. In our work, we use a variety of print and graphics approaches to ensure findings are clearly presented with maximum impact for diverse audiences. We estimate that analysis and reporting of the data from this communitvwide survey will require four weeks. 3. Budget and Town Business License Upon notification of contract award, AIR will obtain a Business License from the Town of Los Gatos if it is required (See Appendix A for AIR insurance information and statement of intent to obtain a Los Gatos Business License). We are a 501(c)(3) not -for -profit organization incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania. For the four principal tasks associated with the proposed work, our budget estimates are as follows: Meetings and focus groups $ 7,500 Survey design 7,250 Survey administration 19,388 Analysis and reporting 10,750 TOTAL $44,888 4 4. Organizational Experience The American Institutes for Research (AIR) is an independent, not -for -profit corporation engaged in research and service in the social and behavioral sciences. We conduct basic and applied research to solve significant societal problems and improve the quality of life of all people. Our clients include government agencies, public service institutions, foundations, and other private sector sponsors. Originally focusing on the scientific study of human resources, our expertise has grown during the past 50 years to encompass community research, education research, urban life studies, international studies, survey and statistical methods, employment equity analysis, and human factors engineering. We have completed more than 3,000 projects since 1946, with an annual total volume of over $30 million in FY 1997. AIR staff and research facilities. The AIR approach combines a strong quantitative orientation with the best theories and methods available in the behavioral and social sciences. A distinguishing characteristic of the organization is our multidisciplinary problem -solving capability. We select from the full range of social science methods the approaches that are best suited to the particular problems being addressed. We employ approximately 350 research, technical, administrative, and clerical personnel. Sixty percent hold advanced degrees. Our research offices are located in Washington, DC; Arlington, VA; Palo Alto, CA; and Concord, MA. We establish other facilities as needed in off -site locations in this country and abroad. Centralized accounting and business management are provided by the Corporate Business Office in Washington, DC. The work we are proposing here to the Town of Los Gatos will be carried out by staff from our John C. Flanagan Research Center (JCFRC), located at 1791 Arastradero Road in Palo Alto, CA, near Stanford University. AIR collaboration with John W. Gardner. AIR's Center for Community Research, located at the JCFRC, and Dr. John W. Gardner of Stanford University have been working together since 1991 to understand, measure, and build community in neighborhoods, civic associations, workplaces, schools, and congregations. Dr. Gardner, former HEW Secretary and President of the Carnegie Corporation, serves as a national resource for research and thinking in the areas of leadership and community. His books On Leadership and Building Community are recognized as seminal in the field and have influenced many thousands of individuals in both the public and private sectors. Sponsors of our collaborative efforts have included several prominent foundations and a variety of private groups. (Abstracts of selected projects carried out by staff of the Center for Community Research at AIR are included in Appendix B.) Our approach is distinctive in that we have moved beyond the rhetoric and vague generalizations that typically surround discussions of `community.' We develop tools for assessing and building sense of community and utilize these tools to assist groups and organizations in realizing their goals. 5 CATI survey capability. For this survey, AIR will rely on the technology and staff capability supplied by Venture Data —a survey research field and data tabulation company with 193 interviewing stations in two facilities. Venture Data's primary function is the collection of quantitative data via Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) and preparation of data for analysis. CATI data collection implements an electronic version of the survey instrument, allowing interviewers to enter all respondent data directly into the computer. Sample (phone number) management and calling, quota controlling, and report generation is also handled by the computer. Venture Data has successfully fielded nearly 2,000 CATI data collection projects entailing varying requirements and challenges since 1994. 5. References The names and contact information of six references that can verify AIR-CCR qualifications and previous performance are included in Appendix C. 6. Example Products Two example questionnaires, a workplace form and a form for the neighborhood, are included in Appendix D. Also in that appendix please find an example of a written survey report (with appended figures) and selected graphical displays of survey results. 7. Staff Resumes Resumes for Drs. Robert Rossi and Kaaren Hanson are included in Appendix E. 8. Time Schedule Our estimated minimum and maximum times for completion of the principal tasks associated with the proposed communitywide survey are as follows: Minimum Maximum Meetings and focus groups 6/12 - 8/7 6/12 - 9/11 Survey design 8/7 - 8/21 9/11 - 10/9 Survey administration 8/21 - 9/11 10/9 - 10/30 Analysis and reporting 9/4 - 10/9 10/30 — 11/27 6 Appendix A: AIR Certificate of Liability Insurance ACOR& • PNDDuca1 Insurance & Investments, Inc. Suite 100 2401 Research Boulevard Rockville MD 20850- (301) 670-6737 ( ) INWNEO American Institutes for Research 3333 K Street, NW Washington ( ) DC 20007- • HUMAN r....,.< :.,�.....:05/08/98 THIS CERTIFICATE NI ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND HOLDER. THI�ERTIFICATEFERS NO DOES NOTAMEND, �S UPON THE � OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. bcoMPANY A CNA Insurance Companies COMPANY B COMPANY COMPANY D COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE SEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE policy— PERIOD . INDICATED. NOTWITHBTANDINO ANY REQUIREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WTTH RESPECT TO WHICH TH18 CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED By THE POUCIEB DESCRIBED HEREIN Is SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS. EXCLUSIONS AND CONOmONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. LT�R TYPE OF INWPANCE A ERI*NAL uAfN.ITY X CCMME*ICIAL GENERAL LABurY CLAWS luck FX o*NER9 A CONiTNCTOR-s PRDr POUCYNUMNEN ►oucy EFFECTIVE DATE plMroOv ,) POLICY OO MMWON DATE RIMMOIYY) LAM M A AUTOMOMLE UAOIUYY X ANY AUTO AU. OWNED AUTOS BCHEDULEDAUTOS HIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED AUTOS C155528908 09/01/97 09/01/98 C155528911 09/01/97 09/01/98 GETIERAL AocaAEwre 62000000 PRDOUCTS - COMPNDP A00 12000000 PER9DFML ■ ADV INJURY EAa+D u ENCE .1000000 I- -Ecknm•a•l s1 00000 81000000 MED EXP Any one aeon) COMBINED BINDLE MST .5000 s1000000 BODILY INJURY (PM WWII) SCO(LY INJURY (Per aocIdont; PROPERTY DAMAGE A A OAMOE LIABILITY ANY AUTO AuTO ONLY • EA ACCIDENT OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: EACH ACCIDENT ERCE.i UAUIUTY X I UMBREUAFORM OTHER THAN UMBFIELLA FORM *On1EN. couP€N.Afl011 AND EMPLOYERS' UAEIUYT THE PAOPMsETow PARTNERS/EXECUTIVE °FFICS%ARE. OTHER x INCL IDICL C155528925 WCC157020578 09/01/97 11/30/97 09/01/98 11/30/98 AO0REOATE EACH OCCURRENCE A6GREGATE )_uYTM s r DEDCFNPrnoN OP OPERATFDNS tOCATIONI NYEHICINI PEClAL IMO s .10000000 .10000000 °R EL EACH ACY]nNT EL DISEASE • POLICY UMW El. DIBEABE • EA EMPLOYEE .500000 .500000 .500000 THE BELOW CERTIFICATE HOLDER IS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED. ALL OF THE ABOVE COVERAGES ALSO APPLY TO THE INSUREDS CALIFORNIA OFFICE, LOCATED AT 1791 ARASTRADEO BLVD, PALO ALTO CA. OA ra HOLD>r ` . Ica itie.c.: Town of Los Gatos Office of the Town Clerk P.O. Box 949 Los Gatos CA 95031 • SHOW) ANY OP THE ABOVE DE/CROW POUCH$ OE cANCELLED WON* THE ELPIRATION DATE THEREOF. THE NNIUNN COMPANY WILL ENOEAVeN TO um. ag_ DAYS Ivor EN NOTNJE TO 841 CERTTNCAT1 HOLDEN NAMED To THE LEFT, NUT FAILURE TO MAIL !LION NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO ODUOATgN OR UABIurr OF NNID UPON 111E COMPANY. RN AOENTS OR REPIl7ENTATTVES. Upon notification of contract award, the American Institutes for Research will apply for a Business License in the Town of Los Gatos. (41)8) 354-68.31 or 399-1704 In accordance with Los Gatos Town Code, ail businesses that are owned or operated within the Town limits, are required to have a valid Town business license. and are required to have Planning Department approval regarding use of the business location. I understand that obtaining this business license will not authorize me to use the property or conduct the business in violation of any Federal, State, or local law, and I understand it is my obligation to determine the legal restrictions involved before beginning or changing the business. Signature ate Instructions: 1. All questions on this form must be answered or designated not applicant* (NIA), as aooro naa. 2. Additional information may be required pursuant to Los Gatos Town Code. Chapter 14. 3. Applicants are required to declare, under penalty of perjury, tat the statements made herein are true. 4. In order to compty with requirements of the State Controllers Office. Business Licenses Cannot be issued without this information. PLEASE PRINT ALL INFORMATION 1. Business Name ?. Business Address Number Street City State ZIP Business Telephony: Number 1. Billing Address if different from above: License Period: Number Street City State ZIP Type of Ownership (check one) (} Partnership { } Corporation () Trust { } Sole Proprietorship Owners Name: Owners Phone No.: Owners Address Number Street City State ZIP . Drivers License Number At least one of the following is required: Fed. Employer I0 Ok Soc. Sec. #: — — State Employer 10 #: Board of Equalization * — (4 - 5 alpha plus 8 numeric) Type of Business - Be Specific (sr see SIC Code directory ) 1. Complete one of the following: - Gross Receipts (retail, manufacturing, wholesale, jobbing etc.) for the period ending December 31st are estimated to be: (see reverse or scale) Estimated fee due S Professional: (3200 per professionaUSemi-professional Qly,1 $15 per support staff) Number of professionals/semi-professionals Number of support staff Total due $ Flat fee or Unit based fee { } Contractor - 3224/year - State Contractors License Number Class { } Service - 3100/year { } Solicitors - $210/year - (requires solicitors permit from Police Dept] (} Other DECLA RATION ,ECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the foregoing is true and correct and if called as a witness I could mpetentty testify to the facts contained herein. Executed this day of , 19_ :he Town/City of , County of , State of 3NEO TITLE: Appendix B: CCR Project Abstracts Project Abstract Developing a Community Assessment Framework for Neighborhoods Sponsor: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation For some time now, questions about the effectiveness of social and economic programs intended to benefit American cities have spurred interest in measuring the health and well-being of these jurisdictions. In particular, measures of community status in neighborhoods (i.e., the sense of shared vision, shared values, trust, incorporation of diversity, respect and recognition, and so on) cart serve both evaluation and planning aims. Reaching beyond mere descriptions of failed resources, community measures can provide a sense of the capacities, resources, rights, and responsibilities that are shared by city residents. With this information, leaders at every level can act and empower others to act to strengthen the community fabric. In an effort to begin development of community a«,sment tools for use by local governments and agencies, foundations, and neighborhood associations, we are working with the four community foundations and their neighborhoods participating in the David and Lucile Packard Foundation's Communities 2000 Initiative: Community Foundation of Santa Clara County, Community Foundation of Monterey, Greater Santa Cruz County Community Foundation, and Peninsula Community Foundation. Our data collections involve neighborhood residents from these counties, and our panel of advisors includes representatives of each of the four foundations. Our workplan for this first year of the project is comprised of three phases: 1. development of a community critical incident survey/interview form 2. use of this form to gather data from neighborhood residents in Santa Clara, Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Mateo Counties 3. analysis of the data that are collected to determine a framework for community assPcsment in neighborhoods Based on the information we collect during this first year, we will, in a later step, develop and test a survey protocol capable of producing community profiles for neighborhoods. These profiles will be multidimensional, and they will be based on an assessment of the quality of interpersonal relationships involving residents within their neighborhoods and outside, with other neighborhoods and with the agencies, associations, and regional media that affect their lives. We will also use this assessment protocol to develop a self -assessment guide for residents interested in learning about and strengthening the sense of community where they live. This effort will involve surveys of neighborhoods in several counties, coupled with the collection of information on neighborhood characteristics (e.g., availability of "common" areas or established mechanisms to welcome new residents) and neighborhood performance (e.g., victimization or vacancy rates). In this way, we will determine the strengths of relationships among contextual factors, the sense of community among residents in neighborhoods, and the outcomes for neighborhoods. From the point of view of neighborhood leaders, this self -assessment process will provide a shared framework in terms of which residents can discuss area needs. For residents generally, this process may assist in translating often hard -to -describe feelings into action items. Project Abstract Creation of Survey Assessment Instrument and Self -Study Guide for Neighborhoods Sponsor: The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. In January 1998, AIR/CCR was awarded a second grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation to develop measurement tools that local organizations concerned with neighborhood functioning (e.g., governmental agencies, foundations, civic associations, organizing groups) and residents themselves can use to take stock of the sense of community that exists in neighborhoods. Based on the community assessment framework developed during the initial grant, we are engaged in creation of two distinct products: a survey assessment instrument and a self -study guide. The survey assessment instrument will be designed to be administered to individual residents of a neighborhood to assess the sense of community that has been achieved. This instrument will provide an efficient means of gauging neighborhood readiness for participation in programs or initiatives. In addition, the instrument will provide groups with a cost-effective approach to evaluating the success of their efforts to strengthen neighborhood functioning. Like the workplace and school instruments we have developed previously, the neighborhood survey assessment instrument will consist of approximately 50 structured items designed to capture the dimensions of community represented in our framework for understanding the construct. The neighborhood form, like its workplace and school counterparts, will also be designed so that these dimensions and facets of community can be assessed relative to multiple referents (e.g., other area residents, police or other city/county service providers). In addition, the instrument will include items related to respondents' personal backgrounds and experiences in the neighborhood (to help in understanding and interpreting their responses) and items related to possible outcomes of neighborhood sense of community (to help in understanding the meaning and importance of community in the neighborhood). The self -study guide will be designed for use by groups of neighborhood residents interested in learning about and in encouraging others to think about the sense of community where they live. The self -study guide will complement the survey assessment instrument by facilitating residents' own efforts to renew and strengthen their communities. The guide will first introduce our framework for understanding community in neighborhoods. It will then help residents evaluate aspects of their neighborhoods from a community perspective, thereby providing a basis from which they can discuss area needs and develop action plans. This self -study methodology has proven effective in furthering other forms of regional development. It is used, for instance, in the Civic Index, developed by the National Civic League to help regional leaders enhance their problem -solving capabilities by evaluating and improving "civic infrastructures." Project Abstract 'Building Community' Workshops for Neighborhood Leaders Sponsor: The Luke B. Hancock Foundation To support community -related data collection efforts involving residents in 50 neighborhoods in California's Santa Clara County (see description of developing a community assessment framework sponsored by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation), we are organizing and conducting workshops for neighborhood leaders and other residents interested in local leadership roles and opportunities. These workshops will provide attendees with an understanding and a sense of the importance of the community framework developed by AIR and John W. Gardner for sustaining interest and participation in neighborhood development efforts. The workshops we conduct for leaders are designed to complement the ongoing collection of residents' personal experiences of community in two ways. First, they are designed around the personal community experiences of the neighborhood leaders who participate—i.e., we will ask them to describe and to work with us in identifying the elements of community in their own personal experiences drawn from the neighborhood; in this way they will learn just how we make use of these sorts of described experiences in developing community indicators and community -building strategies. Second, their cooperation in helping us collect community experiences from the residents in their neighborhoods will assume new meaning once they have been formally introduced to the community concept; these leaders will more clearly understand that they are contributing to the development of tools that they and other leaders can use in meeting their community -building responsibilities. In carrying out this project, we will accomplish the following objectives: • develop the contents for the neighborhood workshops based on our previous experience in working with business and school groups and with representatives of civic associations to introduce the community concept • develop strategies for notifying and encouraging the participation of residents in these community -building workshops • meet with selected neighborhood association leaders to refine workshop plans and contents and strategies for ensuring active participation • conduct one- to two-hour interactive community -building workshops in 50 neighborhoods —in English and Spanish • collect critical incident data on community experiences from workshop participants • build a network of leaders from diverse neighborhoods to assist in our continuing efforts to develop community assessment protocols for use by foundations, government and private agencies serving local areas, and local area residents themselves Project Abstract Developing a Prototype Community Report for the Mid -Peninsula Sponsor AIR Internal Funds The American Institutes for Research (AIR) and John W. Gardner are working with the Mid - Peninsula YWCA in Palo Alto, California, on a pilot project to develop a prototype community profile report. For some time now, the Mid -Peninsula YWCA has promoted activities to capture the opportunities a diverse community brings to this region. The organization has sponsored annual conferences, held monthly sessions that feature guest speakers and panels, and worked with diversity teams and consultants from various organizations in both the public and private sectors. The Mid - Peninsula YWCA also has been interested for some time in taking a "snapshot" every so often of how well the Mid -Peninsula Area is doing with respect to diversity -related issues and concerns. This interest serves as the impetus for the current project. To develop a prototype Community Profile on diversity, the YWCA called on a variety of the organizations that have been leading sponsors of its diversity efforts to participate: local schools, businesses, civic associations, city governments, and nonprofits (e.g., hospitals). Samples of employees (and students in high schools) from each of these organizations were asked to complete the Community Assessment Guide©. A special version of the CAG was developed containing background items that assessed various status characteristics of respondents (e.g., age, gender, race/ethnicity) as well as diversity -related workplace experiences (e.g., participation in diversity training and conflict resolution programs, membership in employee 'resource groups'). The results from these surveys will be compiled across the participating organizations to create a regionwide report, which will be shared with all participants and used in planning future diversity activities. Information will also be reported for individual organizations at their request. Questions of primary interest that will be addressed include the following: • Do individuals with differing personal characteristics (e.g., races/ethnicities) have different perceptions of the opportunities for self-expression, quality of relations, or opportunities for advancement at work? • Do individuals of different genders and races/ethnicities have different perceptions of the sense of community at their workplaces? • In what ways are the community perceptions of individuals, particularly women and individuals from specific gender and race/ethnicity groups, affected by their participation in special diversity -related programs or membership in resource groups? • Are there significant variations in the community perceptions of individuals from specific gender and race/ethnicity groups across different organizational sectors, e.g., business, education, civic nonprofit? • Do community perceptions vary with the ages of respondents; in particular, how similar are the community perceptions of younger versus older individuals from specific gender and race/ethnicity groups? Project Abstract Creating Tools to Assess and Build Community in Work Settings Sponsor: The W.K. Kellogg Foundation From 1991 to 1994, the W. K Kellogg Foundation sponsored the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and John W. Gardner in their efforts to conceptualize and design tools to assess and build community in work settings. Beginning with Dr. Gardner's monograph Building Community, three activities were undertaken to develop further that conceptualization of community in the context of the workplace: 1. Literature review of several hundred materials from the social science literature to identify extant conceptualizations of and instruments related to community 2. Critical incident study of specific community -related behaviors in 40 workplaces across the U.S. 3. Organization of an advisory task force of business, education, and civic leaders committed to understanding and building community in California's Silicon Valley As a result of these activities, a conceptual model of community in the workplace was created that relates definitional variables (those that represent the core or defining elements of workplace community) and regenerative variables (those that are necessary for the continual renewal of workplace community). Regenerative variables are of two types: investment variables (those that are related to the extent of individual and organizational investment in maintaining and strengthening workplace community), and resource variables (those that address the resources present within an organization to support community -maintenance and community -building activities). Based on this conceptual framework, three measurement tools were developed in cooperation with a special AIR advisory group on survey/test development and small groups of employees at selected companies throughout the San Francisco -Oakland -San Jose Greater Bay Area: 1. a Community Assessment Guide, which measures existing levels of community within companies (i.e., the definitional variables noted above) 2. a Community Investment Guide, which measures the ability and willingness of individuals and organizational leaders to invest in workplace community 3. a Community Resources Guide, which measures the resources available in a company for community maintenance and building Project Abstract Documenting Internal Community Investments in the Nation's Workplaces Sponsor: The W.K. Kellogg Foundation The W. K. Kellogg Foundation is supporting the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and John W. Gardner in a national study of the personal and organizational investments being made internally in high community companies within the U.S. With the valuable assistance of researchers and human resources experts, as well as various organizations such as the Business Enterprise Trust and the Business for Social Responsibility, the project team has begun to characterize the sorts of investments that seem most important to building and maintaining the various elements of community. We are now working to • refine our understanding of investment behaviors related to achieving higher levels of community • document the necessary resources associated with these behaviors at the individual and organizational levels • identify the "triggers" and other factors that affect or moderate the occurrence of these behaviors in specific settings Our approach involves a diversified sample consisting of two types of companies: those that have excelled through implementing socially responsible practices in the workplace (23 different sources were used to identify these companies), and those that comprise the group of the nation's leading companies — whether or not these sorts of practices have been made a priority. For each of the companies in this sample, we are • assessing community investment practices at the firm level using our Organizational Community Investment Survey (OCIS) developed on the basis of 10 core community dimensions and standard firm level characteristics; • assessing the organizational level correlates of community investment practices using the OCIS and describe the strength and direction of their impact on patterns of firm behavior With future support, we will continue our work with this sample. Specifically, we will • assess the sense of community among employees using the 10 community elements incorporated in our Community Assessment Guide (CAG) • assess the individual -level correlates of perceived community status by means of a special supplement to the CAG, covering demographic and work -related characteristics of respondents (such as work values and job rewards) and outcomes (such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment) that may be affected by levels of community • identify the current status of community development within a specific organizational unit by analyzing the relationship between company investments and individual attitudes and behaviors; • identify the precursors to these investment behaviors (e.g., necessary levels of resources, perceived investment opportunities and returns, external factors and conditions) by means of focus groups and focused ethnographic studies. Project Abstract Workplace Community Assessment and Report of Findings Sponsor: AdGap Group. The AdGap Group contracted with AIR/CCR to carry out an organization -wide community assessment at three functional levels. Background items and a specially designed item related to work environment priorities were included to target reporting and recommended community - building strategies to areas of concern. Project Abstract Workplace Community Assessments and Reports of Findings Sponsor: SKOPOS consulting. In 1997, SKOPOS Consulting and AIR/CCR entered into an agreement to jointly offer organizational development consultation related to increasing workplace community to SKOPOS clients in the western states. Under this agreement, the Community Assessment Guide is being administered along with selected background and context -setting items and interpretive reports with recommendations are being prepared for each client. In addition to these reports, client presentations are organized to share results and begin development of community action plans. Project Abstract Demonstrating the Role of Campus Community in School Reform Sponsor: The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation is supporting the Bay Area Region Coalition of Essential Schools (BAYCES) and the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and John W. Gardner in a demonstration of the role of community in ongoing efforts to achieve reform on high school campuses. The lack of community among groups involved in reform activities can effectively derail attempts at positive change. Without community, campus leaders are powerless to lead, and discussions of needed changes in school programs and procedures grow rancorous and unproductive. At the same time, students in schools without community are apt to find themselves treated inconsistently by staff on campus, and they are certain to be denied the opportunity to learn about shared values, trust, caring, respect and recognition, and so on at first-hand at school, by watching, listening to, and interacting with the adults around them. Our approach melds the community -building strategies developed by the AIR/Gardner team together with CES strategies that aim to create empowered cadres of teachers, administrators, and classified staff engaged in reform activities. Specifically, this approach includes the following elements: 1 Assessment of the quality of relations among administrators, faculty, classified staff, and students at six CES high schools using a specially designed instrument system 2. Analysis of this assessment information to determine existing problem areas and to begin to identify barriers to and potential for community development on the campuses 3. Use of specially created instruments in small -group settings to identify extant resources for community -building 4. Engagement of school staff and students in development of strategies to remove community barriers and, generally, to foster community growth on campus 5. Ongoing "coaching" of staff and students on the six campuses by experienced educators with special training and experience in the creation and maintenance of campus community 6. Periodic assessments of levels of individual and organizational investment behaviors related to community -building to chart the progress of resources development and use 7. Summative evaluation involving both re -assessment of community status and capacity and examination of over -time changes in key indicators of campus climate and student and staff engagements in campus activities Project Abstract Understanding Community in the Congregational Setting Sponsors: The Eli Lilly Endowment, Inc., and the Carnegie Corporation The Independent Sector, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Lilly Endowment, Inc., are supporting the American Institutes for Research (AIR) and John W. Gardner in an exploratory planning study of the roles of community and sense of community in congregational settings. Previous studies have suggested that congregational life, to be empowering and fully satisfying, requires conscious attention to, and candid exploration of, relationships and events that occur both within a congregation and between the congregation and the world outside. Strengthening the sense of community that exists in congregations may increase their ability to accomplish their aims. Equally important, by being strong communities, congregations may be able to enhance the sense of community that exists in the neighborhoods and cities in which they are located. A congregation that is a true community can be a learning ground for civic participation, training its members to find strength in diversity, teaching them the arts of diminishing polarization, schooling them in teamwork and collaborative problem solving. In this study, we are working with the leaders of variously affiliated congregations in the San Francisco -Oakland -San Jose Bay Area to better understand the nature of their experiences with congregational community. We have attended the Congregational Studies Institute at Hartford Seminary and benefitted there from direct interactions with congregational leaders and researchers. We are also engaged in an extensive review of existing ideas and research related to the following topics: • factors affecting the development of sense of community among members of congregations —especially the types of investments on the parts of individuals and congregational groups that are needed to achieve higher levels of community in these settings • nature of individual- and group -level resources necessary to support community investments in congregations • types of perceived opportunities, or "triggers," that encourage the making of community investments in congregations • effects of community within the congregation on individual members' satisfaction with their experiences in the church or synagogue, including their appreciation of the services provided and the effectiveness of congregational affiliation in promoting their personal faith relationships and their interpersonal relationships • effects of congregational community on the organization and functioning of special interest or congregational resource groups (e.g., teen groups) • effects of community within the congregation on the outreach efforts of individual members and congregational groups to the larger neighborhood or city setting Project Abstract Conducting Community Training and Surveys of Council Boards Sponsor: Girl Scouts U.S.A. Girl Scouts U.S.A. is seeking to infuse community -building activities into its programs. To begin the process, the presidents, executive directors, and other board members of Girl Scout Councils in Service Area 8 (i.e., the western states, including Alaska and Hawaii) are being surveyed using the Community Assessment Guide°. Two representatives from each of these Council boards will also take part in a two and one-half day retreat and training session in Santa Cruz, California. The agenda for the community training session includes coverage of key community concepts, review and analysis of community survey data, board strategy planning, and definition of community leadership roles. Participating Councils will receive tailored reports of the sense of community among members of their boards and comparative/summary information on community status among board members in the service area. Project Abstract Consultation for the Statewide Community -Focused Court Planning Conference Sponsor: Judicial Council of California. California courts find themselves in a time of profound change with respect to funding processes, collaboration within counties, and renewal of public confidence and trust. For this reason, the Judicial Council of California has undertaken efforts to develop a community -focused court planning process and to introduce this process at a first -ever statewide conference of county teams composed of judges, court executives, bar representatives, public members, and county government officials. CCR staff have been selected by the Judicial Council to serve as community consultants. As consultants to the Judicial Council, we will help develop the planning process for the courts so that this process involves community -building opportunities for the courts themselves and between the courts and their diverse county constituencies. We will also provide resource materials, assist in the selection of conference facilitators and presenters, as well as serving in these capacities, and we will help in identifying consultants to continue to provide technical assistance to the county teams following the conference. Finally, we will participate in the planning of follow-up activities to sustain and further develop the work of the conference. Appendix C: Selected References 9 Reference No. 1: Brooks Carder (619) 450-0728 The AdGap Group 6725 Mesa Ridge Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92121 Surveys of sense of community among top managers, operations staff, and sales staff to gauge individual and situational factors affecting an ongoing organizational transformation. Reference No. 2: Hida Avent (212) 852-5013 Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. 420 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10018-2798 Surveys of Girl Scout Council presidents and board members from Service Area 8 (Western States) to determine community strengths and weaknesses related to effective board performance. Reference No. 3: Debra Engel (408) 764-5000 3Com Corporation 5400 Bayfront Plaza, P.O. Box 58145 Santa Clara, CA 95052-8145 Survey of HR employees worldwide to determine factors affecting their sense of community with the global HR team and with employees at their units of assignment. Reference No. 4: Sister Miriam Fahey Santee Community Group (408) 292-7444 82 Tami Lee #4 San Jose, CA 95122 Survey of sense of community within the Santee neighborhood in San Jose and factors affecting resident involvement with community programs and the neighborhood association. 10 Reference No. 5: Kay Phillips (650) 494-0972 Jim Phillips (650) 494-3541 YWCA of the Mid -Peninsula 4161 Alma Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 Surveys of diverse individuals within distinctive organizational settings to create a profile of sense of community in the Mid -Peninsula area. Reference No. 6: Steve Jubb (650) 802-5482 Bay Area Coalition of Essential Schools (BAYCES) 101 Twin Dolphin Dr. Redwood City, CA 94065 Karl Sonntag (408) 522-2412 Fremont High School 1279 Sunnyvale -Saratoga Road Sunnyvale, CA 94087 Surveys of teachers and students to assist school planning -teams in developing community -building activities and events as part of school restructuring processes. 11 Appendix D: Examples of Products 12 Bay Apartment Communities Organization Culture Survey The purpose of this survey is to obtain your candid views regarding your work environment. Your participation is completely voluntary and confidential. Your answers to the survey questions can help us to better understand your opinions on: The work environment, management, your job, and your department. Your responses will be held in the strictest confidence, as any groups with less than 5 respondents will not be analyzed. Please do not write or sign your name anywhere on the survey. If you are unable to answer a specific question, please leave it blank and go on to the next question. Thank you for your cooperation. Marking Instructions Use No 2 Penc+� Oniy • Use No. 2 pencil only • Darken the circles completely • Cleanly erase any marks you wish to change • Do not make any stray marks on this form • Do not fold this form INCORRECT MARKS 0 0 0 0 CORRECT MARKS 0 Before you begin, we ask that you provide us with some background information. This information is being collected to help us better understand the survey results. The results will not be reported in any way that would allow particular individuals to be identified. Job Role O Community Managers O On -site Associates O Project Managers O Portfolio Managers O Directors & Above O Corporate Staff O Other Location O Northern California O Southern California O Northwest O Home Office O Other Copynght (C) 1997 SKOPOS CONSULTING - Amcncan Institutes for Research. used by permission Department O Property Management O Accounting/Finance O HR/Training/Facilities O Development & Acquisitions O Corporate Administration O Construction O Other Length of Service O Less than 1 Year O 1 year but less than 3 years O 3 years but less than 5 years O 5 years but less than 10 years O Over 10 years MINI — NIB gni — INN — — — — — — NEI — — — — EMI INN ■ ■■■ ■ ■OM For this survey you are asked to rate your level of agreement with each statement that follows from two perspectives: First, with regard to your office or your property, and secondly, with regard to Bay Apartment Communities in general. Part I Personal Relationships My Property/Office Co-workers — MN ...Other Members of — Bay Apartments — Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree 1. My personal well-being is important to t0 2. When it comes to looking out for me. I really can't trust 0' 3. I am treated with respect by 4. I am not given credit for things I do at work by 0 5. If I had a personal problem, I'd have the support of 0 6. I can depend on the honesty of 0 7. Respect for my privacy is shown by 0 8. When problems come up, the wrong people are blamed by 9. I feel that I matter as a person to 0. I can count on being treated fairly by 1. My abilities are respected by 2. My accomplishments are recognized by 3. In dealing with personal problems, I can expect understanding from 4.. When it comes to keeping their word, I trust 5. Respect for things that belong to me is shown by 5. I get blamed for things that aren't my fault by 7. I know I am cared about by Part II Work Relationships I. Information I need is not given to me by When we do things together, I work well with 3. Spending extra time to make this a better place to work isn't of interest to t. Misunderstandings happen when I communicate i. In taking care of problems here, I work together with... 0 i. I have a voice in important decisions that are made by.. 0 ,. I'm the last to know what's going on with 0 I don't get much done when I have to work together with r. Responsibility for improving this company is taken by . I have trouble communicating with . At work, I feel that I'm on the same team as . When they are making decisions, my opinion is not important to 0' 0' 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 ® 0 0 0 0 ® 0 0 ® 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 ® 0 ® 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 ® 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O My Property/Office Co-workers 0 0 '0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0' 0 ® 0 ® 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ® 0 0 ® 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 ® 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 O 0 0 O ® O O 0 O 0 O © O O © O O 0 O O 0 O O O 0 O ® O O ® ® — N EI - - IMO MN — 4� — INN — MIN — ...Other Members of — Bay Apartments — Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree O ® ® O © O O 0® 0 O O with... 0 ® 0 0 0 ® O ® 0 0 ® ® 0 O O O ® 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 ® 0 © O O ® ® 0 0 O 0 ® 0 O Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree O 0 0 O 0 O ® ® O 0 0 O ® 0 O 0 0 O ® O ® ® O 0 0 O 0 ® O ® 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O O O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O • N NII Please rate your level of agreement with each statement that follows from two perspectives: First, with regard to your office or property, and secondly, with regard to Bay Apartments in general. Part III Direction and Purpose 1. I have a different sense of where this company should go in the next few years when compared to 0 ® ® 0 ® ® 0 0 ® 0 0 ® — 2. My ideas about the importance of what we do in this — company are like those of 0 ® ® 0 ® ® 0 ® ® 0 0 ® — 3. When it comes to how people should be treated here, — I agree with O®® 0 0® O 0 0 Oa 0® MI 4. This company is being taken in the wrong direction — by the actions of 0 ® ® 0 0 O 00 ® 0 ® 5. You can see the importance of what we do in this — company in the behavior of 0 0 ® 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ® — 6. The "rules" they say are important are not — followed by 0 0® 0 0 0 O 0® 04 0 7. My sense of what this company's future should be is — different from that of 0 0 ® 0 ® 0 0 0 ® 0 0 ® — 8. I see the value of what we do here differently than do0 0 ® ® ® ® Q 0 ® ® 0 ® — 9. My ideas about how people should act here are like — those of 0 0® 0® 0 0 0 0 0® 0 mil 10. What they say they want this company to become — doesn't show up in the actions of 0 0 0 0 0 ® 00 0 0 0 0 — 1 1. The value of what we do here doesn't motivate 0 0 0 0 0 ® 00 0 0 0 ® — 12. I have a problem with the behavior of 0 0 ® 0 0 ® 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - ...Is something I ...Is something I have — Part IV must have in my job at Bay Apartments — My Property/Office Co-workers ...Other Members of Bay Apartments Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree • Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree What's Important to You? Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Age Agree Agree Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly — Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree 1. A balance between work and family 0 0 0 0 0 2. The ability to respond to (internal or external) customer needs 0 0 ® 0a ® 3. The chance to grow professionally and develop new capabilities 0 0 0 Oa 0 ® 4. An opportunity to achieve professional goals 0 0 ® 0° 0 ® 5. The chance to do different things at work 0 0 ® 0 0 ® 6. The opportunity to engage my creativity in improving the company 0 0 ® 0 0 ® 7. Assurance that I will be consulted when decisions that impact me are made 0 0 ® 0 0 8. The ability to be creative in what I do 0 0 ® 0 0 9. A participative workplace 0 0 0 0 0 10. A work process that allows me to do my best 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 ® O 0 ® — O 0 ® O O — O 0 ® 0 0 ® — O 0 0 0 0©- O 0 0 0 0©- - O 0 ® O ® ® 0 0® 0 0 0- O 0 0 0 0©— O 0 ® O 0 O 0 ® O 0 ® ■■■ ■ ■■— Open -Ended Comments --- What aspects of the culture and work environment would you like to see preserved? EMI ■ ■■■ ■ ■ THE SANTEE NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY G. ,.= ..c •er, O L .c 3 E N o •v) O a 3 3 .. y o 0 Cn Q _O y L. r"' bpi .O • C O '> 0 c G. y � al 0 y 1..1 C y 0. O O a) >' p .; 0 1? E >, a) `d a) •es..)I> H _ = -c a. C.... O E, E -.0 u '003 b4 C vvsi).4 ^H C 0 co) �� -$ao p C y .a O" V.0 cn O O „„C a3 -0 U d b4 ., 04 o c E'c y O E ice. CAS Q .) -c ...r 0.) O E-a �o• 3a. 1 0 O 0 0 4-i ti z it MI 0 O < < 0 O p A . 0 • N N y e-. c ® ,10 c.,.. E 0 rn 2 a Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ L y + > ❑ ❑ C 'll w 0 0 �O tr) tan L CIA tin ❑ ❑ n > :P 6. ,3 •y 'O 1.r1 v1 v.) E v ° QN1 .o ,46 3 'c 3 N M c- - D. Background Information Overall, how satisfied are you with your neighborhood? 0.1 00 What languages do you speak? 0 5 ' 5 a a a a a a a a c z 0. a'.. a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 z O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 751 W y a z E Z D SWD SWA A SA can va) can can can can CQ N N N c c) c) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SWD SWA A SA SWD SWA A SA SWD SWA A SA SWD SWA A SA SWD SWA A SA SWD SWA A SA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • a a cn v) a Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 CZ U V 'D N __CI CL) o E cii E�, . N ,. .r O c0 1 L o 2 40 4 A 0: • t c ctis a) .. — ocn o cy) eL a) co „Q a) t a% — a) c� ) 2 E O Oci)- i c G L 0 0 N U O O a) 0 — E '6 : c a 0) w E cc c°) — E � ea c o -- o . — cS = 0 c>s v 0 - 0 C can N c g L a o c� `° C-• N o a) �, 0. as c' 2 2— — OC c �' E Q cJi c i �f ui (c) t� co Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ) a, Q Q Q Q << Q Q c Q Q Q Q a) y s L (/i Cn cn C/� Cn tri cn pTi • V Cl� C")C D (n Si • s ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Co= 0 00 0 0 c c t 9 2 cn 311) cn rn cn C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ O ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑cr) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑cr) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ cr, SWD SWA A SA SWD SWA A SA Q Q Q ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SWD SWA A SA Q 0) SWD SWA A ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 SWD SWA A SA SWD SWA A SA SWD SWA A SA SWD SWA A SA 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Neighbors who speak The Santee SWD SWA A SA SWD SWA A SA O 0 ❑ ❑ GOCn < Q Q Q ¢ Q < Q ¢ Q Q s W cn cn cn cn v.) Community Group ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cn 5 5 < Q Q Q Q Q c>n t/7 Cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn ❑ ❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 : O O $ : O "O .o O 1 .CO a)2 O COU N -E - as i O j E ""'' > >' E . O -a L 0 Y E as • O• E Oc• .a O O al co O O c O O a) Nx as . cn as O g' a) E ' as "p • N cn c O �O O co C LO L i .0 : OL w O t c O O • '� cu O vi O cn >' acis O L• O O cn a) C cn O N L • a) E U 'a o E O • a: -a > G., as E t a) c crs c co O. as co L -- �' L ' .E Y t .cL s�. N a)a o� .� o • 2 cn c) a a, o a'� o ��.�� o cn" o_ c 0a) oc co o s a) c m o c E 'a) .«- 3 m a) > a) CI o C 2 o .. oa522 o p O co >.. a) L c :.. Q rid o vi.� o aci o N >'c o cl c E c- 0 as E>s m • :- a o a) a) o : E c� `� a) as = o E ° a) • — cn °Q >, 3 `� n `o - a) `" c U) a) a c - 0 -a La) ° a)asaa)ca)EL•Qa)a)=_c ma>,• -ca)c� Q 2.cmEa omo_ A Mas a2L 1-22 ; r N M 4 tf) CO N.: 00 L% r N M 4 Ili Co D D 382 surveys were received from 31 Councils and from the Council Service Team for the area. Community Status in GSUSA Service Area 8 To complement ongoing efforts within Girl Scouts to support board effectiveness and to help maintain a positive environment for board work, members of Girl Scout Council boards in Service Area 8 were surveyed in the summer of 1997 regarding their perceptions of the level of community on their boards. The survey was conducted using the Community Assessment Guide (CAG), which staff at the Center for Community Research, American Institutes for Research (AIR), have developed as a tool for measuring sense of community in work settings. The CAG is comprised of items designed to assess community and a series of additional items asking respondents to provide selected information about their backgrounds and experiences. The community -related items are organized into subscales intended to assess 11 core dimensions of community: Shared Vision, Shared Purpose, and Shared Values; Caring, Trust, Recognition, and Respect; and Teamwork, Incorporation of Diversity, Communication, and Participation. This report first presents a general overview of the survey context, highlighting respondent characteristics and thoughts related to board effectiveness. The report then summarizes aggregate scores on the 11 community dimensions for this Service Area and compares scores for councils of various sizes. Finally, the report draws on the survey data to speak in a more focused way to two issues likely to be of current concern: incorporation of diversity and development of new members. Survey Context Respondent Characteristics Despite short notice and summer vacations, 31 Girl Scout Councils in Service Area 8 and the Council Service Team for this area responded to AIR's Community Assessment Guide for Council Boards. A total of 382 completed survey forms were returned-375 from board members and 7 from service team members, sufficient numbers to create profiles for every responding group. While the majority of respondents were women, more than 70 men responded as well. Most of the respondents were white, but 70 respondents identified themselves as belonging to some other race/ethnicity group. The largest group of minority respondents were African Americans. Twenty-three Council presidents and 14 Council executive directors responded to the survey. 1 68 percent of respondents reported having participated in Girl Scouts USA board training. Improving skills for Council governance and fund-raising may be a priority for many board members. Over one-half of respondents reported having served on their Council boards for two years or less; about 20 percent reported having served for less than one year. At the same time, almost 25 percent of respondents reported serving on their boards for 5 or more years. The majority of respondents have long been active in Girl Scouting, and fully 34 percent reported more than 15 years of involvement. In contrast, about 8 percent of respondents reported less than one year of experience. Sixty-eight percent of those responding to the survey reported having participated in Girl Scouts USA board training, and 85 percent reported they were employed for pay outside the home. Thoughts about Board Effectiveness Relations with Council staff and the national office. Survey respondents were quite positive concerning the relationships of their boards to both Council staff members and the Giri Scouts USA national office. Eighty percent or more of those responding reported that their boards show confidence in Council staff, share necessary information with Council staff, display mutual respect with Council staff, and maintain effective relations with the national office. Mixed or negative feelings were most apparent with respect to the item concerning the sharing of necessary information: for this item, 19 percent of respondents either disagreed or only somewhat agreed with the statement. Council leadership/oversight functions and board skill levels. More than 80 percent of respondents also were positive concerning their boards taking their responsibilities seriously and providing direction and oversight to their Councils. The one area in which mixed and negative feelings emerged most prominently had to do with board members' evaluation of their own skills related to Council governance. Twenty-six percent of respondents said they either somewhat agreed, agreed, strongly agreed, or only somewhat disagreed with the statement that "Members of our board lack the skills that are critical for the governance of the Council." Fund raising. Fund raising is an important concern and responsibility of Council boards, and the survey responses indicate a careful evaluation of success to date. In response to the item "Our board has been successful in raising funds for the Council," more than one-half of respondents reported either mixed or negative feelings. In response to the item "The members of our board agree on the steps to be taken to raise the funds necessary to sustain the Council in the future," 42 percent of respondents also reported mixed or negative feelings. 2 For the most part, there is a strong base of community in Service Area 8. Overview of Community Findings We cluster the 11 community dimensions into three groups using a "puzzle person" metaphor. These three groups are the head, which refers to shared vision, values, and purpose; the heart, which refers to respect, recognition, trust, and caring; and the hands and feet, which refer to the "bridging" elements of communication, participation, teamwork, and incorporation of diversity. The rationale for the puzzle reference has to do with our larger goal of building, or piecing together, the community puzzle within an organization or on a board one person at a time. To summarize community scores for Service Area 8 within these three clusters of community elements, we first examine the survey data for all respondents (i.e., without reference to particular Councils or to the Service Team). Then, we consider these scores for each of the 32 groups that responded to the survey. Summary Community Scores Community scores for the 11 dimensions of community, organized by cluster, are presented in figures 1-3 in the Appendix to this report. "The Head". Twenty to thirty percent of survey respondents reported strongly positive feelings regarding the shared values, purpose, and vision among the members of their Council boards. In the case of each of these dimensions, about 80 percent of respondents reported overall positive attitudes. The area of most prominent mixed or negative feelings was shared sense of purpose (almost 25 percent). For shared vision, about 20 percent of respondents reported mixed or negative feelings. "The Heart". Slightly more than 90 percent of survey respondents reported strongly positive or positive attitudes regarding the levels of respect shown to them by the members of their Council boards. More than 80 percent of respondents also reported strongly positive or positive feelings of trust with respect to other board members. Caring and recognition were the two dimensions with the highest percentages of mixed or negative feelings reported (about 35 percent and 25 percent, respectively), although the majority of responses in each of these cases were generally positive. "The Hands and Feet". Between 80 and 90 percent of survey respondents reported overall positive feelings concerning incorporation of diversity on their Council boards. Similarly, almost 80 percent of respondents reported strongly positive or positive attitudes concerning the levels of teamwork and communication they had experienced on their boards. Participation also was regarded positively by the majority of respondents, but this dimension saw the 3 10 Councils recorded high scores on all three community clusters. Council size, measured in terms of girl members, has little to do with the sense of community among Council board members. largest percentages of respondents reporting mixed or negative feelings (about 25 percent). Community Scores for Councils Cluster analysis. Elements that we regard as the hands and feet of community —communication, participation, teamwork, and incorporation of diversity —provide a bridge from the head to the heart (e.g., from shared vision to caring). For that reason, we first examine the distribution of groups scoring high (i.e., recording positive or very positive responses) or low (Le., mixed or negative responses) on these elements. In Service Area 8, NUMBER Councils averaged high scores on these elements, while NUMBER groups averaged low scores on them. We next examine the average scores of groups on the two other clusters of community elements (i.e., the head and heart). For Service Area 8, no Council that was low on the bridging elements recorded high scores on both the head and the heart. Conversely among those Councils that scored high on the bridging elements, 10 Councils averaged high scores on both these clusters. Figure 4 in the Appendix to this report displays the 31 service area Councils and the Council Service Team for Area 8 in terms of their scores on these three clusters of community elements. High and low scores on the bridging elements are displayed using different colors. The two -by -two matrix in which these scores are placed describes scores on the head and heart clusters of elements. For example, the upper left corner area of the figure shows those Councils that are high on shared vision, values, and purpose and low on respect, recognition, trust, and caring. Likewise, the upper right corner area describes Councils that are high on both these clusters. Community and Council size. Often in organizational settings, size plays an important role in affecting perceptions of community; smaller work units or class groupings in schools typically record higher community scores, especially when the individuals in these smaller units have the chance to opt into the groups. In the case of Girl Scout Council boards, however, the numbers of board members from site to site may not vary significantly on the basis of total girl membership —a typically used measure of Council size. For this reason, we find no pronounced differences in the community relations among board members from Councils with small, medium, or large numbers of girl members. (Figure 5 in the Appendix shows the average community scores of Councils in three size classifications based on total girl memberships.) 4 Men have markedly positive attitudes about how well diversity is being incorporated on Council boards. The situation for non- white board members seems less positive. Special Issues of Interest Incorporation of Diversity As Councils reach out to serve an increasingly diverse population, Council boards can benefit from the insights and special talents of members with diverse backgrounds. Earlier it was noted that more than 70 men and about 70 board or team members representing non -white race/ethnic groups responded to the AIR community survey. We looked specifically at the responses of both these groups to items concerned with incorporation of diversity. Perspectives of men. Men often reported more positive attitudes related to incorporation of diversity than did women. For example, in response to the question "Because of their ethnicity, gender, age, or lifestyle, some individuals can be made to feel like `second class citizens' by the members of my Council board," 96 percent of men said they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement. Fifty-five percent of these men said they strongly disagreed. In contrast, 88 percent of women who responded said they disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, with 42 percent saying they strongly disagreed. Perspectives of non -white members. For the members of non -white race/ethnic groups, the situation on Council boards or on the service team with respect to incorporation of diversity may be less positive than it is for whites. For example, in response to the survey item "Stereotypes or prejudices can make some people feel like `outsiders' with the members of my Council board," 79 percent of white members either disagreed or strongly disagreed, while 62 percent of non -white members so reported. Similarly, while 90 percent of white members agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "It's what you have to contribute rather than your ethnicity, gender, age, or lifestyle that counts with the members of my Council board," 76 percent of non -white members reported these feelings. Development of New Members To function effectively and make use of every resource, boards and service teams must move quickly to assist new members in gaining a sense of community with others who are serving the Council. How quickly this sense of community can be achieved may depend on many factors, but the level of community already established among more experienced board members is certain to be an important resource. For this reason, we examined the sense of community among new and more experienced individuals serving on Council boards or on the service team for Service Area 8. 5 New boardmembers may find it difficult establish a base of shared values with other members. Perspectives of new members. For the newest members of Council boards, i.e., those individuals with less than one year of board experience, there is a lower sense of shared values with their board colleagues than is true for all other members. For example, in response to the item "I share common principles regarding ethical behavior with the members of my Council to board," 82 percent of new members agreed or strongly agreed compared to 95 percent of those board or team members with three or more years experience. Board or team members with one or two years of experience agreed or strongly agreed with the statement somewhat more frequently (88 percent) than did new board members. Similarly, 68 percent of new members agreed or strongly agreed with the item "It's clear that a core of common values guides the work of the members of my Council board," as compared to 79 percent of members with one or two years of experience and 86 percent with three or more years experience on the board. Members with five or more years of board experience are enjoying many of the benefits of community with their colleagues. Perspectives of most experienced members. For those with the greatest Council board experience, i.e., those individuals with five or more years of service on the board, there is a greater sense of caring, teamwork, recognition, and participation. For example, while 75 percent of the most experienced board or team members agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "I know from my interactions with them that I am cared about by the members of my Council board," 67 percent of those with fewer than five years of experience responded in this way. Similarly, 65 percent of the more experienced members agreed or strongly agreed that "In a time of personal crisis, I know I'd have the support of the members of my Council board," while 56 percent of less experienced members felt this way. Individuals who have opted to remain on their Council board or on the service team for five or more years also have had the time to build strong teamwork relations, and 80 percent of these individuals agreed or strongly agreed that "I experience a real sense of teamwork in my work with the members of my Council board." In contrast, 68 percent of board or team members with four or fewer years of experience agreed with this statement. With teamwork comes shared decisionmaking or, at the least, the opportunity to voice one's opinions without reluctance. For this reason, it may not be surprising that the most experienced board or team members rather uniformly agreed or strongly agreed that "I have a real say when decisions affecting the Council are made by the members of my Council board" (89 percent). Seventy-four percent of members with less board experience agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Being part of decisionmaking processes, if only as a result of voicing one's opinions, can earn recognition from others for accomplishments that are achieved. In this case, for example, we find that 88 percent of the most experienced board or team members agreed or strongly agreed with the 6 Council boards may need to work on breaking down stereotyping behaviors and renewing their sense of purpose on a more continuous basis. statement "My accomplishments are recognized by the members of my Council board." In comparison, 72 percent of members with fewer than five years experience on the board or team agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Finally, it is interesting to note that all Council presidents who responded to the survey were among the most experienced board members. For these individuals, there are likely to have been even more opportunities for developing a strong sense of community with others on the board. An example from the caring dimension makes just this point: 87 percent of presidents reported that they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement "When a personal problem affects my board work, I can count on the understanding of the members of my Council board." (Thirty-five percent of these presidents strongly agreed with the statement.) In contrast, 78 percent of the most experienced board non -presidents agreed or strongly agreed, as did 68 percent of those individuals with fewer than five years board or team experience. Implications Some concerns about the skills necessary for effective Council governance and about effectiveness in fund raising provide an operational context for considering the level of community among board members in Service Area 8. Without a strong sense of community, identifying and ameliorating skill deficiencies can be delayed, and achieving consensus on steps to be taken to raise necessary funds may be a slow and difficult process. The results presented here evidence a healthy base of community among the members of Girl Scout Council boards in this service area. At the same time, there are signs that current community status in some locales can be improved. From individual respondents across all boards and the Council Service Team, we see that the areas of shared sense of purpose, participation, recognition, and caring may need attention. For the majority of council boards, lower scores on some or all three clusters of community dimensions (i.e., head, heart, and hands and feet) indicate the need for greater attentiveness among board leaders to creating and taking advantage of community -building opportunities that arise in the normal course of board work. The perceptions of non -white board members and those who only recently have joined Council boards may be especially noteworthy given current efforts to include more diverse participants in the governance process. From non -white members, we gain a sense that current board or team procedures may not be fully effective in breaking down perceived stereotyping. From new board members and from those who have served on boards or on the service team for only one year or two, we begin to see that, in many cases, the 7 development of shared values may be more a matter of tenure than of intentional processes designed to promote the continuous renewal and affirmation of how it is believed Council and team goals should be achieved. 8 Appendix The Head: Shared Values, Shared Purpose, and Shared Vision Shared Values Shared Purpose Shared Vision 0 0 M0 W 0 r- 0 W 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 Mixed Feelings u 0 Strongly Positive ■ i C O• U O Q CC Q) • C c- al 0 0 0 0 0 CO O 0 O l) O O co O N O O Mixed Feelings n Strongly Positive ■ O E 0 . L- E a) o U O C O O a� • o a ♦'e L Q U O C LL ca co cu v i O n U a_ Communication 0 E ctS a) 0 0 0 rn 0 co 0 N 0 CD O 0 0 CO 0 N 0 r O Mixed Feelings 0 a. Strongly Positive • Mead afid Head Sava for CouniIs 2 3 4 i 6 HEART LEGEND 1 i 1 Hi Hands Score A A A to Ills Sre AdGap Comparison Scores Shared Vision Shared Values Shared Purpose r 1 r 1 1 r r 1 4- U a) a co a) CC CD O di 0 C O c rn O U a) CC Communication ,C O E f0 cD — CD U c • Top Mngt --•-- Operations —}— Sales 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 _ 0J 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Direction and Purpose: Shared Vision crop Mgt., Operations, Sales) VIS1 VIS2 VIS3 VIS4 50 65 66 65 ■ • 2i 25 • 58 48 ■ 45 49 33 30 ii- 29 21 56 46 ■ 38 43 t Er • 31 33 21 29 —• Favorable —•— Unfavorable Sl: I have a different sense of where this company should go in the next few years than does... S2: My sense of what this company's future should be is different from that of... S3: What they say they want this company to become doesn't show up in the actions of... S4: This company is being taken in the wrong direction by the actions of... 100 _ 90 80 70 - 60 : 50 40 30 Direction and Purpose: Shared Values crop Mgt., Operations, Sales) VAL1 VAL2 VAL3 VAL4 74 ■ 66 71 ■ 52 20 = 10 oti 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0= 100 90 80 70 = 60 = 50 , 40 = 30 • 10 20 25 52 48 47 - 40 -..... • 39 23 22 29 46 It 36 45 20 10 = 0 ti t 21 30 37 25 —• Favorable —• Unfavorable VAL1: When it comes to how people should be treated here, I agree with.... VAL2: My ideas about how people should act here are like those of... VAL3: I have a problem with the behavior of... VAL4: "Walking the talk" describes the actions of... 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Direction and Purpose: Shared Purpose (Top Mgt., Operations, Sales) PUR1 PUR2 PUR3 PUR4 60 ■ 59 76 72 ■ • 16 1 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 i i ■ 49 7 56 ■ 54 ■ • 26 • 29 23 • 16 58 47 ■ 52 ■ 32 28 29 ..... 20 • 15 • Favorable --f— Unfavorable JR1: My ideas about the purpose of our company's work are like those of... JR2: I see the value of what we do here differently than... JR3: The purpose of what we do here doesn't seem to motivate... JR4: You can see the importance of what we do in this company in the behavior of... c0 ctS 0 0 E v T anJGS01PaaN lsa8J(Woa AoeJoowaa Al!unwwo3 paTInsuo3a8 anilealoa8 Toguo3anIosad Auedwo3aTeaJ3 s6uiy fuaJalp sleosanaiyoy LiwoJ J asod.mdy6iH aovuas ed y6!H wWa±-6uo1 dsaguaip3 ued'iPJM Cluster Scats for Ronents - - Top Mingement Referent 2 3 4 5 6 ME&RT EGEND 1 1 1 Hi Mas Score A ' A b Halt Sire HEAD 6 5 4 3 P 1 1 CIus1r Srs for FunionaJ Groups - - Top Pngeme Refere i 3 4 5 6 HEART LEGEND 1 i 0 Mi Hands Score Appendix E: Staff Resumes 13 Education Ph.D. M.A. B.A. Present Position Robert J. Rossi American Institutes for Research P.O. Box 1113 (1791 Arastradero Road) Palo Alto, CA 94302 (650) 493-3550 1976, Stanford University, Philosophy and Educational Research 1971, University of California, Davis, Philosophy of Education 1968, University of California, Davis, Sociology 1969, Standard Teaching Credential, State of California (Lifetime) American Institutes for Research: Principal Research Scientist and Director, Center for Community Research Responsible for research, evaluation, technical assistance, and training efforts aimed at building community in organizations, groups, and in regional settings. Special interests in education and in intercollegiate athletics. Professional Experience Community Research and Community Building Project Director, Carrying out community assessments in neighborhoods, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (1998-99). Comparative assessments of community status in neighborhood settings. Project Director, Step 2: Developing surveys and self -study guides to assess the sense of community in neighborhoods and cities, David and Lucile Packard Foundation (1998). Development of community assessment protocols (i.e., survey instruments and self -assessment guides) for use by residents. Project Director, Planning a statewide community -focused court planning conference, Judicial Council of California (1997-98). Consultation on development of a court planning process for California that builds community within and among courts and with the public. Project Director, Workplace community assessment and reporting of results, The AdGap Group (1997-98). Assessment of community status and presentation of findings and recommendations. Project Director, Workplace community assessments and reports of results, SKOPOS Consulting (1997-98). Assessments of community status, preparation of reports of findings, and presentations of assessment results to client organizations Project Director, Community -building workshops for neighborhood leaders, Luke B. Hancock Foundation (1997-98). Presentation of workshops in neighborhoods to collect reports of experiences with sense of community, impart community concepts, and identify community -building strategies. Project Director, Community training and survey of Girl Scout Council boards, Girl Scouts USA (1997-98). Collection of survey data from GSUSA Council Boards in Service Area 8 (western states,including Alaska and Hawaii) and training sessions to create stronger community ties among Council presidents and board members and to promote effective board leadership strategies through community building. Project Director, Study of community investment behaviors in the workplace, W.K. Kellogg Foundation (1995-98). Determination of organizational policies and human resources practices that positively affect the level of community (e.g., trust, shared vision, caring, respect and recognition) among individuals in work settings. Project Director, Step 1: Developing an assessment framework for neighborhood sense of community, David and Lucile Packard Foundation (1997). Collection and synthesis of critical incident data from local residents to determine the parameters of community assessment protocols for use in neighborhoods. Project Director, Study of the role of community in support of school reform, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (1994-97). Demonstration of the effects of community assessment and community -building activities on promoting and sustaining efforts to restructure high schools. Project Director, Research project to study the elements of effective congregational communities, Carnegie Corporation of New York (1996). Background readings and interviews to establish a preliminary framework for thinking about sense of community in congregational settings. Project Director, Planning for study of community -building in congregations, Lilly Endowment, Inc. (1996). Meetings and discussions related to study planning, including participation in the Congregational Studies Institute at the Hartford Seminary. Project Director, Development of a community assessment system, W.K. Kellogg Foundation (1992-95). Development of instruments (i.e., the Community Assessment Guide, Community Investment Guide, and Community Resources Guide) for use in assessing and guiding community -building efforts in the workplace. Education and Intercollegiate Athletics (since 1988) Task Director, Review and assessment of NCES six library surveys, Education Statistics Services Institute (1998). Development of a guide to measurement strategies used in NCES library surveys and recommendations for survey enhancements. Project Director, Evaluation of the San Francisco 49ers Academy, SF 49ers Academy (1998). Determination of the outcomes achieved by the Academy program for students and parents, from the perspectives of the program's principal funders and local constituencies. Task Director, Development of issue briefs and descriptive survey reports, National Center for Education Statistics (1994-97). Analysis and reporting efforts designed to inform education policymakers, researchers, and practitioners. Project Director, Evaluation of educational reforms for students at risk, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, (1991-95). Determination of the characteristics and necessary attributes of effective instructional programs for children and youth at risk in the nation's schools. 2 Project Director, Evaluation of the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program, U.S. Department of Education (1989-94). National study to determine effective strategies to prevent dropout from school at elementary, middle, and high school levels. Project Director, Study of the status and well-being of student -athletes at the University of Georgia, University of Georgia (1992-93). Comparative study of the well-being of student -athletes at the University of Georgia, using surveys from the National Study of Intercollegiate Athletes. Project Director, National study of intercollegiate athletes, National Collegiate Athletic Association (1988n1992). National baseline study of the effects of participation in intercollegiate athletics on student - athletes in Division I institutions. Earlier Research Activities Principal Investigator/Project Director, Various projects involving educational and social indicators. For the Office of Special Education Programs, implemented and evaluated demographic accounting procedures for use in the administration of special education programs. For the National Center for Education Statistics, led educational indicator development activities in areas related to women and minorities in education, the federal role in education, the status of professional education, the financial viability of postsecondary institutions, and use of international indicators of educational performance. For the Youth Development Bureau, provided a conceptual framework and implementation strategy for the establishment of a series of youth -specific indicators to monitor the quality of youth development in the United States. For the National Institute of Health, determined the utility of including youth -specific social indicators of educational performance based on existing macro- and microlevel data in statewide school district program evaluations. Principal Investigator/Project Director, Various projects involving evaluation design, data collection, analysis, and reporting of findings. For the California State CETA Office, assessed efforts aimed at improving local cooperative planning among public and private agencies in three California counties. For the ACTION agency, directed the design phase of an effort to develop impact evaluation models for the VISTA and University Year for Action programs. For the National Manpower Institute, directed planning for an evaluation of industry -education -labor councils, which operated at the local level in various states to assist youth in the transition from school to work. For the U.S. Office of Education, carried out a nationwide survey and assessment of career education in the public schools. For the National Science Foundation, explored the effects of career guidance factors on student decisions to enter science careers. Employment History 1968-1970 1974-present Del Paso Heights School District, Sacramento, CA American Institutes for Research, Palo Alto, CA Publications Community Research and Community Building Rossi, R. J., Vergun, P.B., & Weise, L.J. (1997). Serving rural youth at risk: A portrait of collaboration and community. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 2(3), 213-227. Royal, M.A., & Rossi, R.J. (1997). Schools as communities. (Issue Brief.) Seattle, WA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Administration. Royal, M.A., & Rossi, R.J. (1996). Individual correlates of sense of community: Findings from workplace and school. Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), 395-416. 3 Royal, M.A., DeAngelis, K.J., & Rossi, R.J. (1996) Teachersi sense of community: How do public and private schools compare. Issue Brief. Washington, DC: NCES/Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Rossi, R.J., & Royal, M.A. (1994). Measuring workplace community: Final report. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Education Rossi, R.J. (1997). Education reform and students at risk.. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Rossi, R.J., Herting, J., & Wolman, J. (1997). Profiles of students with disabilities as identified in NELS:88. Washington, DC: NCES/Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Rossi, R.J. (1996).Evaluation of projects funded by the school dropout demonstration assistance program. Washington, DC: Office of the Undersecretary, U.S. Department of Education. Rossi, R.J., & Stringfield, S.C. (1995). What we must do for students placed at risk. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(1), 73-76. Montgomery, A.F., & Rossi, R.J. (Eds.). (1994). Educational reforms and students at risk: A review of the current state of the art. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Montgomery, A.F., & Rossi, R.J. (1994). Becoming at risk of failure in Americais schools. In R.J. Rossi (Ed.), Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive change. New York: Teachers College Press. Rossi, R.J. (Ed). (1994). Schools and students at risk: Context and framework for positive change. New York: Teachers College Press. Rossi, R.J. (1990). Demographic accounting for special education. Social Indicators Research, 22, 1- 30. Rossi, R.J., & DuBois, P.A. (1989). Project MAP: Model accounting plan for special education, final report. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Rossi, R.J., Wolman, J.M. (1988). A model accounting plan for special education. The journal of Special Education, 21(4), 57-73. Rossi, R.J. (1987). Project MAP year one final report: Pilot -test of the model accounting plan and preliminary results of expectancy analyses. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Gilmartin, K.J., & Rossi, R.J. (1982). Monitoring educational goals: A new optimism. In K.J. Gilmartin & R.J. Rossi (Eds.), Monitoring educational outcomes and public attitudes. New York: Human Sciences Press. Gilmartin, K.J., & Rossi, R.J. (1982). Monitoring educational outcomes and public attitudes. New York: Human Sciences Press. Rossi, R.J. (1982). Development of higher education product -value indexes. Social Indicators Research, 11, 227-258. Rossi, R.J., & Gilmartin, K.J. (1982). Models and forecasts of federal spending for elementary and secondary education. In K.J. Gilmartin & R.J. Rossi (Eds.), Monitoring educational outcomes and public attitudes. New York: Human Sciences Press. Rossi, R.J., & Gilmartin, K.J. (1981). Workplans for developing educational indicators (Technical report to the National Center for Education Statistics). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Rossi, R.J., & Gilmartin, K.J. (1980). Social indicators of youth development and educational performance: a programmatic statement. Presented as a two-hour training session at the fourth annual conference of the California Society of Educational Program Auditors and Evaluators, San Diego, May 1978. Social Indicators Research, 7, 157-191. 4 Rossi, R.J., & Gilmartin, K.J. (1979). Non -test indicators of educational performance. The Clearing House, 53(2), 90-96. Rossi, R.J., Gilmartin, K.J., & Pletcher, B.P. (1979). Study of the feasibility of producing social indicator reports in three content areas (Technical report to the National Center for Education Statistics). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. McLaughlin, D.H., Gilmartin, K.J., & Rossi, R.J. (1977). Controversies in the evaluation of compensatory education (Final report to the National Institute of Education). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Rossi, R.J., McLaughlin, D.H., Campbell, E.A., & Everett, B.E. (1977). Summaries of major Title I evaluations, 1966-1976 (Final report to the National Institute of Education). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Rossi, R.J., & McLaughlin, D.H. (1976). Longitudinal evaluation in career education. Journal of Career Education, 2, 91-108. Intercollegiate Athletics Royal, M.A., & Rossi, R.J. (1993). A comparative approach to assessing the quality of life of intercollegiate athletes. Social Indicators Research, 29:317-330. Royal, M.A., & Rossi, R.J. (1993). Drawing comparisons. Athletic Management, V(5):27-32. Royal, M.A., & Rossi, R.J. (1992). The status of student -athletes at the University of Georgia: A comparative analysis using data from the 1987-88 National study of Intercollegiate Athletes. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Rossi, R.J., & Armstrong, T. (1989). Studies of intercollegiate athletics: Summary results from the 1987-88 National Study of Intercollegiate Athletes (Report No. 1). Palo Alto, CA: Center for the Study of Athletics, American Institutes for Research. Rossi, R.J., & Armstrong, T. (1989). Studies of intercollegiate athletics: Methodology of the 1987- 88 National Study of Intercollegiate Athletes (Report No. 2). Palo Alto, CA: Center for the Study of Athletics, American Institutes for Research. Rossi, R.J., & Armstrong, T. (1989). Studies of intercollegiate athletics: The experiences of Black intercollegiate athletes at NCAA Division 1 institutions (Report No. 3). Palo Alto, CA: Center for the Study of Athletics, American Institutes for Research. Rossi, R.J., & Armstrong, T. (1989). Studies of intercollegiate athletics: Women in intercollegiate athletics at NCAA Division 1 institutions (Report No. 4). Palo Alto, CA: Center for the Study of Athletics, American Institutes for Research. Rossi, R.J., & Armstrong, T. (1989). Analysis of the academic transcripts of intercollegiate athletes at NCAA Division 1 institutions (Report No. 5). Palo Alto, CA: Center for the Study of Athletics, American Institutes for Research. Rossi, R.J., & Armstrong, T. (1989). Comments from students in the 1987-88 National Study of Intercollegiate Athletes (Report No. 6). Palo Alto, CA: Center for the Study of Athletics, American Institutes for Research. Social Indictors Research Rossi, R.J., & Gilmartin, K.J. (1980). Handbook of social indicators: Sources, characteristics, and analysis (A textbook for undergraduate and graduate students and professional workers). New York: Garland STPM Press. Gilmartin, K.J., Rossi, R.J., Lutomski, L.S., & Reed, D.F.B. (1979). Social indicators: An annotated bibliography of current literature. Cambridge, MA: Garland. Rossi, R.J., & Gilmartin, K.J. (1979). Demographic profile system for the United States (Final report to the National Institute of Health). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. 5 Rossi, R.J., & Gilmartin, K.J. (1979, August). Social indicators and policy issues: The matter of relevance. Invited paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Statistical Association, Washington, DC ASA 1979 Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, 339-340. Gilmartin, K.J., & Rossi, R.J. (1978). Concepts and methods for identifying and establishing youth- specific social indicators: A strategy paper (Technical report to the Youth Development Bureau, DHEW). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Rossi, R.J., Gilmartin, K.J., & Reed, D.F.B. (1978). Report on a feasibility study to develop youth- specific social indicators and data source directory (Technical report to the Youth Development Bureau, DHEW). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Rossi, R.J., & Gilmartin, K.J. (1977). Developing youth -specific social indicators to identify critical areas of need: A concept paper (Technical report to the Youth Development Bureau, DHEW). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Interagency Coordination Rossi, R.J., Gilmartin, K.J., & Dayton, C.W. (1982). Handbook for interagency coordination. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Gilmartin, K.J., & Rossi, R.J. (Eds.). (1982). Demonstration and analysis of inter -agency coordination: Findings fro the I979-1982 Cooperative Planning Demonstration Program in California (Final report to the California State CETA Office). Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Rossi, R.J., & Gilmartin, K.J. (1981). Information exchange among public agencies in three California counties. Knowledge: Creation, utilization, diffusion, 2(3), 413-436. Methodology Rossi, R.J., & McLaughlin, D.H. (1979) Establishing evaluation objectives. Evaluation Quarterly, 3(3), 331- 346. Rossi, R.J. (1978). Application of inductive logic to the analysis of experimental episode construct validity. Syntheses, 37(3), 285-319. Rossi, R.J., Wise, L.L., Williams, K.L., & Carrel, K.S. (1976). Methodology of the Project TALENT 11- year follow-up study. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Rossi, R.J., Bartlett, W.B., Campbell, E.A., Wise, L.L., & McLaughlin, D.H. (1975). Using the TALENT profiles in counseling: A supplement to the Career Data Book. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. Rossi, R.J. (1975). Teaching, values, and valuing. In J.J. Jelinch (Ed.), The teaching of values. Tempe, AZ: Arizona Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Rossi, R.J. (1974). Experience and reason: The three hypotheses of seeing as. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 6(2), 55-63. Technology Hall, J.K., & Rossi, R.J. (1986). Transactional systems: Observations, developments and research -based training strategies for success. Proceedings of the May 1986 Conference, Society for Applied Learning Technology (SALT). Rossi, R.J. (1986). The role of research in making interactive products effective. Performance and Instruction, 25(2), 20-23. Recent Major Presentations Community and the Assurance of Quality in Providing Financial Aid. (June 1998). Address to the Annual National Meeting of the Quality Assurance Program for Postsecondary Education. New Orleans, LA. Enabling Community Focus. (May 1998). Address to the California Statewide Community -Focused Court Planning Conference. Long Beach, CA. 6 Why Community Matters. (November 1997). Luncheon presentation to the annual meeting of the United Neighborhoods of Santa Clara County. San Jose, CA. What Alternative Education Professionals Should Know about Community. (October 1997). Keynote address to the First Annual Ventura County Continuation and Alternative Education Summit. Camarillo, CA. Making Reforms Work for Students. (January 1997). Invited presentation to the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 7 KAAREN A. HANSON Ph.D. EDUCATION Ph.D. Stanford University, Social Psychology, 1996. Minor: Applied Statistics B.A. Clark University, Psychology, Summa Cum Laude, 1992. WORK EXPERIENCE Research Scientist, Center for Community Research, February, 1998 to present. • Use quantitative and qualitative research methods to measure community in the workplace, schools, neighborhoods, and congregations. Write grant proposals, author articles, analyze quantitative data. Write research reports, moderate focus groups, conduct cognitive interviews, maintain and develop client relationships, speak at a variety of conferences and seminars regarding the antecedents and consequences of community. Trial Consultant & Quantitative Analyst, National Jury Project/West, Sept., 1995 to Feb., 1998. • Use quantitative and qualitative research methods to investigate jury trial issues. Design surveys, develop research proposals, analyze quantitative data. Write research reports, moderate focus groups, conduct in -court jury selections, assist attorneys with opening statements, prepare witnesses for trial, maintain and develop client relationships, speak at a variety of conferences and seminars regarding questionnaire design and voir dire. Primary focus: employment law. Doctoral Student, Stanford University, September 1992 to September 1996. • Conducted numerous experimental investigations in social and cognitive psychology, managed dozens of research assistants, utilized rigorous statistical and experimental methods, wrote several research papers and presented findings at various psychological conferences. • Analytical techniques used include: multiple regression, logistic regression, factor analysis, segmentation, log -linear modeling, Anova, Manova, Ancova, repeated measures analysis, longitudinal analysis, correlations, t-tests and chi-squares. Instructor, Stanford University, June 1994 to September 1995. • Designed and taught courses on Cross -Cultural Psychology and Adult Development. Teaching Assistant, Stanford University, September 1993 to June 1995. • Taught sections in courses such as Statistical Methods, Social Psychology, and Cultural Psychology. Conference Coordinator, Stanford University, January 1995 to April 1995. • Co -Coordinated Annual Stanford -Berkeley Research Talks. Research Assistant, Information Express Inc., August 1993 to March 1995. • Conducted library research for a variety of Silicon Valley Companies. FELLOWSHIPS & AWARDS • National Science Foundation Fellowship Award, 1993-1996. • Culture and Cultures Research Grant, 1995. • Stanford University Fellowship Award, 1992-1996. • Jacob Javits Foundation Fellowship Award, 1992-1993. • Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society, 1992. • Clark University Outstanding Research Award, 1992. • National Science Foundation Summer Fellowship, 1991. • Colin Creativity Research Grant, 1991. w e, GodbeResearch & Analysis RECEI VE3 MAY 15 1998 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8y 225 South Cabrillo Highway Suite 200 Building 0 Hall Moon Bay CA 94019-1738 phone 415112-3131 lax 4151123131 445 South Figueroa Sireet Suite 2600 los Angeles CA 90071-1631 phone 213 624-8863 lax 213 624-8864 Godbe Research & Analysis Proposal to Conduct a Community Needs Assessment Survey for the Town of Los Gatos ATTACHMENT Godbellesearch & Analysis May 14,1998 Mr. Lee E. Bowman Planning Director Town of Los Gatos P.O. Box 949 Los Gatos, CA 95031 Dear Mr. Bowman: RECEIVED MAY 18 1998 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 8y Godbe Research & Analysis (GRA) is pleased to submit this proposal to conduct a needs assessment survey for the Town of Los Gatos. GRA has long been recognized as a leader in public opinion research. But more importantly, GRAB experience in surveying the needs and opinions of residents of California communities is quite extensive. For cities and towns throughout the State, GRA has been able to identify which services residents are most satisfied with, which services need improvement, and which capital improvement projects have the greatest support. GRA firmly believes that any effort to update the Los Gatos General Plan should be based on accurate and predictive survey research. GRA has provided useable resident satisfaction data to a number of Santa Clara County communities, including the Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, and Mountain View. These cities have used the results of our surveys to make important decisions that have improved the quality of life for their residents. GRA is also quite experienced in facilitating focus groups among community stakeholders. GRA will work hard to make sure Los Gatos receives excellent qualitative research results by designing a focus group discussion guide, moderating the focus groups, and producing a comprehensive report that will assist the Town in deciding upon an appropriate survey instrument. With a staff of highly -trained professionals, GRA has earned a reputation among its clients for producing comprehensive, actionable, and easy -to -understand research on -time and on -budget. From designing a superior sample and questionnaire to ensuring that interviewers are properly trained and data processing is completed by experienced professionals, GRA will make sure the job is done right. This means the Town of Los Gatos will have complete and accurate data upon which to base any changes to its General Plan. GRA is eager to assist the Town of Los Gatos in updating its General Plan and looks forward to working with the Town on this exciting research project. If you have any questions or would like further information about the services GRA offers, please do not hesitate to contact me at (650) 712-3137. Sincerely, David Kaefer Senior Research Analyst 225 South Cabrillo Highway Suite 200 Building 8 Half Moon Bay CA 94019-1736 phone 415 712 3137 fax 415712-1131 445 South Figueroa Street Suite 2600 los Angeles CA 90071-1631 phone 213 624-6663 fax 213 624 8864 Table of Contents Godbefleseareh & Malysis About Godbe Research & Analysis 2 Key Project Staff 5 References 6 Scope of Work 8 Project Schedule 11 Project Budget 12 List of Materials Required from the Town 13 Attachments City of Campbell Resident Satisfaction Survey Report and Questionnaire City of Cupertino Resident Satisfaction Survey Report and Questionnaire Los Gatos Community Needs Assessment Survey Proposal Godbe Research and Analysis Page 1 About Godbe Research & Analysis Godbe Research & Analysis (GRA) was originally founded in January 1990 as the research division of Godbe Communications. The firm is a full -service public opinion research agency that offers its clients extensive experience in public opinion research for political campaigns, public education projects, corporate image campaigns, jury selection and marketing efforts. The firm's Principal Researcher has been employed by candidate and ballot measure campaigns, as well as by public and private sector clients, throughout the state of California and in Alaska, British Columbia, Colorado, Idaho, Ontario, Oregon and Washington. His expertise spans sixteen years in the field of public opinion research. Complementing the Principal Researcher's efforts is a staff of Research Analysts, Research Associates, and Statisticians. GRA relies on research as a primary tool to define and evaluate public opinion and assist with the development of effective campaign strategies for all its clients. The firm has considerable experience in both qualitative and quantitative research techniques. The following qualitative and quantitative research services are provided by GRA to the firm's clients in the areas of political polling, public policy, advertising, media research and jury selection: Godbeflesearch & Analysis IN Baseline Polling: Baseline polling analyzes the current trends in a given community that are likely to drive public opinion. The method is particularly helpful for governments, corporations or political candidates who are interested in testing their approval in the community while gauging the community's pulse on a variety of relevant issues. ■ Threshold Polling: Threshold analysis is frequently used to assess public approval of changes in service, tax or fee levels. The process involves careful testing of different option levels and then `pushes' these initial tests by offering further information to respondents to see if the respondents will change their opinions. The `push' reveals both the strength of the opinions and the room available for future persuasion through public relations efforts. GRA has conducted a number of successful threshold surveys for school districts, counties, cities and special districts. ■ Tracking Polls: Tracking polls take place after a baseline poll establishes a level of support or opposition to various messages. The tracking polls that follow a baseline survey allow for a refinement of the messages first tested in the baseline and also allow for the analysis of opinions over different periods in time. Refinement of messages, especially for ballot propositions, is often needed to make marginally supported messages into messages that meet with success. In addition, by looking at survey data over time, the stability of a message can be assessed; a key consideration for messages that may be affected by current events. ■ Focus Groups: This qualitative research technique offers a unique opportunity to analyze the detailed opinions of select groups of individuals. The format allows for considerable interaction between participants and permits in-depth discussion of themes and ideas which are brought out in the course of the discussion. GRA's experience in the field of focus group research includes projects for government agencies, corporations, public utilities and political campaigns. • Executive Interviews: Before entering into lengthy survey research projects or costly public relations campaigns, executive interviews are often cost-effective ways of understanding key aspects of an issue. Interviews offer the opportunity to conduct in-depth discussions with community leaders and policy experts on topics where the client must make a decision in the absence of personal expertise. Los Gatos Community Needs Assessment Survey Proposal Godbe Research and Analysis Page 2 ■ Intercept Interviews: Occasionally the best way to obtain information on the opinions of a given group of people is to conduct the research in -person where the target group may cluster. Shopping -mall intercept interviewing is one popular example of this technique. In this example, intercepts are one way of assessing the opinions of consumers on a number of products. Intercept interviewing is also successful when government agencies want to assess customer satisfaction of a given service such as public transportation. Client List The following listings represent a portion of the school districts, corporate clients, non-profit clients, transportation planning clients, counties, municipal districts, companies, and political campaigns for which Mr. Godbe has conducted public opinion research projects. Municipal Clients City of Campbell City of Cupertino (1990 & 1992) City of Fontana City of Hayward City of Lake Forest City of Lathrop City of Livermore City of Los Angeles City of Malibu City of Mill Valley City of Millbrae (1992 & 1994) City of Modesto City of Mountain View (1991 & 1995) City of Novato (1989, 1994, 1996, 1997) City of Pomona City of Rocklin City of San Bruno (1989 & 1992) Town of San Anselmo City of San Lorenzo City of San Ramon City of Santa Clara City of Santa Monica City of South Lake Tahoe City of South Pasadena City of Turlock City of Whittier Non -Profit Clients Bay Area Catholic Homes Catholic Healthcare West Center For The Study of Los Angeles Latino Issues Forum Jewish National Fund Martinez Regional Land Trust Riverside County Deputy Sheriffs Association Resources For The Future San Francisco Chamber of Commerce San Francisco Visitors & Convention Bureau Santa Monica Youth Athletic Foundation Stanislaus County Economic Development Corp. Sonoma County Board of Realtors Southem Alameda County Board of Realtors Students for Educational Opportunity Walnut Creek Chamber of Commerce Godbelesearch & Analysis Corporate Clients Bank of America C.J. Segerstrom & Sons Del Monte Corporation Hewlett-Packard Company Hosie, Wes, McLaughlin & Sacks McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen Media & Associates Netiva Pacific Gas & Electric Company Perkin-Elmer Corporation San Deigo Gas & Electric Company Santa Fe Pacific Realty Sequoia Associates Southern California Edison Stevens/Garland SuinmerHill Homes ICI of California The Sierra Group Whitecliff Homes, Inc. Winning Results, Inc. Transportation Clients Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) CCS Planning and Engineering Federal Highway Administration Marin County Public Works Marin/Sonoma Hwy. 101 Corridor Action Cmte. Metropolitan Transportation Association Metropolitan Transportation Commission Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas Regional Transit Resource;; for the Future San Mateo Transit District (SamTrars) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency So. California Air Quality Management Dst. Southern California Association of Governments Stanislaus Area Association of Governments Transporter Intercalifomias Transportation Management and Design Los Gatos Community Needs Assessment Survey Proposal Godbe Research and Analysis Page 3 Special Districts Alameda County Libraries Contra Costa County Contra Costa Water District (1986 - 1989) Contra Costa Clean Water Program East Bay Municipal Utility District Fresno County Libraries Friends of the Santa Monica Library Friends of the Saratoga Library Inland Empire West Resource Conservation District Los Angeles County Department of Public Worts Los Angeles County Public Library Foundation Marin County Free Library Marin County Public Works Department Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Monterey County Public Library Sacramento Public Library San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority San Joaquin County Library District San Mateo County Park & Recreation Department Santa Clara County Library District Scotts Valley Fire Protection District Solano County Libraries Candidate Clients Richard Alatorre (14th City Council District, Los Angeles) Leo Bazile (7th City Council District, Oaldand) Ruben Barrales (4th Supervisorial District, San Mateo Cnty) Hal Brown (State of California, Insurance Commissioner) Charles Calderon (State of California, Attomey General) Denise DeVille (3rd Supervisorial District, San Mateo Cnty) Don Freitas (5th Supervisorial District, Contra Costa Cnty) Mary Griffin (1st Supervisorial District, San Mateo Cnty) Mike Hernandez (1st City Council District, LCs Angeles) Tom Huening (2nd Supervisorial District, San Mateo Cnty) Don Horsley (San Mateo Cnty Sheriff) Bill Mahar (5th Congressional District) Shannon Reeves (Mayor, City of Oakland) School District and Education Clients Center Unified School District Davis Joint Unified School District Dixie Elementary School District Fremont Unified School District Geyserville Unified School District Kentfield Elementary School District Laguna Salads Unified School District Lagunitas Elementary School District Larkspur Elementary School District Loyola Matymount University Martinez Unified School District Mill Valley School District Montdwllo Unified School District Moorpark Unified School District (1997 & 1998) Novato Unified School District (1990, 1995, & 1998) Redwood City Elementary School District San Mateo Best Schools Committee San Rafael Elementary School District San Rafael High School District Sierra Joint Community College District Tamalpais Unified School District Tehachapi Unified School District Turlock High School District University of California California State Universities Windsor Unified School District is) GodbeResearch & Analysis Los Gatos Community Needs Assessment Survey Proposal Godbe Research and Analysis Page 4 Key Project Staff Bryan Godbe, Principal Researcher Cofounder of Godbe Research & Analysis, Mr. Godbe has over 16 years of experience in public opinion research, public relations and government affairs. A significant amount of Mr. Godbe's research has been conducted for Santa Clara County communities. Mr. Godbe is directly responsible for all of GRA's public opinion research including both qualitative and quantitative research projects, focus groups, baseline polling and tracking projects. He is directly responsible for research design, questionnaire development, overseeing data collection and data processing, analysis of results and the presentation of findings. In this capacity, he has conducted both public opinion and market research projects at the national, state, and local levels including projects in and for Los Angeles, Marin, Riverside, Sacramento, San Joaquin, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties; the cities of Cupertino, Lathrop, Livermore, Mill Valley and Turlock, the Hewlett-Packard Company (Boise, ID; Cupertino, CA; Corvallis, OR; Fort Collins, CO; Kitchener, Ontario; Richmond, British Columbia; Roseville, CA; Santa Rosa, CA; and Vancouver, WA), Hosie, Wes, McLaughlin & Sacks (Juneau, AK), Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison, the Building Industry Association, the Contra Costa Water District, the East Bay Municipal Utility District and the Southem California Association of Governments aswell as for dozens of cities, school districts, and special districts. Mr. Godbe has substantial experience meeting the research needs of Santa Clara County communities. He has conducted research in and for the Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, and Saratoga. Many of these projects were resident satisfaction surveys which assessed service needs in these communities and provided information that has helped them update their General Plans. In addition, Mr. Godbe's research helped the Santa Clara County Library pass a sales tax increase. In 1989, Mr. Godbe received a Silver Anvil Award from the Public Relations Society of America for the development and implementation of an outstanding government affairs program on behalf of the Contra Costa Water District. This program was based on Mr. Godbe's extensive research including baseline research, focus groups and three tracking polls. Prior to founding the firm, Mr. Godbe was Vice President of Research at Solem & Associates, a California based public relations firm. Mr. Godbe also serves as the senior research consultant at the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola-Marymount University. He has a Masters Degree from the University of Michigan where he studied survey research methodology at the Institute for Social Research; and a B.A. degree from the University of California, Berkeley. David Kaefer, Senior Research Analyst Mr. Kaefer has served as the day-to-day project manager for more than 100 of GRA's research projects, including a number of those in Santa Clara County. He managed resident satisfaction surveys in Campbell, Cupertino, and Mountain View, as well as the survey GRA conducted for the Friends of the Saratoga Library. He has provided important survey research information to many communities, which has helped them to update their General Plans. In addition, Mr. Kaefer has managed numerous qualitative research projects. He has moderated a wide variety of focus groups and has provided useable focus group information to community decision -makers. RIR Godbeflesearch & Analysis Mr. Kaefer has worked extensively on target -audience marketing surveys that assess such issues as media consumption patterns, point -of -purchase behavior, incentive threshold analysis and slogan evaluation. Mr. Los Gatos Community Needs Assessment Survey Proposal Godbe Research and Analysis Page 5 Kaefer's experience on this type of marketing -based research frequently entwines itself with customer satisfaction issues. Mr. Kaefer has worked extensively on cable provider customer satisfaction, newspaper customer satisfaction and public satisfaction towards public agency services. His clients in these areas include work for such cities as Mountain View and Lake Forest, the county of Los Angeles and corporate clients such as Hewlett- Packard. Mr. Kaefer's other research projects have included work for the counties of Contra Costa and San Mateo, the Sacramento Public Library, the Solano County Library, the Cities of Santa Monica and South Lake Tahoe, Hasseltine-Best, Media & Associates, Winning Results, the Committee to Elect Tom Huening Supervisor and the Committee to Elect Mary Griffin Supervisor. Prior to joining GRA Mr. Kaefer served as Senior Research Associate working for Dr. Larry Sabato, a well known professor and political commentator. Mr. Kaefer co-authored one section of Dr. Sabato's book When Should the Watchdogs Bark? and then finished work for Dr. Sabato on a second book, Corrupt Campaigns, where he served as co -project manager. In 1996, Mr. Kaefer was named a "Rising Star" by Campaigns & Elections magazine following the publication's national competition. The magazine recognized Mr. Kaefer as an emerging national leader in public opinion research. Mr. Kaefer received a BA in Economics and American Government from the University of Virginia. Gregory Harrison, Research Coordinator Mr. Harrison brings a wealth of political and research experience to GRA. Mr. Harrison's current projects for GRA include work for Calderon for Attorney General, San Francisco International Airport, and the Cities of Lake Forest, Rocklin, and South Pasadena. Prior to joining GRA, Mr. Harrison served as an aide to Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), advising her on a number of issues including transportation, housing, telecommunications, and crime. Mr. Harrison served as a Legislative Assistant in the Congresswoman's Washington, D.C. office before returning to California to work as a Field Representative in her Sonoma County office. From 1993-1995, Mr. Harrison worked as a consultant for the National Urban League's Research Department, co-authoring several reports including, "Fast Facts: Comparative Views of African -American Status and Progress". This piece appeared in The State of Black America 1994. Mr. Harrison holds a M.A. in Government and Politics from the University of Maryland and a B.A. in Political Science and Economics from Sonoma State University. References GodbeResearch &Analysis City of Campbell Project: Project Budget: Project Dates: Project Contact Telephone: Resident Satisfaction Survey $17, 500.00 October 1997 Barbara Lee, General Services Administrator (408) 866-2103 Abstract GRA completed a telephone survey for the City of Campbell that assessed support for a future Teen Center and expansion of the public library. The City was also interested in measuring resident satisfaction with a variety of services, including recreation, street maintenance, police services, neighborhood parks, and communications. Los Gatos Community Needs Assessment Survey Proposal Godbe Research and Analysis Page 6 Godbefleseareh & Analysis City of Cupertino Project: Resident Satisfaction Survey Project Budget: $15,730.00 Project Dates: January 1998 Project Contact: Don Brown, City Manager; Donna Krey, Public Information Officer Telephone: (408) 777-3200 Abstract: In January, GRA completed an analysis of resident satisfaction in the City of Cupertino. This poll of Cupertino residents probed satisfaction with general city services (such as police, fire, and parks and recreation services), tested support for a Teen Center and library expansion, and evaluated race relations in Cupertino. City of Mountain View Project: Resident Satisfaction Survey Project Budget: $17,070.00 Project Dates: January 1996 Project Contact: Linda Forsberg, Assistant to the City Manager Telephone: (408) 903-6301 Abstract: In January 1996, GRA completed a public opinion research project for the City of Mountain View aimed at assessing the needs of city residents with respect to parks and recreation services, library services, communication services, and police services. City of Lake Forest Project: Resident Satisfaction Survey and Focus Groups Project Budget: $34,730.00 Project Dates: April 1998 Project Contact: Dave Bass, Director of Administrative Services Telephone: (714) 461-3431 Abstract: GRA's most recent resident satisfaction survey was conducted for the City of Lake Forest. This survey assessed the needs of Lake Forest voters, evaluated the importance of a number of City services to these voters, and measured voters' satisfaction with City services. The survey also tested support for a number of proposed public works projects and measured library usage and Internet access among Lake Forest voters. GRA is currently conducting a series of focus groups for the City of Lake Forest. This qualitative research will build upon the voter survey and further explore voters' service needs. City of Santa Monica Project: Survey of Residents Regarding Telecommunications Services Project Budget: $9,000.00 Project Dates: October 1997 project Contact: Kate Vernez, Senior Management Analyst Telephone: (310) 393-9975 Los Gatos Community Needs Assessment Survey Proposal Godbe Research and Analysis Page 7 Abstract: In October 1997, GRA conducted a telephone survey for the City of Santa Monica. The City was interested in determining the Internet usage habits and communication needs of city residents and examining opportunities for the City to address those needs. Scope of Work Task 1 Task 2 711 hIS V Godb®Aesearch & Analysis For this particular project, GRA is recommending two focus group sessions among Los Gatos stakeholders and a telephone survey. The focus groups will be conducted first — as a means of testing ideas and refining the research objectives for the telephone survey. Once the qualitative data from the stakeholder focus groups has been analyzed, GRA will begin to draft a quantitative survey instrument. The specifics of the research design are presented below. GRA is eager to meet with Town staff to finalize the work scope and discuss the research objectives of both the qualitative and quantitative components of this study. GRA is prepared to meet with staff as often as is necessary to ensure the study achieves these objectives. Once the research objectives have been established, GRA will work with Town staff to determine the composition of the community stakeholder focus groups. GRA recommends conducting two stakeholder focus groups of approximately 12 participants each. For example, one group could be made up of downtown merchants, while the second could be made up of neighborhood residents, for example. Once the Town has provided GRA with a list of potential stakeholder participants, GRA will contact the stakeholders and alert them to the time and place the groups will be conducted. To save the Town money, GRA recommends conducting the focus groups at Town Hall or another community facility. This would save approximately $1,000 on facility rental fees and make attending the focus groups much more convenient for Los Gatos stakeholders who may not want to drive to a focus group facility in San Jose. GRA will work with the Town of Los Gatos to develop a Focus Group Discussion Guide for each group. This guide will be developed to achieve the project goals and reflect the composition of the two focus groups. It will assist in determining which capital projects stakeholders feel are important, which services are most and least important to Los Gatans, and which services Los Gatans are most and least satisfied with. The firm's Senior Research Analyst will be moderating the two focus groups. The focus groups will be conducted on one weekday evening that is convenient for Town staff (one group will begin at 6:00 and the other will begin at 8:00 P.M.) The groups will last two hours each, which will provide ample time to discuss the issues which are of interest to Town staff concerning the Los Gatos General Plan. GRA believes it is critical that the moderator of the focus groups be intimately involved with the project from its first scoping session until the completion of the project. This complete commitment ensures a consistent and successful project which achieves research goals. GRA will also assign a Research Analyst or Research Coordinator to take notes during the two sessions. After completing the groups, GRA will review the focus group findings and prepare a detailed written report of findings. The Town of Los Gatos will also be provided with an executive summary, a description of each focus group discussion, a summary of results, and conclusions. In GRA's final report, the following components of the focus groups will be analyzed: • Respondent specific facial expressions and moods • Respondent specific key comments Los Gatos Community Needs Assessment Survey Proposal Godbe Research and Analysis Page 8 Task 3 GodbeAesearch & Analysis • Respondent specific initial impression and written response • Topic specific respondent input and timing ■ Topic specific general mood ■ Topic specific general discussion If the Town is interested in conducting additional focus groups to study the needs and opinions of non - stakeholder Los Gatos residents, GRA would be interested in conducting such groups. For these groups, GRA would use a professional focus group facility and recruiting agency to recruit participants (GRA recommends using San Jose Focus in San Jose or Nichols Research in Sunnyvale). GRA would develop a screener questionnaire to divide the participants into two focus groups. The first of the two focus groups, for example, could be made up of citizens who are satisfied with the job the Town is doing to provide Town services, while the second group could be made up of citizens who are dissatisfied with the job the Town is doing to provide Town services. Alternatively, one group could be made up of Los Gatos residents, while another could consist of Los Gatos business owners. In addition to the screener questions, participants would be asked demographic questions that would help GRA achieve a balance of gender, age, and income in each group. Participants would be given an incentive for their participation in the groups. GRA has provided cost estimates for these groups in the Project Budget section of this proposal. GRA's approach to the quantitative component of this research project will include rigorous attention to research methodology. The first step in this process is to determine the appropriate sample size to meet the Town's research objectives, reduce the sampling error to an acceptable level, and conform to the Town's budget. The quantitative component of the project will begin immediately following the completion of the focus groups. GRA recommends conducting 400 interviews with residents, 15 minutes in length, which would test support for various capital improvement projects, assess satisfaction with Town services, and determine which Town services are most important to Los Gatos residents. This technique, in which residents are asked about the importance of Town services and the level of satisfaction with these services, has been used recently by the research team at GRA for the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, and Lake Forest. For most city or town satisfaction projects, a sample of 400 to 600 respondents is generally acceptable for quantitative research. With the number of Los Gatos residents around 29,000, a sample size of 400 will allow for analysis of important subgroups and reduce the statistical margin of error to an acceptable level for most population groups. If there are special areas or demographic groups the Town wishes to analyze, oversampling may be necessary. For this type of survey, GRA recommends drawing a random digit dial sample of adult residents of Los Gatos. An RDD sample is drawn by determining the active phone exchanges within a given sampling area and then producing a random list of all active residential phone numbers in the area. The RDD sample is most appropriate when it is necessary to sample the attitudes of an entire city or town population, not just residents who are registered voters. If the Town is only interested in measuring the needs and opinions of registered voters, then a stratified sample of registered voters in Los Gatos may be an appropriate alternative sampling method for this project. The registered voter type of probability sample is drawn by computing the appropriate frequency for the total number of registered voters in the sampling area and using these frequencies to randomly select every "nth" voter. Once the initial data points are randomly selected, the computer fills each "cluster" based on its geographic proximity to each cluster's randomly selected voter. Los Gatos Community Needs Assessment Survey Proposal Godbe Research and Analysis Page 9 The costs associated with each sampling method are presented in the Project Budget section of this proposal. The next step in the research process is to design a survey instrument. Before drafting a survey instrument, GRA will meet with Town staff to thoroughly discuss the results of the stakeholder focus groups and the research objectives of the quantitative component of the survey. The information gained from this meeting, combined with our research experience, will be used to develop a telephone survey questionnaire to meet your needs. GRA is recommending a 15 minute survey instrument for the current project, but depending on the Town's needs and budget, the length of the survey can vary from a short poll of only a few minutes to a detailed study of 25 minutes or more. Currently, telephone interviewing is considered to be state-of-the-art in public opinion data collection. GRA uses a research phone bank located in Sacramento that has an outstanding reputation for speed and accuracy. All interviews are reviewed for completeness and ten percent of respondents are actually called back to verify that the interview was completed professionally. GRA will use this facility to conduct the 400 interviews with Los Gatos residents. To survey business owners in Los Gatos, GRA recommends sending a mail -back questionnaire to 2,000 of the 3,600 businesses in the Town (this will yield approximately 200 completed surveys if our anticipated response rate of 10 percent is realized). These businesses will be selected by a random sampling process similar to the RDD sample described above for telephone interviewing. The mail -back questionnaire will be substantively identical to that used to interview residents over the phone. Business owners will have the option of either mailing their responses to GRA or faxing them to GRA via a toll -free fax number. Once the interviewing is complete and a sufficient number of mail -back questionnaires have been returned, each response will be coded and keypunched. GRA will then produce detailed crosstabulations that generally include such variables as age, gender, parent/non-parent, ethnicity, income, home ownership, geographic breakdowns, and other banner points based on attitudinal data. Analysis of the data and presentation of the findings is the last component of any research project. Because a concise summary of the data and actionable recommendations are critical to a client's objectives, GRA takes great care in analyzing the data and preparing a written final report. In GRA's final report, the Town of Los Gatos can expect a question -by -question summary of the data and a complete set of crosstabulations. In addition, the Town will receive a detailed matrix which groups the responses to two different question sets into four quadrants. In one question set, respondents will be asked how important specific Town services are to them. In the second question set, respondents will be asked how satisfied they are with each service the Town of Los Gatos is providing. By plotting the responses to these questions on a graph, it will become clear where the Town needs to focus its time and financial resources. Services that rank high on the importance scale but low on the satisfaction scale will stand out as areas for improvement for the Town, while services that rank high on the satisfaction scale but low on the importance scale will stand out as areas which may not need a great deal of attention in Los Gatos's updated General Plan. Task 4 GRA will ensure that both the qualitative and quantitative components of the survey are based on sound social scientific principles. GRA has become a national leader in public opinion polling because each member of GRA's staff has a solid understanding of survey research methodology. GRA maintains a staff of seven trained researchers with expertise ranging from sampling to research design, data processing, data interpretation, and statistical analysis. GRA's staff includes two Ph.Ds, two researchers with training from the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, and four researchers with MA. degrees in social and behavioral 11 4,.- research. IS GodbeResearch & Analysis Los Gatos Community Needs Assessment Survey Proposal Godbe Research and Analysis Page 10 Task 5 Task 6 GRA will work with the Town of Los Gatos to ensure the focus groups and subsequent survey are structured to reveal Los Gatans shared values, vision, and purpose. Survey questions will be designed to gauge support for existing Town services and potential new services and capital improvement projects among Los Gatos residents. This will assist the General Plan Task Force II in developing an updated General Plan that reflects the community's vision for the future of Los Gatos and recognizes the different values residents place on various Town services. GRA will construct the survey instrument to assess community needs in Los Gatos, rather than simply measure opinions. The results will help Los Gatos produce its next General Plan by demonstrating which Town services residents feel are most important and which they are most satisfied with. Conversely, the results will indicate which services residents feel are least important and which residents are least satisfied with. The results will also test support for a number of projects that may or may not be included in the General Plan, depending upon the support they receive. This will provide Town decision -makers with information about the needs of Los Gatos residents. Project Schedule Godbeflesearch & Analysis Because of our experience in conducting public opinion polls for local governments, Godbe Research & Analysis can generally conduct an integrated focus group and survey research project in approximately 12 weeks — and in some situations preliminary data can be available much sooner as deadlines require. The table below shows one possible schedule for completing each of the key components of the Los Gatos needs assessment research project: Initial client meeting Preparation for Focus Groups, including Development of Discussion Guide Conduct Stakeholder Focus Groups Analyze Focus Groups Client meeting to discuss results of Focus Groups and Questionnaire Design Questionnaire Drafting and Pretesting Telephone Interviewing Business Survey Questionnaire Mail -Back Data Processing Analysis and Report Writing Presentation of Final Report (Analysis of focus groups and drafting of survey questionnaire often overlap) June 12 June 15 - 24 June 25 June 26 — July 8 July 9 July 10-17 July 18 — 20 July 20 — Aug 7 Aug 8—Aug 14 Aug 15 — Sept 4 Sept 8 Los Gatos Community Needs Assessment Survey Proposal Godbe Research and Analysis Page 11 Project Budget Godbe Research & Analysis takes great pride in delivering usable research projects on time and on budget. For this research project, GRA recommends the Town of Los Gatos conduct two stakeholder focus groups and a survey consisting of telephone and mail -back components. GRA has provided estimates for the stakeholder focus groups, optional focus groups (resident and business groups), and the quantitative component of the survey (estimates for both voter and random digit dial telephone surveys are included). Focus Groups Recruitment Fee Facility Rental Fee Participant Incentives Audio/Visual Equipment Rental Refreshments Research Fee Miscellaneous Expenses Total Telephone and Mail -Back Surveys Telephone Survey N=400, 15-Minute Random Sample Questionnaire Copying Telephone Interviewing Data Processing Research Fee Miscellaneous Expenses Total Mail -Back Business Survey N=200 Random Sample Printing (Questionnaire and Envelopes) Mailing Service Postage Data Processing Toll -Free Fax Number Research Fee Miscellaneous Expenses Total Stakeholder Focus Gmups (2) $425.00 $300.00 $3,000.00 $250.00 $4,975.00 Random Digit Dial Survey (RDD) $1,073.00 $275.00 $8,000.00 $1,165.00 $5,500.00 $250.00 $16,263.00 $660.00 $1,270.00 $1,190.00 $484.00 $800.00 $75.00 $3,500.00 $200.00 $8,179.00 optional Focus Group (1 Business Group & 1 Resident Group) $2,400.00 $1,000.00 $1,800.00 $425.00 $300.00 $5,000.00 $250.00 $11,175.00 Voter Survey $520.00 $275.00 $4,706.00 $1,165.00 $5,500.00 $250.00 $12,416.00 TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET (RDD) TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET (Voter) (including optional focus groups) GodbeResearth & Analysis $28;4+77430 $24, 4-1'7 -g86g 25, 57o -$39;59 ee (RDD) $35;7ii5.00 (Voter) # 36/7 45 Los Gatos Community Needs Assessment Survey Proposal Godbe Research and Analysis Page 12 List of Materials Required from the Town GRA will require the following information, materials, and facilities from the Town of Los Gatos to successfully complete this research project: 1) Names and telephone numbers of community stakeholders that may participate in focus groups 3) 2 rooms for stakeholder focus groups (1 room for participants; 1 for observers) GodbeAesearch & Analysis Los Gatos Community Needs Assessment Survey Proposal Godbe Research and Analysis Page 13 f mac, 11:05a p.2 Cocibefleseardi & Aaahrss Date: July 7,1998 To: Mayor Linda Lubeck Vice Mayor Jan Hutchins Council Member Randy Attaway Council Member Joanne Benjamin Council Member Steven Blanton From: David Kaefer, Godbe Research & Analysis Re: Community Survey JUL g 199C 7,1 .' .7 ?!,...,.. r7... ir,`; till Thank you for taking time during last night's Council meeting to leam more about the services offered by Godbe Research & Analysis. After hearing the Council's comments, I have been able to provide an additional document which will assist you in making a decision on which survey research firm to employ for your community survey. Godbe Research & Analysis has completed dozens of projects for cities in California. Some projects deal with one or two specific issues (such as a development related issue) while others deal with a large number of issues (indicative of a satisfaction or program planning survey). Based on Council's comments of last night, my understanding is that you wish to test current public opinion towards a limited number of general plan related projects, at least one of which deals with high density housing. Vice Mayor Hutchins asked specifically whether GRA would be able to test current public perceptions towards an issue, as well as `informed' decisions after a survey respondent has learned more about a particular project. This technique is commonly used by GRA and is appropriate for the type of research we discussed last night. The Council also indicated that soliciting community buy -in to the survey process is critical if the survey is to have commonly held value throughout the various stakeholders who are likely to voice opinions on the issues tested in the survey. GRA frequently works with clients to develop this type of buy -in before a quantitative survey effort is undertaken. Part of the buy -in process in Los Gatos will be aided by the stakeholder focus groups included in the City's RFP and GRA's proposal. The focus groups are a place where citizens can have direct input into the substance, context and eventual wording of survey questions. If buy -in is a major priority for the City, GRA also offers one-on-one stakeholder interview sessions which allow key members of the community a chance to leam about the project and offer their own insight into how survey questions should be asked. At Council's request, I have included a work product which is similar in nature to specific policy examples mentioned by Mayor Lubeck and Vice Mayor Hutchins (development related changes to the General Plan). I hope this work product accurately anticipates the types of questions you will be interested in incorporating into the eventual survey questionnaire. Work Product 1 — General Plan Amendment Survey GRA completed this survey for a developer interested in changing a city's general plan to allow for low density residential housing on a particular parcel. The survey begins with a few warrn up questions before asking the first ballot test (question 5) which indicates current support for the general plan amendment if the election were held today and voters only read a short description of the requested amendment. Question set 6 describes a number of features of the plan. Features are irrefutable aspects of a policy, the cold hard facts. The purpose of question set 6 is 225 Sit' l2htli10 N,rhlCdy Hall tdnun Pay C i -IOla I138 nl; W 4i)7'?.31?7 fay 415 71-31^M 6 is 1 1 : 05a p.3 to bent informing the survey respondent about what the proposed general plan amendment would accomplish. Question set 7 offers a number of arguments (pro and con) related to the general plan amendment. Because most development issues have positive and negative impacts on a community, it is critical to inform survey respondents about each side of the issues so they can make a truly informed decision. Question 10 is called a second ballot test. The question is identical in wording to the first test and reveals the difference in support for the general plan amendment after voters have teamed more about the issue when compared to voter's initial levels of support for the amendment. This survey did not ask questions related to how respondents currently define particular types of development. For example, it did not ask how a respondent defines 'high density housing' or 'low density housing'. These types of perceptual questions were not appropriate for this particular client's research objectives. Godbe Research & Analysis is committed to producing superior research to cities throughout California Superior research begins with soliciting input from stakeholders. After stakeholder input into the process, GRA will work in an iterative fashion with project staff to insure that the final questionnaire produced for the quantitative survey is objective and comprehensive. GRA's efforts will always be focused around producing actionable recommendations from data culled from the survey. The Cities of Mountain View, Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and Saratoga have each used GRA's research services. In the past, these cities have strongly recommended GRA to potential clients in a wide range of areas. We look forward to working with the Town of Los Gatos on this project and appreciate your interest in GRA. Godbeiie4aer:r ";;0 ;v i_ 11:05a p.4 41111111.11 PUBLIC OPINION POLL Hello, I'm from We're conducting a survey about issues of importance inmost and I'd like to as you a few questions. 1. How many years have you lived in MEW (SPECIFY NUMBER OF YEARS) (DON'T READ) Refused 99 2. Overall, what would you say is the number one problem facingtoday--the one you, yourself, are most concerned about? (ONE RESPONSE ONLY) 3. Now, 1 am going to read a list of issues facing today and for each one please tell me how important you feel the issue is to you personally. Here's the first one (READ CHECKED ITEM FIRST AND ASK:) Do you feel this issue is very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important. (REPEAT IN SEQUENCE UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE READ) Not Not At (DON'T Very Sw. Too All READ) Imp. ( A. Reducing residential growth 27% 35�% 211% Imp. DK/NA ( )B. Providing affordable housing 28% 39% 20% 11 % 2% ( )C. Reducing traffic 19% 40% 26% 12% 3% ( )D. Reducing taxes 29% 29% 31% 9% 2% ( )E. Improving the quality of public education 81% 10% 5% 2% 2% ( )F. Reducing crime 65% 21% 12% 2% 0% ( )G. Preserving open space 56% 29% 10% 3% 2% ( )H. Promoting commercial growth----42% 29% 16% 1 1 % 2% ( )I. Re -opening 64% 23% 5% 7% 1 % ( )J. Improving parks and recreation services 41% 45% 8% 5% 1 Ilvoirommum Page 40 .i.05a p.5 M.P. Voters 4. Overall, would you say that the quality of life inantris getting better, staying about the same or is not as desirable as it used to be? • Getting Better Staying About the Same Not as Desirable (DONT READ) DK/NA 4A. Why is that? 13% 57% 27% 3 0/0 5. In July, voters in twill be asked to vote on a local ballot measure. Let me read you a summary of the measure. Shall City Council Resolution No. 13-95, which will amend thee...General Plan designation from "Commercial and Very Low density Residential" to "Low Density Residential" and amend the General Plan land use element narrative for property located at 0111111111111111111111.111111111111111.mfts be approved to allow a housing project on lowers . (GET ANSWER, THEN ASK): Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? Definitely yes 12% Probably yes 20% Probably no 24% Definitely no 27% (DON'T READ) DK/NA 17% , i : 06a p.6 M.P. Voters ( 6. In the next several months, voters like yourself will learn many things about the proposed ballot measure we have been discussing. As I read the following information about the pro osed ballot measure please tell me if you would be more or less likely to vote for the measure given the information. If you hec.rd that (READ CHECKED ITEM FIRST) would you be more or less likely to vote for the ballot measure? (GET ANSWER THEN ASK:) Is that much (more/less) likely or somewhat (more/less) likely? (REPEAT IN SEQUENCE UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE READ) (DON'T) MM SM No SL ML (READ) Likely Likely 0gcl Likely Likely DK/NA ( )A. The builder will dedicate 30 acres as permanent open space if the housing project is approved- 20%--37% 9%---10%---16% 8% ( )B. The builder will construct a public trail linking 11111111111) neighborhood with the Bay Area Ridge Trail System if the housing project is approved 17%--36%---13%---14%---18% 2% ( )C. The housing project is limited to the previously -quarried terrace area --10%--22%---19%---16%---19%--- 14% ( )D. The housing project will provide an estimated $1 million dollars of fee revenue to the 20%--38%---11 %---13%---13% 5% ( )E. The builder will construct 63 single family homes on 13 acres of land-12%--30%---20%---13%---19% 6% ( )F. The housing project will provide an estimated $189,000 in tees for local school districts 21 %--39%---12%- 11 %---15% 2% ( )G. The housing project reduces commercial zoning to 1.3 acres along 1 1 %--19%---26%---15%--- 20% 9% ( )H. The housing project will provide $136,000 in fees to the 111111111111.1111.~-11 %--37%---20%---11 %---17% 4% ( )I. The housing project will include a parking area for access to the public trail 19%--35%---17%---13%---15% 1% age P.7 M.P. Voters 7. Now I'm going to read some arguments that have been raised for and against the proposed measure. As 1 read each one please tell me if you would be more or less likely to vote for the measure given the argument. If you heard that (READ CHECKED ITEM FIRST) would you be more or less likely to vote for the measure? (GET ANSWER THEN ASK:) Is that much (more/less) likely or somewhat (more/less) likely? (REPEAT IN SEQUENCE UNTIL ALL ITEMS ARE READ) ( )A. The builder will donate over 30 acres of land to the Golden Gate National Recreation area ( )B. The project will create more peak hour traffic at the intersection ( )C. The -Planning Commission approved the project 5 to 1 10% ( )D. The project will build a children's play area for neighborhood families 21 % ( )E. The area was previously zoned for only 22 homes 11% ( )F. The project will create a public trail with easy access to open space 18% ( )G. The project will create jobs forte-27% ( )H. The project will put more of a burden on police and fire services 13% ( )1. The project will protect the natural habitat of the endangered Mission Blue butterfly -- 15% ( )J. The project will include 10 substandard lots, smaller than the typical 5,000 square foot lot 7% ( )K. The builder will donate 68 percent of the land to the Golden Gate National Recreation area as ermanent open space 23% ( )L. The City Council approved the project 4 to 0 20% ----21 % --25% --18% --13% ----3% The project will be an eyesore 6% 7%---29% --18% --39% ----1 % Much Sw. Sw. Much (DON'T More More No Less Less READ) Likely Likely Effect Likely Likely DK/NA 25%--41%---17%-5%----10%----2% ()M. 8%---- 9%----19%--30%--33%----1 % - --29% --31 % --17% --13% ----0% ----47% --18% - 4%----10% ----0% ----13% --24% --26% --24% ----2% ----44% --18% - 5%----14% ----1 ----40% --13% - 9 %----10% ----1 ----12% --16% --32% --25% ----2% ----27% ---28% --1 1 % -17% ----2% 10%---24%---24%--30% ----5% 36% --17% ---8% ---13% ----3% age J3 _ ' ou 11:06a p. 8 M.P. Voters ()N. The project significantly reduces the amount of land zoned for commercial use and the traffic the commercial development would have created 1 0% 18%----33%--19%--15%----5% ( O. More than 5001.11111 residents si ned a petition in support of the housing project -------- ---------- --------------17% 23%----32% --1 4% --1 2% ----2% ( )P. To make the project economically feasible it requires a variance to build on more than four acres 8% -- 16% ----31 % --24% --14% ----7% ( )Q. The average lot size is 7,300 square feet or 46 percent larger than the standard 5,000 square foot lot 12% - 29%----27% --15% --13% ----4% ( )R. The ro'ect will provide more revenue to the than it will cost to provide municipal services • 23% - 42% ----1 4%---9%---1 1 % ----1 % ( )S. More than 2,500 -residents signed a petition forcing the city council to put this measure on the ballot 14% - 28%----30%---9%---14% ----5% ( )T. The project will not disturb the visible ridge line 19% - 46%----17% ---6% ---10% ----2% ( )U. Without the project, the only public access to will remain off of upper Road 16% - 29%----27% --12% --13% ----3% ( )V. The 63 new families who will live ir14111111P twill provide needed revenue for Pacifica's retail businesses 24% - 35%---- 18%---9%---13% ----1 % ( )W. The project requires a variance, because it exceeds limits imposed in the Hillside Preservation District 1 5 % - 16%----25%-•28%--14%----2% 8. There has been some discussion about the cost of this special election. As I read each item please tell me if you would be more or less likely to vote for the ling MINIM measure given the statement. If you heard that would you be more or less likely to vote for the measure? (GET ANSWER THEN ASK:) Is that much (more/less) likely or somewhat (more/less) likely? Much Sw. Sw. Much (DON'T More More No Less Less READ) Likely Likely Effect Likely Likely DK/N A. The City Council approved the project but the referendum forced the council to put the measure on the ballot, which will cost `taxpayers over $30,000 10% - 22%----17% --30% --20% ----1 % Page 44 • •tf • • • • : S9PM FROM GODBE d15 712 3131 P_ 1 M.P. Voters 10. Now that you know more about the resolution for the ballot, let me read you the !summary again. Shall City Council Resolution No. 13-95, which will amend the giallikGeneral Plan designation from "Commercial and Very Low density Residential" to "Low ; Density Residential" and amend the General Plan land use element narrative I for property located a be approved to allow a housing project on lower (GET ANSWER, THEN ASK): Would that be definitely (yes/no) or probably (yes/no)? Definitely yes --- 16% Probably yes---- --- ------------------ 27% Probably no-•--------------------------------- 20% Definitely no---•----- -- -- 25% (DONT READ) DK/NA 12% Now for some background questions for comparison purposes. A. Generally speaking, how would you describe yourself politically: as very conservative, somewhat conservative, middle of the road, somewhat liberal or very liberal? Very conservative --------- 10% Somewhat conservative17% Middle of the road ------------- ------ 38% Somewhat liberal 28% Very liberal 5% (DONT READ) Refused 2% B. In what year were you born? 1971 and after----__ -------- --------- 3% 1966 to 1970 6% 1961 to 1965 9% 1956 to 1960 15% 1951 to 1955 15% 1946 to 1950 15% 1941 to 1945----------- ---------- ------- ---- 5% 1936 to 1940----12% 1931 to 1935----------------------------------- 4% 1930 and before ------- _____-- 13% (DON'T READ) Refused 3% C. Do you own or rent your home? Own Rent 85% 11%