Website home about our city
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

 

Percent of 785 Respondents

Very Bad

Bad

Average

Good

Very Good

No Opinion

Recycling program

1.8%

8.3%

22.7%

38.9%

18.3%

10.0%

Air quality program

1.1%

2.9%

26.9%

42.5%

9.8%

16.9%

Natural areas and open space

0.4%

1.3%

14.9%

49.6%

30.2%

3.6%

Recreation trails

0.0%

0.3%

10.3%

47.5%

37.7%

4.3%

Parks

0.2%

0.4%

8.4%

49.9%

39.2%

1.9%

Golf courses

0.2%

1.3%

8.5%

34.6%

20.1%

35.3%

Athletic fields

0.0%

0.8%

11.8%

47.2%

21.9%

18.3%

Recreation centers

0.0%

2.2%

17.5%

44.7%

16.2%

19.4%

Youth/teen recreation programs and services

0.3%

2.9%

15.9%

26.8%

8.9%

45.1%

Adult recreation programs and services

0.2%

1.3%

19.8%

35.4%

11.2%

32.1%

Senior recreation programs and services

0.1%

0.4%

11.9%

26.3%

13.7%

47.6%

Lincoln Center programs

0.1%

0.9%

15.6%

42.1%

23.1%

18.1%

Public library services

0.5%

1.0%

15.7%

46.2%

23.6%

13.0%

Fort Collins Museum

0.5%

1.7%

19.2%

32.3%

10.7%

35.6%

Neighborhood services

1.6%

1.4%

28.8%

27.6%

5.5%

35.1%

TransFort

3.1%

7.3%

22.0%

31.3%

8.3%

28.0%

Dial-A-Ride

0.3%

0.7%

13.9%

23.1%

5.1%

56.8%

Pedestrian facilities

0.7%

2.6%

26.5%

36.8%

10.4%

23.0%

Bike lanes

1.0%

3.2%

20.7%

47.7%

20.1%

7.4%

Cemeteries

0.1%

0.6%

14.8%

27.9%

10.9%

45.8%

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

 

Number of Respondents
Expressing an Opinion

Average Rating Score
87.6 to 100 = Very Good
62.6 to 87.5 = Good
37.6 to 62.5 = Average
12.6 to 37.5 = Bad
0 to 12.5 = Very Bad

95 Percent
Confidence Interval

Parks

772

83

+/-2.6

Recreation trails

753

82

+/-2.7

Natural areas and open space

758

78

+/-2.9

Golf courses

509

78

+/-3.6

Athletic fields

643

78

+/-3.2

Lincoln Center programs

644

77

+/-3.3

Public library services

684

76

+/-3.2

Senior recreation programs and services

412

75

+/-4.2

Recreation centers

634

73

+/-3.5

Cemeteries

426

73

+/-4.2

Bike lanes

728

72

+/-3.3

Adult recreation programs and services

534

71

+/-3.8

Fort Collins Museum

506

70

+/-4.0

Youth/teen recreation programs and services

431

69

+/-4.4

Dial-A-Ride

340

69

+/-4.9

Recycling program

707

68

+/-3.4

Air quality program

654

67

+/-3.6

Pedestrian facilities

606

67

+/-3.7

Neighborhood services

510

63

+/-4.2

TransFort

566

62

+/-4.0

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

City Programs

Performance ratings for facilities also remain statistically unchanged from their 2001 levels.

Figure 5: City Facilities

Figure 5

Importance of City Programs and Facilities
In addition to rating the quality of programs and facilities, the questionnaire asked respondents to rate the importance of programs and facilities in providing a high quality of life for Fort Collins residents. The objective was to identify programs and facilities where maintaining or improving quality is critical. Table 11 lists the programs and facilities and the distribution of responses on a scale ranging from "extremely low importance" to "extremely high importance."

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

 

Percent of 785 Respondents

Level of Importance

Extremely Low

Low

Medium

High

Extremely High

No Opinion

Recycling program

1.0%

3.6%

24.0%

38.5%

29.7%

3.2%

Air quality program

0.4%

1.2%

13.6%

38.5%

43.5%

2.8%

Natural areas and open space

0.7%

3.5%

13.5%

37.1%

42.6%

2.6%

Recreation trails

0.6%

3.6%

17.0%

41.0%

34.8%

3.1%

Parks

0.2%

1.1%

13.1%

46.5%

36.5%

2.6%

Golf courses

10.1%

18.2%

31.9%

16.5%

9.8%

13.5%

Athletic fields

0.7%

6.8%

32.6%

38.7%

13.0%

8.2%

Recreation centers

0.2%

3.5%

26.6%

46.1%

16.7%

6.8%

Youth/teen recreation programs and services

0.7%

1.9%

17.1%

40.9%

30.3%

9.0%

Adult recreation programs and services

0.4%

7.3%

32.0%

39.0%

14.3%

7.0%

Senior recreation programs and services

0.3%

3.4%

24.5%

41.4%

19.2%

11.2%

Lincoln Center programs

0.5%

7.1%

29.8%

37.4%

16.7%

8.4%

Public library services

0.7%

2.4%

16.7%

41.7%

34.9%

3.7%

Fort Collins Museum

2.9%

14.7%

36.4%

27.0%

9.6%

9.4%

Neighborhood services

1.1%

6.3%

28.4%

36.5%

12.4%

15.4%

TransFort

1.6%

6.2%

19.6%

38.9%

25.0%

8.8%

Dial-A-Ride

1.0%

6.0%

20.7%

35.8%

18.3%

18.2%

Pedestrian facilities

0.4%

3.9%

23.9%

38.3%

22.2%

11.3%

Bike lanes

0.6%

3.7%

16.3%

40.6%

35.1%

3.8%

Cemeteries

3.3%

11.8%

34.4%

25.6%

8.9%

16.0%

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

 

Ranking Group

Number of Respondents
Expressing an Opinion

Average Importance Score
87.6 to 100 = Extremely High
62.6 to 87.5 = High
37.6 to 62.5 = Medium
12.6 to 37.5 = Low
0 to 12.5 = Extremely Low

95 Percent
Confidence Interval

Air quality program

Highest

764

82

+/-2.7

Parks

Highest

766

80

+/-2.8

Natural areas and open space

Highest

766

80

+/-2.8

Public library services

Highest

758

78

+/-2.9

Bike lanes

Highest

757

78

+/-3.0

Recreation trails

High

762

77

+/-3.0

Youth/teen recreation
programs and services

High

716

77

+/-3.1

Recycling program

High

761

74

+/-3.1

Pedestrian facilities

Middle

698

72

+/-3.3

TransFort

Middle

717

72

+/-3.3

Senior recreation
programs and services

Middle

698

71

+/-3.4

Recreation centers

Middle

732

70

+/-3.3

Dial-A-Ride

Middle

643

70

+/-3.5

Lincoln Center programs

Low

720

67

+/-3.4

Adult recreation
programs and services

Low

731

66

+/-3.4

Neighborhood services

Low

665

66

+/-3.6

Athletic fields

Low

722

65

+/-3.5

Cemeteries

Lowest

661

57

+/-3.8

Fort Collins Museum

Lowest

712

57

+/-3.6

Golf courses

Lowest

680

49

+/-3.8

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.

  • Air quality program
  • TransFort
  • Youth/teen recreation programs and services
  • Recycling program

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 6

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

Figure 7