|2003 Citizen Survey|
City Programs & Facilities
This section asked respondents to rate the quality of specific programs and facilities. Table 9 lists the programs and facilities and the distribution of responses on a scale ranging from "very bad" to "very good."
Table 9: City Programs and Facilities and Distribution of Performance Rating Responses
Table 10 lists the programs and facilities from highest to lowest average rating on a 100-point scale, along with the 95 percent confidence interval for each. Nearly all of them are within the range of a "good" rating.
Respondents commented on any items that they rated "bad" or very bad." Most comments regarding TransFort mentioned limited routes and schedules.
Table 10: City Programs and Facilities and Average Performance Ratings
Due to the number of programs and facilities that the survey asked respondents to rate, year to year comparisons are presented in two separate graphs. Figure 4 compares program ratings, and Figure 5 compares facility ratings.
Performance ratings for all of the programs in Figure 4 remain statistically unchanged from their 2001 levels.
Figure 4: City Programs
Performance ratings for facilities also remain statistically unchanged from their 2001 levels.
Figure 5: City Facilities
Importance of City Programs and Facilities
This scale is somewhat different from the one used in the 2001 survey, which asked respondents to rate the importance of programs and facilities on a commonly used, five-point scale that ranged from "very unimportant" to "very important." The change permits finer distinctions in analyzing the differences in importance, and in comparing importance to performance or quality. However, due to the scale changes, direct numeric comparisons between the 2003 and 2001 importance ratings would not be appropriate.
Table 11: City Programs and Facilities and Distribution of Importance Rating Responses
To simplify comparison between the various programs and facilities, respondent importance ratings were averaged and converted to a 100-point scale. Respondents who selected the "no opinion" option for any given program or facility were not included in its average rating. Table 12 lists the programs and facilities from highest to lowest average importance rating. All programs and facilities, except the three at the bottom of the table, have an average rating in the range of "high importance." These results are similar to the 2001 survey.
Despite the fact that nearly all programs and facilities are considered to be of "high importance", they are not all equally important. Table 12 also divides them into ranking groups. Programs and facilities within each ranking group are statistically equal to each other in importance, but statistically higher in importance than programs and facilities in the ranking group below them. For example, programs and facilities in the "highest" ranking group are statistically equal to each other, but they are perceived as more important in providing a high quality of life for Fort Collins residents than programs and facilities in the groups below them.
It is generally considered important to maintain or improve the quality of programs and facilities that are in the ranking groups labeled "highest" and "high."
Table 12: City Programs and Facilities and Average Importance Ratings
Figure 6 compares the average importance rating of each program to its average performance or quality rating. The purpose of this comparison is to visualize and identify gaps between importance and performance. A performance gap is where the importance rating for a particular program is significantly higher than its performance or quality rating. Figure 6 shows the programs from highest to lowest performance gap. Among the programs, statistically significant performance gaps exist for the first four shown.
The air quality program, youth/teen recreation programs and services, and the recycling program are in the "highest" or "high" importance ranking groups. This analysis suggests that these programs should receive relatively high management priority for maintaining or improving program performance or quality.
Figure 6: City Programs Importance Compared to Performance
Figure 7 compares the average importance rating of each facility to its average performance or quality rating, showing the facilities from highest to lowest performance gap. A statistically significant performance gap exists only for bike lanes. This item is also in the "highest" importance ranking group, suggesting that it should receive relatively high priority for maintaining or improving quality.
Figure 7: City Facilities Importance Compared to Performance