Most Common Citizen Response

Transcription

1

2

3

4

5 nalysis: Question 14 Village Expenditures and Program/Service Investment Priorities The attached chart provides insights into the most common resident responses to question 14 regarding Village expenditures and program/service investment priorities. The question asked residents to choose from the following four options as their preferred solution to address financial shortfalls for a variety of Village services: Maintain service level by increasing taxes Maintain service level by adding or increasing user fee Reduce budget and change the service Eliminate the service altogether The two most common responses provided were to reduce the budget and change the service and to maintain service level by adding or increasing user fees. Of the four options highlighted above, only maintain service level by increasing taxes was not chosen as the top response for any of the 11 service options presented. In times of financial difficulty the Village has to make decisions about how to balance the budget. This will generally be done by either increasing revenue coming in or by decreasing the level of services provided. For each of the following services, please tell us how you would prefer the Village address financial shortfalls. Village Service Second weekly refuse pickup Yard waste pickup Leaf collection Sidewalk snow plowing Most Common Citizen Response Reduce budget and change service Reduce budget and change service Maintain service level by adding or increasing user fees Maintain service level by adding or increasing user fees Second Most Common Citizen Response Maintain service level by adding or increasing user fees Maintain service level by adding or increasing user fees Reduce budget and change service Maintain service level by increasing taxes Street sweeping Reduce budget and change service Maintain service level by adding or increasing user fees dding street lights to Crawford venue Reduce budget and change service Eliminate the service altogether Subsidized senior transportation (STR) asic health screenings at Village Hall nimal control services Financial support from Village to nonprofits (sculpture park, parade, fireworks, etc.) Maintain service level by adding or increasing user fees Maintain service level by adding or increasing user fees Maintain service level by adding or increasing user fees Reduce budget and change service Maintain service level by increasing taxes Reduce budget and change service Reduce budget and change service Maintain service level by adding or increasing user fees Mailing of hard copy of Village newsletter (NewSkokie) Eliminate the service altogether Reduce budget and change service Document Number:

6 Guide to Understanding and Using Your Reports Valmont Road Suite North Capitol Street NE, Suite 500 oulder, Colorado Washington, DC n-r-c.com icma.org

7 Contents User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Purpose of the User Guide... 1 What Does The NCS Measure?... 2 Using Your Reports... 4 Report Documents... 4 Report Dissemination... 5 Community Livability Report... 7 Dashboard Summary of Findings... 9 Technical ppendices Trends over Time Report Demographic and Geographic Subgroup Comparison Reports Open-ended Question Responses Understanding Survey Research Survey Sampling Margin of Error and Confidence Intervals Non-response ias Don t know Responses Response Scale The National Citizen Survey National Research Center, Inc. The NCS is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICM.

8 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Purpose of the User Guide s a participant in The National Citizen Survey (The NCS ), you are among an elite group of communities that conduct resident surveys. Communities often use the results of The NCS to: Envision Make strategic plans and set goals Engage Partner with residents, other governments, private sector and community-based organizations Earmark lter budgets, personnel or services Educate Communicate and reach out to residents to inform, educate and advocate Enact Create, alter and remove policies to promote community strengths Evaluate Track strengths and problems, dig more deeply and evaluate progress The purpose of this User Guide is to provide you with an overview of the various products you have received related to your survey results, and to describe how to dive in and understand the data that are provided in these products. Your community, including the elected officials and government staff, should dig into data relevant to their missions, discuss the findings and create action plans. Residents expect their leaders to act on the survey results they receive. y acting on survey results, community leaders build credibility with residents. This credibility leads to heightened public trust which, in turn, makes it more likely that residents will support expenditures and resource allocations recommended by their councils, commissions or staff. Proper expenditure of resources leads to better communities. The NCS ackground National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) developed The NCS as a low-cost, comprehensive, statistically valid survey solution for local governments eager to find out what their residents think about their communities. The NCS is not just a survey; it is a service that encompasses the entire survey research process - scheduling, questionnaire development, sample selection, data collection, analysis and reporting. In partnership with the International City/County Management ssociation (ICM), The NCS has been administered hundreds of times in numerous U.S. cities, counties, towns, villages and boroughs. The NCS assesses aspects of community life, local government service quality and resident participation in community activities. The results, based on resident perceptions, describe the areas where community members themselves believe things are going well and shed light on the areas that could benefit from improvement. 1

9 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey What Does The NCS Measure? roadly, The NCS measures your community s livability. great many definitions have been made for community livability, 1 including one from the Partners for Livable Communities, calling it the sum of the factors that add up to a community s quality of life. 2 Staff at NRC examined the extensive research that has been done about community livability and many of the models that have been developed to describe the components of livable communities. 3 Eight facets of community livability were distilled from our synthesis of this research: Safety, Mobility, the Natural Environment, the uilt Environment, the Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement. The NCS questionnaire includes individual items that act as indicators of community quality within each of the eight facets and, split in a different way, they form three pillars of community quality: Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. The Eight Facets of Livable Communities Safety Mobility Natural Environment uilt Environment Protection from danger or risk (e.g., public safety, personal security and welfare, emergency preparedness) ccessibility of a community by motorized and nonmotorized modes of transportation (e.g., ease of travel, traffic flow, walking) Resources and features native to a community (e.g., open spaces, water, air) Design, construction and management of the human-made space in which people live, work, and recreate on a day-to-day basis, including the buildings, streetscapes, parks, etc. Economy Recreation and Wellness Education and Enrichment Community Engagement Maintenance of a diverse economy (e.g., vibrant downtown, cost of living) Recreation, healthy lifestyles, preventive and curative healthcare, supportive services, (e.g., fitness opportunities, recreation centers) Learning, enrichment and workforce readiness for children, youth and adults Quality and frequency of social interactions (e.g., civic groups, volunteering) The Three Pillars of Livable Communities Community Characteristics Governance Participation Inherent and acquired amenities, the design and opportunities that contribute to the livability of a community Services provided by local government; government function and levels of trust residents have in government leaders Connection to neighbors, resident activities; use of community amenities and services; social capital 1 Many examples are shown at 2 Source: Partners for Livable Communities, 3 See, for example: Grand_lliance_doc_for_EC.pdf; publications/global_age_friendly_cities_guide_english.pdf 2

10 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Other sectors that influence community quality include the businesses, non-profit agencies, fraternal or service organizations (e.g., Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions and more) and other community groups (such as homeowners or neighborhood associations, etc.) as well as other nearby local governments or other levels of government. They are important target audiences for receiving and acting on The NCS results. ecause much of what The NCS measures is quality quality of community life, services and connection it is common for community leaders to conclude that their locale must excel in every facet of livability. While leaders may feel compelled to strive to be equally strong in all areas of community life, such a strategy is rarely feasible or even desirable. Different communities have different strengths and identities. These strengths and definitions of the community should be noted by all those reviewing the results. Less desirable ratings for some indicators should not automatically be seen as negative for a community, but instead a reflection of the community s resources and priorities which wisely may be spent on areas that matter more. Not all indicators that show less achievement are a call to action, just as not all indicators that are strong should become a gateway to complacency. Those viewing The NCS results, and in particular those charged with creating plans based on the results, should consider their community s essence and priorities, and should choose to make improvements or maintain excellence in areas that support the identity they desire. Meeting your definition of success in the areas deemed most important is the ultimate goal and one that The NCS helps measure even if all levels of success are not equal. 3

11 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Using Your Reports Report Documents Instead of a single, heavy document that can be difficult to navigate and share, The NCS results are reported in multiple formats and lengths, each with varying levels of detail to ensure your different stakeholder groups get the right information to meet their needs. The asic Service of The NCS includes each of the following documents: Community Livability Report Dashboard Summary of Findings Technical ppendices Trends over Time (if you have administered The NCS before) Depending on the additional services you chose as part of your research project, you may also receive additional reports, such as: Demographic Subgroup Comparisons Geographic Subgroup Comparisons Report of Open-ended Questions Presentation slideshow (shown at in-person presentation of results and provided to you for your own uses) This User Guide describes these reports, how to interpret the data and how to dig deeper to ensure everyone you, government staff leadership, line staff, elected officials, residents, business owners and community organizations get the most out of The NCS results. Report Types When assembled together, these reports build on and reinforce each other, while separately, they provide the flexibility for targeted reporting to specific audiences. Community Livability Report This report is the most universal and summarizes all the results and key findings. The Community Livability Report is brief, attractive and accessible, making it a central public document. Dashboard Summary of Findings This report offers a simplified ( rolled up ) quantitative view of the data, as well as comparison details for each question (the relationship to the benchmark and over time, if this is not the first iteration of the survey). Technical ppendices The appendices include the details about survey methods, individual response options selected for each question with and without the don t know option and detailed benchmark results. This document speaks to the credibility of data and the most granular detail of results. Trends over Time This report reveals how resident perspectives and behaviors have changed across two or more administrations of The NCS. The report offers a high level view of how rankings have changed as well as relative position to the benchmark including all administrations of The NCS. 4

12 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Guide to Understanding and Using Your Reports The Guide to Understanding and Using Your Reports (this document) is written simply so that the survey sponsors receive guidance about how to understand all aspects of the reports, and also so that sponsors can explain to others how the reports are organized and what they mean. Presentation n in-person presentation by NRC s independent researchers will offer an engaging overview of the findings revealing important patterns without getting lost in the detail at a Council meeting (either formal or work session). The PowerPoint slideshow can be reused for other audiences, including civic clubs, business and non-profit organizations and the press. Presentation by the unbiased survey research team offers the neutrality that is hard to garner when staff themselves present survey findings. Subgroup Comparisons oth demographic and geographic comparison options are available. Such information can be especially useful as programs are considered for different parts of a community or outreach is planned to educate different community groups. Open-ended Questions Residents own words add flavor to the survey results and a quantitative grouping of similarly themed comments gives a sense of common ideas. Report Dissemination Distributing the results and communicating the key findings engages audiences. udiences and Stakeholders Residents Make the reports available to the public via your website. Share the results at a public meeting, being sure to advertise the event. full presentation of the results (either by NRC or your own staff) with discussion of results among elected officials highlights the transparency of findings. If independence of the findings is particularly important in your community, working with NRC to make the presentation of results will be particularly effective. Department Managers and Line Staff Managers and staff will examine ratings most closely aligned to their work. Make a plan to disseminate results to line staff (e.g., through a series of small group meetings). Staff should be encouraged to identify specific areas where action is suggested including further research as well as service enhancements or partnerships outside of the organization. These suggestions could be sent to the department heads who will meet to discuss action options with the chief administrative officer. Elected officials Elected officials benefit most from advance distribution of survey reports prior to public presentation and discussion. sk elected officials to read the survey documents and funnel questions to staff who then can get assistance with answers from NRC professionals, when needed. Staff should develop an approach to action that can be presented to council. This way staff will be prepared when the inevitable council question is asked of the manager, What do you plan to do with these results so that they don t just sit on a shelf? Non-profits and usinesses While local governments sponsor The NCS, it is not just for staff and elected officials. It is a document to engage the entire community. Many of the findings of the survey will be relevant to the non-profit and business sectors and many community improvements will rest on the shoulders of these sectors as much as on government. Convene a meeting of business and non-profit leaders to release results and begin a discussion of actions to improve resident attitudes and behaviors. This could be a town hall-style meeting or a special invitation lunch with elected officials. 5

13 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Press/Media Getting in front of your results means controlling how and when results are shared with the press. Whether your relationship with the local news media is cooperative or contentious, you should declare your intentions for the results even before the survey is conducted then reinforce those intentions once you have the results. Let the press know that there are no bad results and that your community conducts The NCS because it intends to learn and improve like the best businesses. Certainly social media outlets also permit you to express your intentions for results and to interpret the findings for any of your followers. (nd do not forget to link subsequent decisions to what you learned from the survey.) Choosing a Report udience You can follow or adapt to your needs NRC s recommendations for sharing The NCS reports with different stakeholder groups in your community. There is no reason to withhold any report from any individual or stakeholder group, but if targeting the right information to the right audience is seen to be of value, we believe that these distinctions among audiences will make the first pass at distributing results most effective. Sharing The NCS Reports with Different Sectors Report Residents Elected officials Department managers and line staff Non-profits and businesses Community Livability Report Dashboard Summary of Findings Technical ppendices Trends over Time Presentation of key findings Subgroup comparisons (demographic and/or geographic) Open-ended Question Responses Guide to Understanding and Using Your Reports =Recommended =Optional These stakeholder groups may wish to drill down into the results most meaningful or pertinent to their missions. Those wishing to drill down should review the questionnaire first and decide which survey items are relevant to their mission choosing from not only specific municipality-provided services, but also those community outcomes that they wish to impact. The Dashboard Summary of Findings and Community Livability Report provide an overview, while the Technical ppendices provide the detailed survey responses and benchmark results. The Trends over Time can show how stakeholders efforts have impacted the community over the years. Demographic and Geographic Subgroup Comparisons reports can help to point out on whom and where impacts have been felt to lesser and greater degrees. Press/ Media 6

14 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Community Livability Report Using the model of the eight facets of community livability within the three pillars of community, The NCS Community Livability report is divided into seven sections: bout Quality of Life Community Characteristics Governance Participation Special Topics Conclusions bout This section provides background on The NCS and community livability with brief descriptions of the survey methods. Quality of Life This section of the report highlights areas of community strength and challenge, as well as identifying community characteristics most important to your residents assessments of their quality of life. summary of benchmark comparisons is presented by the eight community livability facets helping communities to focus on areas that may provide bigger bang for your buck. Community Characteristics This section of the report describes residents ratings of the characteristics that make a community livable, attractive and a place where people want to be. Governance This section of the report evaluates how well the local government delivers services and meets the needs and expectations of its residents. Participation This section of the report looks at how connected residents are to the community and each other. Special Topics This section includes the custom or special questions you may have included on your survey. Conclusions Your report ends with a summary of key findings. For the most part, the percent positive is reported in the report s charts. The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., excellent and good, very safe and somewhat safe ). For question that ask about behavior (e.g., asked on a yes/no scale or frequency scale like never, rarely, sometimes, usually, or always ) we show a combination of responses that reflects at least some behavior (e.g., percent yes or always and usually ). On many of the questions in the survey, respondents could answer don t know, but these don t know responses have been excluded from the analyses shown in the report. In other words, the tables and charts display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. ppendix of the Technical ppendices provides the complete set of survey frequencies, with and without don t know responses. The User Guide section, Understanding Survey Research (starting on page 17) describes how and why we remove the don t know responses from our analyses. Most of the charts in your Community Livability report have been color-coded to indicate how your results compare to national benchmarks, with individual survey items grouped within the eight facets of Community Livability. t a glance, you can see how your results compare to not only each other, but to 7

15 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey national benchmark communities, as well. Detailed benchmark results are provided in ppendix of the Technical ppendices and include such additional information as your rank among the comparison communities. If you chose to have custom benchmark comparisons made, the results appear in this appendix as well. 8

16 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Dashboard Summary of Findings The Dashboard Summary of Findings summarizes resident ratings across the eight facets and three pillars of a livable community. The Dashboard Summary chart displays your overall performance in each facet based on each survey item s comparison to the benchmark. When most ratings were higher than the benchmark, the color is dark purple; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the color is the lightest purple. mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes. The Detailed Dashboard displays for each item on the survey, its comparison to the benchmark and the percent positive for the current year, and if applicable, how the current year s rating compares to the previous year s rating (higher, similar or lower). Examination of how areas are trending over time and how they compare to the benchmark can be helpful in identifying the areas that merit more attention. 9

17 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Technical ppendices ppendix : Complete Survey Responses The first appendix in this document shows the responses to each question on the survey in two ways. Included first are the responses excluding any don t know responses and second are the responses including the don t know responses. We show both the percent of respondents giving a particular response followed by the number of respondents (denoted with N= ). Every table in the appendix is numbered, to ease its reference in additional documentation or reports you may develop. The complete question wording that was used on the survey is also displayed in every table. This permits readers to review the results in their entirety without having to cross-reference the survey instrument. High don t know (typically 20% or greater) responses can suggest a need for additional communication or outreach in the community, especially if the high don t know responses are related to underused services. For some questions, respondents are permitted to select more than one response. When some respondents are counted in multiple categories, the total will likely exceed 100%. In these cases, those multiple response questions will have the appropriate notation below the table. 10

18 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey ppendix : enchmark Comparisons What enchmarks re enchmarks are comparison data that provide context for your ratings. In ppendix, your detailed benchmark results are displayed in a table of five columns. The first column is the survey item for which the comparisons have been provided. The second column is your community s percent positive. The third column is the rank assigned to your rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The fourth column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The fifth and final column shows how your rating compares to the other communities in the benchmarking database. In that final column, your results are noted as being higher than the benchmark, lower than the benchmark or similar to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by residents of your community is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. More extreme differences are noted as much higher or much lower. We also provide a list of the communities included in your comparison with their population according to the U.S. Census ureau. The communities in the national database represent a wide geographic and population range; many communities find a custom comparison that targets specific geographies or populations to be useful. What enchmarks re Not enchmarks do not tell you what you need to fix. In this way, benchmarks are not like blood tests that carry a range, often narrow, within which you are considered to be healthy and outside of which you could be sick. local score that is lower than scores typically seen in other places may indicate nothing more than community sentiment that resonates. For example, a suburb located near a large metropolitan center many not be seen to have as strong an economy as other places. This residential suburb s commercial areas are not seen to be as vibrant as other places, may have a higher cost of living, fewer jobs and may have ceded downtown activities to a nearby metro area that has much higher density and more entertainment opportunities. lower benchmark rating for economy simply offers specifics to the community identity which residents and leaders may feel no need to ameliorate. Instead 11

19 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey this hypothetical community may want to focus its resources on sustaining or strengthening its image as a safe place with many recreation opportunities and ease of travel by car and light rail. How to Use enchmarks Many of the charts and tables in The NCS reports have been color-coded to indicate how your results compare to national benchmarks. enchmark comparisons often are used for performance measurement. Communities use the comparative information to help interpret their own citizen survey results, to create or revise community plans, to evaluate the success of policy or budget decisions and to measure local government performance. Taking the pulse of the community has little meaning without knowing what pulse rate is too high and what is too low. When surveys of service satisfaction turn up good citizen evaluations, jurisdictions need to know how others rate their services to understand if good is good enough. Furthermore, in the absence of national or peer community comparisons, a jurisdiction is left with comparing its fire protection rating to its street maintenance rating. That comparison is unfair. Streets always lose to fire. More important and harder questions need to be asked; for example, how do residents ratings of fire service compare to opinions about fire service in other communities? police department that provides the fastest and most efficient service one that closes most of its cases, solves most of its crimes and keeps the crime rate low still has a problem to fix if the perception of residents in the community it intends to protect is not so strong. The benchmark data can help that police department or any department to understand how well citizens think it is doing. Without the comparative data, it would be like bowling in a tournament without knowing what the other teams are scoring. NRC recommends that citizen opinion be used in conjunction with other sources of data about budget, personnel and politics to help managers know how to respond to comparative results. NRC s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 500 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The NCS. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The asic Service includes national benchmark comparisons. If you chose a custom benchmarks comparison as an additional service to the basic NCS, these comparison will appear in this appendix, as well. Jurisdictions in the benchmark database are distributed geographically across the country and range from small to large in population size. Data come from tens of thousands of individual evaluations of community quality, service delivery and engagement. Despite the differences in jurisdiction characteristics, all are in the business of facilitating a high quality of life for residents, typically by providing local government services to residents. Though individual jurisdiction circumstances, resources and practices vary, the objective virtually everywhere is to help create and sustain highly livable communities. Where enchmarks Come From NRC has been leading the strategic use of surveys for local governments since 1991, when the principals of the company wrote the first edition of what became the classic text on citizen surveying. In Citizen Surveys: how to do them, how to use them, what they mean, published by ICM, not only were the principles for quality survey methods articulated, but both the idea of benchmark data for citizen opinion and the method for gathering benchmark data were pioneered. The argument for benchmarks was called In Search of Standards. What has been missing from a local government s analysis of its survey results is the context that school administrators can supply when they tell parents how an 80 percent score on the social studies test compares to test results from other school systems... 12

20 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Surveys in the benchmarks are conducted with typically no fewer than 400 residents in each jurisdiction, opinions are intended to represent over 30 million mericans. NRC innovated a method for quantitatively integrating the results of surveys that are conducted by NRC with those that others have conducted. The integration methods have been thoroughly described not only in the Citizen Surveys book, but also in Public dministration Review and the Journal of Policy nalysis and Management. Scholars who specialize in the analysis of citizen surveys regularly have relied on this work. 4 The method described in those publications is refined regularly and statistically tested on a growing number of citizen surveys in NRC s proprietary databases. NRC s work on calculating national benchmarks for resident opinions about service delivery and quality of life won the Samuel C. May award for research excellence from the Western Governmental Research ssociation. 4 See, for example: Kelly, J. & Swindell, D. (2002). Service quality variation across urban space: First steps towards a model of citizen satisfaction. Journal of Urban ffairs, 24, and Van Ryzin, G., Muzzio, D., Immerwahr, S., Gulick, L. & Martinez, E. (2004). Drivers and consequences of citizen satisfaction: n application of the merican Customer Satisfaction Index Model to New York City, Public dministration Review, 64,

21 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Trends over Time Report If you have conducted The NCS before, you will automatically receive the Trends over Time report. In this report we show your percent positive ratings by year, how your most current results compare to your previous year s results and how you have compared to the national benchmark for each survey year. The Trends over Time Report provides insight on the aspects of your community that may be improving or perhaps starting to decline. While trends for your national benchmark comparisons are provided for reference, the benchmark is constantly changing as communities conduct newer surveys or new communities conduct surveys and resident perspectives change. Overall, your trends represent, perhaps, the most powerful benchmark you have a comparison of you to yourself in prior years. These trends can be a window into the impact of new policies, capital projects or programs in your community. 14

22 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Demographic and Geographic Subgroup Comparison Reports n additional service many participants in The NCS choose is comparison of results by respondent characteristics. In the Demographic Subgroup Comparison Report, each survey question is crossclassified by responses from different demographic groups in your community. We typically show five demographic groupings (housing unit type, housing tenure, age, gender and race/ethnicity) so that you can see if results differ depending on the demographic category of respondent. The Geographic Subgroup Comparison Report is another optional service that compares survey responses by subgroups, in this case, based on respondents location (e.g., district, neighborhood, ward, etc.). In order to create a report of geographic comparisons, the geographic subareas will need to be determined well before the survey mailing. In these subgroup comparison reports, we show the percent positive rating and shade statistically significant differences grey. The shading is based on analysis of variance and chi-square tests of statistical significance where a p-value of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed among subgroups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that there are differences that exist in the subgroups being compared. Demographic subgroup comparisons can help with creating targeted communication and service campaigns to address the concerns of each group. Geographic subgroup comparisons can help demonstrate the sense of equity felt across the community since residents in some parts of every community tend to feel better than do those in other areas about the services they receive or the livability of their neighborhood. Results from geographic subgroup comparisons will permit targeting of services, capital improvements and programs so that residents in all areas can feel that they are receiving their fair share of resources. 15

23 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Open-ended Question Responses The NCS standard questions are close-ended. closed-ended question is one where a set of response options is listed as fixed choices on the survey and those taking the survey respond to each option listed. Open-ended questions have no answer choices from which respondents select their response. Instead, respondents must create their own answers and state them in their own words. The inclusion of an open-ended question is available as an additional service for The NCS that results in a separate Report of Open-ended Questions. On the survey, respondents write, in their own words, their answer to the posed open-ended questions. In this report, the verbatim responses are categorized by topic area using qualitative coding techniques. Often, an other category is used for responses falling outside these coded categories. In general, a code is assigned when the number of related responses reaches a critical mass. We will provide a table showing the frequency of each code to give a general overview of the responses. We also provide every verbatim response with its assigned code. This type of report gives you and others a chance to hear the voice of respondents in their own words. 16

24 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Understanding Survey Research Survey Sampling We systematically select households from a geocoded United States Postal Service (USPS) address list to ensure that only households located within the boundaries of a community are surveyed. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all eligible addresses is culled, selecting every N th one (a number that changes depending on the size of the population and the sample size to be selected) until the appropriate number of addresses is sampled. Not only does NRC scientifically and randomly sample households to participate in The NCS, but we also select, without bias, the household member to participate. This methodology helps ensure that the attitudes expressed by our respondent sample closely approximate the attitudes of all adult residents living in the community. Without controlling who in the household participates, it is likely that results would be biased towards those who are more sedentary and those without jobs (who may have different opinions about some services). The asic Service of The NCS includes mailing to randomly selected households. Though response rates across the US have dipped in recent years, the response rate for most administrations of The NCS ranges between 20% and 40%, which yields between 300 and 480 completed surveys. Margin of Error and Confidence Intervals It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a level of confidence and accompanying confidence interval (or margin of error). traditional level of confidence, and the one used for The NCS, is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents opinions are used to estimate Number of Margin completed surveys of error 100 ±9.8% 300 ±5.7% 400 ±4.9% 500 ±4.4% 750 ±3.6% all residents opinions. The relationship between sample size and precision of estimates or margin of error (at the 95% confidence level) is shown in the adjacent table. With a typical sample size for The NCS, this means an estimated margin of error at the 95% confidence level of plus or minus four to six percentage points. 95% confidence interval indicates that for every 100 random samples of the same number of residents, 95 of the confidence intervals created will include the true population response. This theory is applied in practice to mean that the true perspective of the target population lies within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75% of residents rate a service as excellent or good, then the 4% margin of error (for the 95% confidence interval) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire community is between 71% and 79%. This source of uncertainty is called sampling error. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey, including the non-response of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results. For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the sample size for the subgroup is smaller. For subgroups of approximately 100 respondents, the margin of error is plus or minus 10 percentage points. 17

25 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Non-response ias Knowing that residents in single family dwellings are more likely to respond to a mail survey, NRC oversamples residents of multi-family dwellings to ensure their proper representation in the sample data. Rather than giving all residents an equal chance of receiving the survey, this is systematic, stratified sampling, which gives each resident of the community a known chance of receiving the survey (and apartment dwellers, for example, a greater chance than single family home dwellers). Weighting The first step in preparing the data for analysis is to weight the data to reflect the demographic profile of the residents of the community being surveyed. Weighting is the approach used by quality survey consultancies to ensure that the demographic characteristics of the sample mirror the overall population. It is an important method to adjust for potential non-response bias. NRC uses a special software program of mathematical algorithms to calculate the appropriate weights. Several different weighting schemes may be tested to ensure the best fit for the data. Don t know Responses Generally, a small portion of respondents select don t know for most survey items and inevitably some items have a larger don t know percentage. Comparing responses to a set of items on the same scale can be misleading when the don t know responses have been included. If two items have disparate don t know percentages (2% versus 17%, for example), any apparent similarities or differences across the remaining response options may disappear once the don t know responses are removed. Such an example is shown below. When comparing the community as a place to live to the community as a place to work, it would appear that 76% of respondents rated the community as a place to live as excellent or good compared to just 63% for the community as a place to work. However, the community as a place to work has a much higher proportion of respondents answering don t know (17% compared to 2%). Place to live Place to work Number Percent Number Percent Excellent 48 25% 38 20% Good 97 51% 81 43% Fair 23 12% 22 12% Poor 19 10% 17 9% Don t know 3 2% 32 17% Total % % If we remove the three don t know responses from the community as a place to live and the 32 don t know responses from the community as a place to work, the two items are actually much more similar in their evaluations: 78% excellent or good place to live compared to 75% excellent or good place to work. Place to live Place to work Number Percent Number Percent Excellent 48 26% 38 24% Good 97 52% 81 51% Fair 23 12% 22 14% Poor 19 10% 17 11% Total % % 18

26 User Guide to The National Citizen Survey Response Scale The scale on which respondents are asked to record their opinions about service and community quality is excellent, good, fair or poor (EGFP). This scale has important advantages over other scale possibilities (very good to very bad; very satisfied to very dissatisfied; strongly agree to strongly disagree, as examples). EGFP is used by the plurality of communities conducting citizen surveys across the U.S. The advantage of familiarity was one that NRC did not want to dismiss when crafting The NCS questionnaire, because elected officials, staff and residents already are acquainted with opinion surveys measured this way. EGFP also has the advantage of offering three positive options, rather than only two, over which a resident can offer an opinion. While symmetrical scales often are the right choice in other measurement tasks, NRC has found that ratings of almost every local government service in almost every community tend, on average, to be positive (that is, above the scale midpoint). Therefore, to permit finer distinctions among positively rated services, EGFP offers three options across which to spread those ratings. With questions worded for EGFP, responses are more neutral because they require no positive statement of service quality to judge (as agree-disagree scales require) and, finally, EGFP intends to measure absolute quality of service delivery or community quality (unlike satisfaction scales which ignore residents perceptions of quality in favor of their report on the acceptability of the level of service offered). 19

27 Skokie, IL Dashboard Summary of Findings DRFT Valmont Road Suite North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 oulder, Colorado Washington, DC n-r-c.com icma.org

28 Summary The National Citizen Survey (The NCS ) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management ssociation (ICM). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. The NCS captures residents opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, uilt Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). This report summarizes Skokie s performance in the eight facets of community livability with the General rating as a summary of results from the overarching questions not shown within any of the eight facets. The Overall represents the community pillar in its entirety (the eight facets and general). y summarizing resident ratings across the eight facets and three pillars of a livable community, a picture of Skokie s community livability emerges. elow, the color of each community facet summarizes how residents rated each of the pillars that support it Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most ratings were higher than the benchmark, the color is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes. This information can be helpful in identifying the areas or community strength or areas that merit more attention. roadly, ratings across all three pillars of community livability were strong and either similar to or higher than the national benchmarks. In Community Characteristics, ratings within the facets of Mobility, uilt Environment, Recreation and Wellness, and Education and Enrichment tended to be higher than those given in other communities across the nation. Within Governance, virtually all Village services received higher than average ratings, and levels of Participation within the facets of Mobility and Education and Enrichment were also higher than those seen elsewhere. Figure 1: Dashboard Summary Community Characteristics Governance Participation Higher Similar Lower Higher Similar Lower Higher Similar Lower Overall General Safety Mobility Natural Environment uilt Environment Economy Recreation and Wellness Education and Enrichment Community Engagement National enchmark Higher Similar Lower 1

29 Figure 2: Detailed Dashboard General Safety Mobility Natural Environment uilt Environment The National Citizen Survey Community Characteristics Trend enchmark Percent Percent Percent Governance Trend enchmark Participation Trend enchmark positive positive positive Overall appearance 83% Customer service 83% Recommend Skokie 88% Overall quality of life 85% Services provided by Skokie 90% Remain in Skokie 86% Place to retire 66% Services provided by the Federal Government 42% Place to raise children 85% Place to live 88% Neighborhood 83% Overall image 79% Overall feeling of safety 75% Police 88% Was NOT the victim of a crime 94% Safe in neighborhood 91% Crime prevention 80% Did NOT report a crime 87% Safe downtown 93% Fire 94% Stocked supplies for an emergency 18% Fire prevention 89% mbulance/ems 93% Emergency preparedness 80% nimal control 83% Traffic flow 75% Traffic enforcement 75% Walked or biked instead of driving 73% Travel by car 86% Street repair 64% Used public transportation instead of driving 55% Travel by bicycle 77% Street cleaning 84% Ease of walking 81% Street lighting 82% Overall ease travel 88% Snow removal 76% Public parking 81% Sidewalk maintenance 73% Paths and walking trails 77% Traffic signal timing 71% Overall natural environment 81% Garbage collection 92% Recycled at home 84% Cleanliness 82% Recycling 87% Yard waste pick-up 85% Drinking water 89% ffordable quality housing 61% Sewer services 80% Housing options 72% Storm drainage 64% Overall built environment 75% Land use, planning and zoning 75% Public places 78% Code enforcement 69% Cable television 68% NOT experiencing housing cost stress Did NOT observe a code violation 53% 69% Legend higher Higher Similar Lower lower * Not available 2

30 Economy Recreation and Wellness Community Characteristics Trend enchmark Percent positive Governance Trend enchmark Percent positive Participation Trend enchmark Overall economic health 76% Economic development 68% Economy will have positive impact on income 29% Shopping opportunities 84% Purchased goods or services in Skokie 98% Employment opportunities 54% Work in Skokie 31% Place to visit 65% Cost of living 52% Vibrant downtown 50% Place to work 74% usiness and services 77% Fitness opportunities 81% Village parks 92% In very good to excellent health 60% Recreational opportunities 81% Health services 82% Used Skokie recreation centers 66% Health care 71% Visited a Village park 82% Health and wellness 82% te 5 portions of fruits and vegetables 86% Preventive health services 79% Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity 81% Percent positive Education and Enrichment Community Engagement Cultural/arts/music activities 79% Special events 81% Used Skokie Public Library 82% Child care/preschool 72% ttended a Village-sponsored event 54% Overall education and enrichment 86% Opportunities to participate in community matters 74% Public information 84% Sense of community 75% Opportunities to volunteer 73% Overall direction 72% Voted in local elections 83% Openness and acceptance 83% Value of services for taxes paid 66% ttended a local public meeting 13% Social events and activities 70% Welcoming citizen involvement 77% Watched a local public meeting 8% Neighborliness 70% Confidence in Village government 70% Volunteered 22% cting in the best interest of Skokie 70% Read or watched local news 85% eing honest 75% Treating all residents fairly 77% Legend higher Higher Similar Lower lower * Not available 3

31 Skokie, IL Community Livability Report DRFT Valmont Road Suite North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 oulder, Colorado Washington, DC n-r-c.com icma.org

32 Contents bout... 1 Quality of Life in Skokie... 2 Community Characteristics... 3 Governance... 5 Participation... 7 Special Topics... 9 Conclusions The National Citizen Survey National Research Center, Inc. The NCS is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICM. NRC is a charter member of the POR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices.

33 bout The National Citizen Survey (The NCS) report is about the livability of Skokie. The phrase livable community is used here to evoke a place that is not simply habitable, but that is desirable. It is not only where people do live, but where they want to live. Great communities are partnerships of the government, private sector, community-based organizations and residents, all geographically connected. The NCS captures residents opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, uilt Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). The Community Livability Report provides the opinions of a representative sample of 356 residents of the Village of Skokie. The margin of error around any reported percentage is 5% for all respondents. The full description of methods used to garner these opinions can be found in the Technical ppendices provided under separate cover. Private sector Residents Communities are partnerships among... Government Communitybased organizations 1

34 Quality of Life in Skokie Most residents (85%) rated the quality of life in Skokie as excellent or good. This was similar to ratings given in other communities across the nation (see ppendix of the Technical ppendices provided under separate cover). Excellent 32% Overall Quality of Life Good 53% Shown below are the eight facets of community. The color of each community facet summarizes how residents rated it across the three sections of the survey that represent the pillars of a community Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation. When most ratings across the three pillars were higher than the benchmark, the color for that facet is the darkest shade; when most ratings were lower than the benchmark, the color is the lightest shade. mix of ratings (higher and lower than the benchmark) results in a color between the extremes. In addition to a summary of ratings, the image below includes one or more stars to indicate which community facets were the most important focus areas for the community. Residents identified Safety and Economy as priorities for the Skokie community in the coming two years. These facets of livability as well as Recreation and Wellness and Community Engagement received ratings similar to the national benchmarks, while all other aspects were rated higher than average. This overview of the key aspects of community quality provides a quick summary of where residents see exceptionally strong performance and where performance offers the greatest opportunity for improvement. Linking quality to importance offers community members and leaders a view into the characteristics of the community that matter most and that seem to be working best. Details that support these findings are contained in the remainder of this Livability Report, starting with the ratings for Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation and ending with results for Skokie s unique questions. Poor 2% Fair 13% Legend Higher than national benchmark Similar to national benchmark Lower than national benchmark Most important Safety uilt Environment Education and Enrichment Natural Environment Recreation and Wellness Mobility Economy Community Engagement 2

35 Community Characteristics What makes a community livable, attractive and a place where people want to be? Overall quality of community life represents the natural ambience, services and amenities that make for an attractive community. How residents rate their overall quality of life is an indicator of the overall health of a community. In the case of Skokie, 88% rated the village as an excellent or good place to live. Respondents ratings of Skokie as a place to live were similar to ratings in other communities across the nation. In addition to rating the village as a place to live, respondents rated several aspects of community quality including Skokie as a place to raise children and to retire, their neighborhood as a place to live, the overall image or reputation of Skokie and its overall appearance. bout 8 in 10 residents positively rated the overall image and overall appearance of the village, their neighborhood as a place to live and the village as a place to raise children. Two-thirds were pleased with Skokie as a place to retire. These ratings were all similar to those given elsewhere. Delving deeper into Community Characteristics, survey respondents rated over 40 features of the community within the eight facets of Community Livability. Most aspects of Community Characteristics were rated positively by at least 7 in 10 respondents and these ratings were similar to or higher than the national benchmarks; none were rated lower. The facet of Mobility received particularly strong ratings: at least three-quarters of residents gave excellent or good ratings to each of these aspects and all ratings were higher than those seen in other communities. Most aspects of uilt Environment, Recreation and Wellness and Education and Enrichment also Excellent 46% Place to Live received above-average ratings. Within Economy, at least three-quarters of residents were pleased with shopping opportunities and the village as a place to work and these ratings were also higher than the national benchmarks. Poor 1% Good 43% Compared to 2015, several ratings increases within Community Characteristics were observed, primarily within the facets of Economy and Community Engagement (for more information see the Trends over Time report under separate cover). Fair 10% Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Comparison to national benchmark Higher Similar Lower 79% 83% 85% 66% 83% Overall image Neighborhood Place to raise children Place to retire Overall appearance 3

36 Figure 1: spects of Community Characteristics The National Citizen Survey Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Comparison to national benchmark Higher Similar Lower SFETY Overall feeling of safety Safe in neighborhood Safe downtown MOILITY Overall ease of travel Paths and walking trails Ease of walking Travel by bicycle Travel by car Public parking Traffic flow NTURL ENVIRONMENT Overall natural environment Cleanliness UILT ENVIRONMENT Overall built environment ffordable quality housing Housing options Public places ECONOMY Overall economic health Vibrant downtown usiness and services Cost of living Shopping opportunities Employment opportunities Place to visit Place to work RECRETION ND WELLNESS Health and wellness Preventive health services Health care Recreational opportunities Fitness opportunities EDUCTION ND ENRICHMENT Education and enrichment opportunities Cultural/arts/music activities Child care/preschool COMMUNITY ENGGEMENT Social events and activities Neighborliness Openness and acceptance Opportunities to participate in community matters Opportunities to volunteer 75% 91% 93% 88% 77% 81% 77% 86% 81% 75% 81% 82% 75% 61% 72% 78% 76% 50% 77% 52% 84% 54% 65% 74% 82% 79% 71% 81% 81% 86% 79% 72% 70% 70% 83% 74% 73% 4

37 Governance How well does the government of Skokie meet the needs and expectations of its residents? The overall quality of the services provided by Skokie as well as the manner in which these services are provided is a key component of how residents rate their quality of life. In Skokie, 9 in 10 residents gave positive ratings to the overall quality of Village services (which was higher than the national benchmark) and 4 in 10 were pleased with the services provided by the Federal Government (which was similar). Survey respondents also rated various aspects of Skokie s leadership and governance. Eight in 10 residents gave favorable marks to the customer service provided by the Village, which was similar to the benchmark; all other measures of Skokie government performance were rated positively by at least two-thirds of respondents and these ratings were higher than those given elsewhere. Further, the proportion of residents who gave positive evaluations to the overall direction of the Village, the job Village government does at welcoming citizen involvement and treating all residents fairly increased from 2015 to Respondents evaluated over 30 individual services and amenities available in Skokie. Ratings for government services in Skokie were overwhelmingly positive and most were higher than the national benchmarks: out of 28 Village services, 24 received ratings that were above average. When compared to 2015, ratings in 2018 increased for several aspects of Safety and Mobility, as well as for drinking water. Overall Quality of Village Services Excellent 43% Poor 2% Fair 8% Good 48% Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Comparison to national benchmark Higher Similar Lower 66% 72% 77% 70% 70% 75% 77% 83% 42% Value of services for taxes paid Overall direction Welcoming citizen involvement Confidence in Village government cting in the best interest of Skokie eing honest Treating all residents fairly Customer service Services provided by the Federal Government 5

38 Figure 2: spects of Governance The National Citizen Survey Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Comparison to national benchmark Higher Similar Lower SFETY Police Fire mbulance/ems Crime prevention Fire prevention nimal control Emergency preparedness MOILITY Traffic enforcement Street repair Street cleaning Street lighting Snow removal Sidewalk maintenance Traffic signal timing NTURL ENVIRONMENT Garbage collection Recycling Yard waste pick-up Drinking water UILT ENVIRONMENT Storm drainage Sewer services Land use, planning and zoning Code enforcement Cable television ECONOMY Economic development RECRETION ND WELLNESS Village parks Health services EDUCTION ND ENRICHMENT Special events COMMUNITY ENGGEMENT Public information 88% 94% 93% 80% 89% 83% 80% 75% 64% 84% 82% 76% 73% 71% 92% 87% 85% 89% 64% 80% 75% 69% 68% 68% 92% 82% 81% 84% 6

39 Participation re the residents of Skokie connected to the community and each other? n engaged community harnesses its most valuable resource, its residents. The connections and trust among residents, government, businesses and other organizations help to create a sense of community, a shared sense of membership, belonging and history. Three-quarters of survey respondents gave excellent or good ratings to the sense of community in Skokie, which was similar to the national average. More than 8 in 10 residents indicated that they planned to remain in Skokie for the next five years or would recommend living in Skokie to someone who asked, levels which were also similar to the national benchmarks. The survey included over 30 activities and behaviors for which respondents indicated how often they participated in or performed each, if at all. Levels of Participation tended to vary widely across the different facets of livability, making the comparison to the benchmarks (and to Skokie over time) useful for interpreting the results. Skokie residents were more likely than those who lived elsewhere to have used public transportation instead of driving, walked or biked instead of driving, not observed a code violation or used Skokie Public Library; however, they were less likely than others to have stocked supplies for an emergency, not be under housing cost stress, work in Skokie, volunteered or watched a local public meeting. Further, the proportion of residents who had stocked supplies for an emergency or were not under housing cost stress declined from 2015 to Sense of Community Excellent 27% Poor 5% Good 48% Fair 20% Percent rating positively (e.g., very/somewhat likely, yes) Comparison to national benchmark Higher Similar Lower 88% 86% Recommend Skokie Remain in Skokie 7

40 Figure 3: spects of Participation The National Citizen Survey Percent rating positively (e.g., yes, more than once a month, always/sometimes) SFETY Stocked supplies for an emergency Did NOT report a crime 18% 87% Comparison to national benchmark Higher Similar Lower Was NOT the victim of a crime MOILITY Used public transportation instead of driving Walked or biked instead of driving NTURL ENVIRONMENT 55% 73% 94% Recycled at home 84% UILT ENVIRONMENT Did NOT observe a code violation 69% NOT under housing cost stress 53% ECONOMY Purchased goods or services in Skokie 98% Economy will have positive impact on income Work in Skokie 29% 31% RECRETION ND WELLNESS Used Skokie recreation centers 66% Visited a Village park te 5 portions of fruits and vegetables Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity 82% 81% 86% In very good to excellent health 60% EDUCTION ND ENRICHMENT Used Skokie Public Library 82% ttended a Village-sponsored event 54% COMMUNITY ENGGEMENT Volunteered 22% ttended a local public meeting Watched a local public meeting 13% 8% Read or watched local news Voted in local elections 85% 83% 8

41 Special Topics The Village of Skokie included two questions of special interest on The NCS related to budget shortfalls and Village investment. Residents evaluated how they would prefer the Village address financial shortfalls for a variety of services. Overall, when residents were more supportive of maintaining service levels for a specific service, a higher proportion preferred to do so through user fees than by increasing taxes. Residents were most in favor of maintaining service levels for subsidizing senior transportation (STR) either by increasing taxes (26%) or adding or increasing user fees (47%). Roughly 6 in 10 residents supported maintaining service levels for animal control services, basic health screenings at Village Hall, sidewalk snow plowing or leaf collection. Residents were least likely to support maintaining mailing the hard copy Village newsletter and 43% supported eliminating this service altogether. Figure 4: ddressing Financial Shortfalls In times of financial difficulty the Village has to make decisions about how to balance the budget. This will generally be done by either increasing revenue coming in or by decreasing the level of services provided. For each of the following services, please tell us how you would prefer the Village address financial shortfalls. Maintain service level by increasing taxes Reduce budget and change the service Maintain service level by adding or increasing user fees Eliminate the service altogether Subsidized senior transportation (STR) 26% 47% 22% 5% nimal control services 24% 40% 33% 2% asic health screenings at Village Hall 23% 40% 25% 12% Sidewalk snow plowing 27% 36% 25% 12% Leaf collection 23% 37% 34% 6% Yard waste pickup 19% 38% 42% 2% Street sweeping 25% 31% 41% 3% Second weekly refuse pickup 22% 28% 35% 15% Financial support from Village to non-profits (sculpture park, parade, fireworks, etc.) 20% 26% 35% 20% dding street lights to Crawford venue 19% 23% 34% 24% Mailing of hard copy Village newsletter (NewSkokie) 14% 15% 29% 43% 9

42 Thinking about their level of support for or opposition to a number of Village investment opportunities, residents were most supportive of Village investment in resurfacing residential streets (96% strongly or somewhat support), implementing economic development initiatives (92%) and creating environmental sustainability initiatives (88%). bout two-thirds of residents supported Village investment in the remaining opportunities. Figure 5: Support for Village Investment How much do you support or oppose Village investment in each of the following? Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Resurfacing residential streets 64% 32% 2% 2% Implementing economic development initiatives to bring new businesses, create jobs and generate sales tax 65% 27% 4% 4% Creating environmental sustainability initiatives 42% 46% 5% 7% dding bicycle lanes on Village streets and additional multi-use trails 32% 35% 17% 16% dding additional street lighting on Crawford venue 27% 38% 26% 9% Translating Village printed and digital publications into multiple languages 24% 39% 17% 19% 10

43 Conclusions Skokie residents continue to enjoy a high quality of life. More than 8 in 10 residents gave positive ratings to the overall quality of life in Skokie and the village as a place to live. Most residents also were pleased with the overall image and overall appearance of the village, their neighborhood as a place to live and the village as a place to raise children, and two-thirds felt Skokie as a place to retire was excellent or good. While most of these evaluations were stable from 2015 to 2018, the rating for overall image increased. Residents remain loyal to the community, with more than 8 in 10 residents planning to remain in Skokie for the next five years or recommending living in Skokie to someone who asked. These ratings all were similar to those given in other communities across the nation. Safety ratings are strong and Safety remains a priority for the community. Skokie residents indicated that Safety was an important focus area for the Village and ratings within this facet tended to be positive. Nine in 10 residents reported feeling safe in their neighborhood and in Skokie s downtown and gave excellent or good ratings to fire and ambulance/ems services. t least 8 in 10 residents gave favorable marks to police services, crime prevention, fire prevention, animal control and emergency preparedness; these ratings were all higher than average and resident sentiment toward crime prevention and animal control improved since However, only 18% of respondents had stocked supplies for an emergency, a level which decreased from 2015 to 2018 and was lower than levels reported in other communities. When asked about addressing budget shortfalls for a variety of services, about one-quarter of residents supported maintaining current service levels for animal control by raising taxes and 4 in 10 were in support of maintaining service levels by raising user fees. Virtually no residents supported eliminating this service. Residents value Skokie s Economy and emphasize its continued focus. In 2018, residents noted improvements in the overall economic health of the village, the vibrant downtown and the overall quality of business and service establishments compared to t least two-thirds of respondents gave excellent or good ratings to the overall economic health of the village, overall quality of business and service establishments, shopping opportunities, Skokie as a place to work and economic development, and the latter three ratings were higher than the benchmark comparisons. Virtually all residents had purchased goods or services in Skokie. s in 2015, residents identified Economy as an important area for the Village to focus on in the next two years. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for or opposition to a number of Village investment opportunities. bout 9 in 10 residents strongly or somewhat supported implementing economic development initiatives to bring new businesses, create jobs and generate sales tax. Residents applaud Mobility improvements. Ratings for aspects of Mobility in Skokie were exceptionally strong in ll aspects were rated positively by about two-thirds of residents or more (including overall ease of travel, traffic flow on major streets and street repair) and all of these ratings were higher than those given in other communities across the nation. Further, ratings for traffic flow, street repair, street cleaning, street lighting, sidewalk maintenance and traffic signal timing increased from 2015 to When asked to evaluate how they would prefer the Village address financial shortfalls for a variety of services, residents were most in favor of maintaining service levels for subsidized senior transportation (STR) either by increasing taxes (26%) or adding or increasing user fees (47%). Roughly 6 in 10 supported maintaining service levels for sidewalk snow plowing, and while half supported maintaining service levels for street sweeping, 4 in 10 preferred reducing this service level. Virtually all residents strongly or somewhat supported the Village s investment in resurfacing residential streets; about two-thirds supported adding bicycle lanes on Village streets and additional multi-use trails and adding additional street lighting on Crawford venue. 11

44 Skokie, IL Trends over Time DRFT Valmont Road Suite North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 oulder, Colorado Washington, DC n-r-c.com icma.org

45 Summary The National Citizen Survey (The NCS ) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management ssociation (ICM). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. The NCS captures residents opinions within the three pillars of a community (Community Characteristics, Governance and Participation) across eight central facets of community (Safety, Mobility, Natural Environment, uilt Environment, Economy, Recreation and Wellness, Education and Enrichment and Community Engagement). This report discusses trends over time, comparing the 2018 ratings for the Village of Skokie to its previous survey results in 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015 and dditional reports and technical appendices are available under separate cover. Trend data for Skokie represent important comparison data and should be examined for improvements or declines. Deviations from stable trends over time, especially, represent opportunities for understanding how local policies, programs or public information may have affected residents opinions. Meaningful differences between survey years have been noted within the following tables as being higher or lower if the differences are greater than seven percentage points between the 2015 and 2018 surveys, otherwise the comparisons between 2015 and 2018 are noted as being similar. dditionally, benchmark comparisons for all survey years are presented for reference. Changes in the benchmark comparison over time can be impacted by various trends, including varying survey cycles for the individual communities that comprise the benchmarks, regional and national economic or other events, as well as emerging survey methodologies. Overall, ratings in Skokie for 2018 remained stable. Of the 108 items for which comparisons were available, 88 items were rated similarly in 2015 and 2018, two items showed a decrease in ratings and 18 showed an increase in ratings. Notable trends over time included the following: Several increases from 2015 to 2018 were noted within the facet of Economy, including ratings for the overall economic health of the Village, vibrant downtown area and overall quality of business and service establishments. Improvements from 2015 to 2018 were also observed for multiple aspects of Mobility: traffic flow on major streets, street repair, street cleaning, street lighting, sidewalk maintenance and traffic signal timing. Residents in 2018 also awarded higher marks to several aspects of Community Engagement. Ratings for opportunities to participate in community matters, neighborliness, the overall direction of the Village, the job Village government does at welcoming citizen involvement and treating all residents fairly all improved since

46 Table 1: Community Characteristics General Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2018 rating compared to Comparison to benchmark Overall quality of life 86% 87% 81% 81% 80% 85% Similar Similar higher Higher Similar Similar Similar Overall image N 78% 79% 71% 68% 79% Higher N higher higher higher Similar Similar Similar higher Similar Similar Similar Place to live 90% 92% 93% 88% 87% 88% Similar Higher Neighborhood 83% 81% 80% 78% 85% 83% Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Place to raise children 87% 87% 84% 83% 81% 85% Similar higher Place to retire 68% 70% 68% 65% 61% 66% Similar Higher Overall appearance 75% 75% 74% 77% 81% 83% Similar Higher higher higher Higher Similar Similar higher Higher Similar Similar Similar higher Higher Higher Similar Similar Table 2: Community Characteristics by Facet Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2018 rating compared to Comparison to benchmark Overall feeling of safety N N N N 69% 75% Similar N N N N Similar Similar Safe in neighborhood 93% 94% 91% 87% 91% 91% Similar Similar Higher Similar Lower Similar Similar Safety Mobility Natural Environment Safe downtown 93% 94% 93% 89% 93% 93% Similar Higher higher higher Similar Similar Similar Overall ease of travel N N N N 84% 88% Similar N N N N Similar Higher Paths and walking trails N N N 69% 82% 77% Similar N N N Higher Higher Higher Ease of walking N 73% 77% 76% 82% 81% Similar N higher Travel by bicycle N 57% 68% 62% 76% 77% Similar N higher Travel by public transportation N N 68% 83% N N N N N Travel by car N N N 82% 83% 86% Similar N N N higher higher higher higher Higher Higher higher Higher Higher higher N N higher Higher Higher higher higher Higher Higher Public parking N N N N 74% 81% Similar N N N N Higher Traffic flow 49% 47% 58% 60% 67% 75% Higher N N Overall natural environment N N N 75% 81% 81% Similar N N N Similar Similar Similar Cleanliness N N N 82% 81% 82% Similar N N N higher Similar Similar higher 2

47 uilt Environment Economy Recreation and Wellness Education and Enrichment Community Engagement Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2018 rating compared to Comparison to benchmark ir quality N N N 71% N N N N N N Similar N N Overall built environment N N N N 76% 75% Similar N N N N Higher Higher New development in Skokie N N N 70% 59% N N N N N ffordable quality housing 45% 49% N 59% 61% 61% Similar Similar higher higher Similar N higher Higher Higher N Housing options N N N 72% 68% 72% Similar N N N higher Similar Higher Public places N N N N 74% 78% Similar N N N N Similar Similar Overall economic health N N N N 69% 76% Higher N N N N Similar Similar Vibrant downtown N N N N 42% 50% Higher N N N N Similar Similar usiness and services N N N 74% 67% 77% Higher N N N higher Similar Similar Cost of living N N N N 51% 52% Similar N N N N Similar Similar Shopping opportunities N N N 86% 83% 84% Similar N N N Employment opportunities 38% 44% 43% 46% 53% 54% Similar Similar higher higher higher higher higher higher Higher Similar Place to visit N N N N 62% 65% Similar N N N N Similar Similar Place to work N 72% 66% 73% 69% 74% Similar N higher higher higher Similar Higher Health and wellness N N N N 81% 82% Similar N N N N Similar Similar Preventive health services N N N 73% 77% 79% Similar N N N Health care N N N 75% 69% 71% Similar N N N Recreational opportunities 83% 79% 80% 80% 74% 81% Similar higher higher higher higher Similar Higher higher Similar Higher higher Similar Higher Fitness opportunities N N N N 80% 81% Similar N N N N Similar Similar Education and enrichment opportunities N N N N 82% 86% Similar N N N N Similar Higher Cultural/arts/music activities 80% 80% 81% 78% 80% 79% Similar higher higher higher higher Higher Higher higher Higher Higher higher Similar Similar Child care/preschool N N N 64% 67% 72% Similar N N N Social events and activities N N N 75% 69% 70% Similar N N N Neighborliness N N N N 55% 70% Higher N N N N Similar Similar 3

48 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 2018 rating compared to Comparison to benchmark Openness and acceptance 76% 81% 81% 81% 79% 83% Similar higher higher higher higher Higher Higher Opportunities to participate in community matters N N N 71% 65% 74% Higher N N N Higher Similar Similar Opportunities to volunteer N N N 76% 67% 73% Similar N N N Similar Similar Similar Table 3: Governance General Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2018 rating compared Comparison to benchmark to Services provided by Skokie 89% 88% 88% 87% 84% 90% Similar higher Customer service 80% 82% 86% 82% 80% 83% Similar Higher Value of services for taxes paid N 69% 71% 65% 67% 66% Similar N Overall direction 67% 67% 68% 65% 63% 72% Higher higher Welcoming citizen involvement 73% 74% 73% 64% 64% 77% Higher higher higher higher higher higher higher higher higher higher higher higher higher Similar Higher higher Similar Similar higher Similar Higher higher Similar Higher higher Similar Higher Confidence in Village government N N N N 66% 70% Similar N N N N Higher Higher cting in the best interest of Skokie N N N N 69% 70% Similar N N N N Higher Higher eing honest N N N N 71% 75% Similar N N N N Higher Higher Treating all residents fairly N N N N 66% 77% Higher N N N N Similar Higher Services provided by the Federal Government 53% 47% 43% 54% 41% 42% Similar Similar Higher Similar higher Similar Similar 4

49 Table 4: Governance by Facet Safety Mobility Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2018 rating compared to Comparison to benchmark Police 87% 86% 89% 87% 83% 88% Similar Fire 98% 96% 98% 97% 91% 94% Similar mbulance/ems 95% 96% 96% 96% 93% 93% Similar Crime prevention 82% 78% 74% 66% 68% 80% Higher higher higher higher higher higher higher higher higher Fire prevention 89% N 88% 84% 85% 89% Similar Higher N nimal control 72% 71% 75% 73% 74% 83% Higher Higher higher Emergency preparedness N N 79% 73% 76% 80% Similar N N Traffic enforcement 74% 76% 72% 77% 73% 75% Similar Higher higher Street repair 58% 56% 55% 55% 53% 64% Higher Similar higher Street cleaning 80% 78% 77% 76% 74% 84% Higher higher Street lighting 74% 69% 70% 68% 69% 82% Higher Higher Snow removal 73% 68% 70% 67% 71% 76% Similar Higher Sidewalk maintenance 67% 67% 67% 66% 64% 73% Higher higher higher higher higher higher higher higher higher higher Similar Higher higher Similar Similar higher Similar Similar higher Similar Similar Higher higher Higher Similar Higher higher higher higher higher Similar Higher higher Similar Higher higher Similar Higher higher Higher Similar Higher higher higher Higher Higher higher Higher Similar Higher higher higher higher Similar Higher higher Similar Higher Traffic signal timing N N N N 64% 71% Higher N N N N Similar Higher us or transit services 76% N 76% 82% N N N higher Garbage collection 88% 85% 90% 89% 88% 92% Similar Higher Recycling 84% 84% 87% 86% 86% 87% Similar Higher Yard waste pick-up 76% 79% N 76% 80% 85% Similar Higher Natural Environment Drinking water 78% 82% 84% 82% 81% 89% Higher Higher uilt Environment Storm drainage 52% 63% 51% 58% 61% 64% Similar Similar N higher higher higher higher higher higher N N higher Similar Higher higher Similar Higher higher N Higher Similar Higher higher higher higher Similar Higher higher Similar Similar Similar Similar 5

50 Economy Recreation and Wellness Education and Enrichment Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 2018 rating compared to Comparison to benchmark Sewer services N N 71% 71% 74% 80% Similar N N Similar Similar Similar Similar Power utility N N 84% 81% 83% N N N N higher Similar Similar N Land use, planning and zoning N N 64% 68% 69% 75% Similar N N Code enforcement 63% 69% 62% 61% 70% 69% Similar Higher higher Cable television N N 66% 66% 72% 68% Similar N N Economic development N N 55% 60% 65% 68% Similar N N Village parks N N N 89% 89% 92% Similar N N N Health services 89% N 81% 81% 82% 82% Similar higher N higher higher higher Higher Higher higher Higher Higher higher Higher Higher Higher higher higher higher Similar Higher higher Similar Higher higher Higher Higher Special events N N N N 78% 81% Similar N N N N Similar Higher Public libraries N N N N 95% N N N N N N Higher N Community Engagement Public information N N 85% N 83% 84% Similar N N higher N Higher Higher Table 5: Participation General Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2018 rating Comparison to benchmark compared to Sense of community 72% 73% 67% 71% 73% 75% Similar Higher higher Similar Higher Similar Similar Recommend Skokie N N 90% 87% 87% 88% Similar N N Higher Similar Similar Similar Remain in Skokie N N 85% 80% 84% 86% Similar N N Similar Similar Similar Similar Contacted Skokie employees 70% 67% 67% 73% 59% N N N N higher higher Higher N 6

51 Table 6: Participation by Facet Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2018 rating compared to Comparison to benchmark Stocked supplies for an emergency N N N N 26% 18% Lower N N N N Lower Lower Did NOT report a crime N N N N 82% 87% Similar N N N N Similar Similar Safety Was NOT the victim of a crime 89% 88% 87% 84% 88% 94% Similar N N Similar Lower Similar Similar Used public transportation instead of driving N N N N 56% 55% Similar N N N N Walked or biked Mobility instead of driving N N N N 68% 73% Similar N N N N Higher Higher Natural Environment Recycled at home 79% 86% 85% 87% 88% 84% Similar N N Higher Higher Similar Similar Did NOT observe a code violation N N N N 70% 69% Similar N N N N Higher Higher uilt Environment Economy Recreation and Wellness Education and Enrichment NOT under housing cost stress N N 54% 58% 61% 53% Lower N N higher higher lower Lower Similar Lower Purchased goods or services in Skokie N N N N 94% 98% Similar N N N N Similar Similar Economy will have positive impact on income 22% 20% 15% 23% 28% 29% Similar N N Similar Higher Similar Similar Work in Skokie N N N N 34% 31% Similar N N N N Similar Lower Used Skokie recreation centers N N N N 63% 66% Similar N N N N Similar Similar Visited a Village park N 87% 90% 88% 78% 82% Similar N N Higher Similar Similar Similar te 5 portions of fruits and vegetables N N N N 83% 86% Similar N N N N Similar Similar Participated in moderate or vigorous physical activity N N N N 82% 81% Similar N N N N Similar Similar In very good to excellent health N N N N 60% 60% Similar N N N N Similar Similar Used Skokie Public Library N 84% 83% 89% 78% 82% Similar N N higher higher Higher Higher ttended a Villagesponsored event N N N N 50% 54% Similar N N N N Similar Similar Community Engagement Volunteered 21% 27% 26% 22% 23% 22% Similar N N lower lower Lower Lower 7

52 Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 2018 rating compared to Comparison to benchmark ttended a local public meeting 16% 12% 24% 19% 12% 13% Similar N N Lower Watched a local public meeting 25% 30% 27% 26% 14% 8% Similar N N lower lower Similar Similar lower Lower Lower Read or watched local news N N N N 88% 85% Similar N N N N Similar Similar Voted in local elections N N 69% 74% 80% 83% Similar N N lower Similar Similar Similar 8

53 Skokie, IL Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups DRFT Valmont Road Suite North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 oulder, Colorado Washington, DC n-r-c.com icma.org

54 bout The National Citizen Survey (The NCS ) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management ssociation (ICM). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. Communities conducting The NCS can choose from a number of optional services to customize the reporting of survey results. Skokie s Comparisons by Demographic Subgroups is part of a larger project for the Village and additional reports are available under separate cover. This report discusses differences in opinion of survey respondents by length of residency, housing unit type, annual household income, age and gender. Understanding the Tables For most of the questions, one number appears for each question. Responses have been summarized to show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as excellent or good, or the percent of respondents who participated in an activity at least once. It should be noted that when a table that does include all responses (not a single number) for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the common practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number. The subgroup comparison tables contain the crosstabulations of survey questions by selected respondent characteristics. Chi-square or NOV tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns of survey questions. p-value of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of the sample represent real differences among those populations. s subgroups vary in size and each group (and each comparison to another group) has a unique margin of error, statistical testing is used to determine whether differences between subgroups are statistically significant. Statistical testing was not performed on multiple response questions. Each column in the following tables is labeled with a letter for each subgroup being compared. The Overall column, which shows the ratings for all respondents, also has a column designation of (), but no statistical tests were done for the overall rating. For each pair of subgroups ratings within a row (a single question item) that has a statistically significant difference, an upper case letter denoting significance is shown in the cell with the larger column proportion. The letter denotes the subgroup with the smaller column proportion from which it is statistically different. Subgroups that have no upper case letter denotation in their column and that are also not referred to in any other column were not statistically different. For example, in Figure 1 below, respondents age 55 and over (C) gave significantly higher rating to the overall quality of life than those age 18 to 34 () and 35 to 54 (), as denoted by the listed in the cell of the ratings for those 55+. This was also true of women () over men (); people who were white alone, not Hispanic () over those who were Hispanic and/or other race (); homeowners () over renters (); and those living in detached housing () over those living in attached housing (). Figure 1: Community Characteristics General (Example Only) 1

55 Findings Notable differences between demographic subgroups included the following: In general, residents who earned $100,000 or more per year were more likely to give positive ratings to aspects of Recreation and Wellness (including fitness opportunities and availability of preventive health services) than residents who earned less. Residents age 55 or older tended to give higher ratings than residents who were younger to the value of services for taxes paid and the overall direction that Skokie is taking; further, residents who earned $100,000 per year or more were more likely to give positive ratings to most aspects of Skokie government performance than residents who earned less than $50,000 per year. Residents age 55 or older were less likely than their counterparts to have walked or biked instead of driving or to have used public transportation instead of driving. Residents age were less likely than residents who were older to have stocked supplies for an emergency and also more likely to be under housing cost stress. 2

56 Table 1: Community Characteristics - General Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) The overall quality of life in Skokie Overall image or reputation of Skokie 5 years or less Skokie as a place to live 96% Your neighborhood as a place to live Skokie as a place to raise children 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 90% 82% 83% 83% 88% 83% 90% 85% 88% 80% 89% 83% 87% 85% 86% 77% 76% 76% 84% 81% 82% 77% 88% 70% 83% 77% 81% 79% 94% C 93% C Skokie as a place to retire 77% Overall appearance of Skokie 84% 88% 88% 91% 86% 91% 92% 87% 88% 92% 85% 94% 77% 79% 85% 82% 85% 77% 89% 83% 81% 85% 87% 84% 89% 87% 91% 59% 64% 61% 72% 88% 81% 80% 79% 88% 71% 71% 59% 73% 80% 79% 89% 80% 89% 55% 73% 88% 83% 84% 83% 83% 89% 85% 63% 71% 66% 84% 85% 80% 87% 79% 84% 81% 85% 83% Table 2: Community Characteristics - Safety Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Overall feeling of safety in Skokie In your neighborhood during the day In Skokie's downtown area during the day 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 81% 74% 72% 78% 72% 71% 74% 84% 66% 74% 80% 72% 79% 75% 95% 87% 91% 94% 88% 85% 95% 96% 95% 87% 92% 90% 91% 91% 95% 90% 93% 94% 92% 89% 95% 96% 95% 90% 94% 93% 93% 93% Table 3: Community Characteristics - Mobility Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 90% 85% 88% 86% 89% 86% 88% 91% 89% 87% 88% 89% 88% 88% Traffic flow on major streets 73% 77% 75% 74% 77% 77% 78% 74% 71% 76% 78% 73% 79% 75% 3

57 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 5 years or less Ease of public parking 86% Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 73% 81% 81% 80% 74% 89% 87% 88% 74% 83% 81% 81% 81% Ease of travel by car in Skokie 90% 83% 86% 83% 90% 84% 95% C Ease of travel by bicycle in Skokie 81% 92% 80% 89% 87% 87% 86% 73% 72% 83% 79% 74% 73% 79% 77% 78% 73% 78% 73% 79% 77% Ease of walking in Skokie 82% 76% 85% 78% 86% 80% 84% 82% 74% 84% 83% 80% 83% 81% vailability of paths and 78% 70% 80% 72% 83% 79% 76% 73% 70% 76% 82% 76% 77% 77% walking trails Table 4: Community Characteristics - Natural Environment Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 84% 85% 77% 78% 87% 81% 88% 81% 91% 76% 81% 82% 81% 81% Cleanliness of Skokie 85% 80% 82% 84% 80% 80% 86% 84% 82% 76% 86% 81% 84% 82% Table 5: Community Characteristics - uilt Environment Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) Public places where people want to spend time 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 79% 76% 74% 77% 75% 79% 75% 76% 77% 70% 81% 75% 79% 75% 75% 78% 80% 79% 77% 81% 76% 78% 77% 75% 81% 75% 82% 78% Variety of housing options 72% 71% 73% 72% 71% 65% 68% 84% vailability of affordable quality housing 70% 54% 57% 60% 61% 60% 52% 73% 62% 77% 42% 70% 75% 72% 73% 72% 64% 56% 67% 61% 4

58 Table 6: Community Characteristics - Economy Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Overall economic health of Skokie 5 years or less Skokie as a place to work 83% Skokie as a place to visit 72% 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 77% 76% 75% 79% 72% 69% 77% 85% 71% 73% 83% 76% 77% 76% 66% 75% 70% 80% 74% 71% 77% 74% 72% 79% 72% 77% 74% 58% 66% 60% 73% 73% C 68% C 55% 62% 65% 70% 63% 71% 65% Employment opportunities 63% 52% 51% 50% 58% 52% 51% 66% 61% 49% 55% 51% 57% 54% Shopping opportunities 79% 87% 86% 86% 81% 78% 80% 95% 81% 87% 83% 84% 85% 84% Cost of living in Skokie 55% 52% 51% 54% 51% 42% 52% 68% 39% 50% 61% 52% 53% 52% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Skokie 84% C Vibrant downtown Skokie 61% C 79% 72% 75% 81% 73% 78% 83% 88% C 56% C 41% 45% 58% 59% 73% 76% 78% 78% 77% 43% 51% 58% 48% 49% 50% 51% 50% Table 7: Community Characteristics - Recreation and Wellness Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 78% 80% 85% 81% 84% 80% 79% 90% 77% 81% 87% 82% 83% 82% 76% 83% 84% 85% 77% 79% 76% 90% 73% 81% 88% 82% 83% 81% Recreational opportunities 82% 78% 82% 83% 79% 77% 82% 89% vailability of affordable quality health care vailability of preventive health services 72% 73% 71% 72% 71% 71% 63% 83% 78% 81% 78% 79% 79% 77% 73% 92% 81% 81% 83% 82% 81% 81% 59% 72% 78% 75% 69% 71% 72% 78% 84% 81% 78% 79% 5

59 Table 8: Community Characteristics - Education and Enrichment Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Overall opportunities for education and enrichment vailability of affordable quality child care/preschool Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 90% 87% 84% 88% 85% 84% 88% 88% 91% 83% 88% 86% 88% 86% 78% 70% 69% 71% 73% 74% 65% 81% 86% 72% 78% 86% 78% 82% 78% 78% 87% 78% 74% 86% 63% 76% 67% 79% 72% 79% 80% 79% Table 9: Community Characteristics - Community Engagement Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 70% 74% 69% 71% 70% 69% 66% 80% 65% 68% 77% 70% 72% 70% 68% 79% 69% 73% 67% 77% 70% 75% 73% Opportunities to volunteer 64% 77% 74% 67% 80% Opportunities to participate in community matters Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds Neighborliness of residents in Skokie Table 10: Governance - General Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 72% 78% 71% 71% 77% 64% 81% 78% 86% 84% 83% 82% 86% 78% 82% 91% 80% C 5 years or less 78% 70% 76% 71% 77% 74% 88% 81% 83% 81% 88% 83% 68% 64% 72% 67% 67% 69% 78% 72% 72% 67% 69% 73% 70% Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more The Village of Skokie 94% 92% 88% 90% 91% 90% 93% 89% 96% The value of services for the taxes paid to the Village of Skokie The overall direction that Skokie is taking Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 85% 93% 93% 88% 90% 67% 59% 70% 70% 61% 51% 67% 76% 71% 70% 72% 71% 62% 75% 80% 78% 54% 62% 77% 65% 68% 81% 74% 59% 66% 76% 68% 72% 6

60 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) The job Skokie government does at welcoming citizen involvement Overall confidence in Skokie government Generally acting in the best interest of the community 5 years or less Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 75% 86% 71% 71% 84% 71% 81% 80% 84% 77% 75% 78% 78% 77% C 78% 65% 69% 72% 67% 57% 73% 72% 64% 74% 73% 68% 53% 81% eing honest 79% 78% 72% 74% 79% 71% 74% 84% Treating all residents fairly 85% C Overall customer service by Skokie employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 83% 83% 76% 70% 78% 75% 70% 73% 87% 85% 86% 82% 87% 79% 80% 82% 90% The Federal Government 40% 46% 39% 36% 48% Table 11: Governance - Safety Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 5 years or less 56% C 28% 39% 29% 51% 61% 71% 77% 74% 68% 70% 66% 68% 78% 72% 72% 70% 72% 74% 82% 81% 71% 75% 73% 75% 81% 76% 78% 77% 82% 80% 87% 87% 78% 83% 42% 39% 47% 42% Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Police services 91% 86% 89% 91% 88% 87% 85% 94% Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 81% 91% 91% 90% 87% 88% Fire services 90% 93% 96% 93% 95% 90% 94% 96% 86% 93% 98% mbulance or emergency medical services 88% 96% 94% 93% 94% 95% 92% 96% 91% 93% 96% 90% 92% 97% 94% 91% 93% Crime prevention 86% 76% 78% 79% 82% 77% 82% 84% 67% 81% Fire prevention and education 88% 90% 87% 85% 94% nimal control 79% 85% 83% 81% 85% 85% 74% 91% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 75% 78% 84% 76% 84% 80% 72% 88% 85% 77% 82% 80% 87% 92% 87% 83% 90% 89% 87% 90% 89% 86% 80% 83% 83% 83% 83% 76% 77% 83% 78% 82% 80% 7

61 Table 12: Governance - Mobility Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 Traffic enforcement 79% 75% 72% 74% 77% 77% Street repair 77% C $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 65% 83% 66% 76% 80% 76% 75% 75% 58% 59% 63% 65% 61% 61% 75% 65% 65% 62% 61% 67% 64% Street cleaning 85% 88% 82% 84% 86% 84% 86% 88% 89% 85% 82% 82% 87% 84% Street lighting 85% 79% 81% 80% 83% 80% 84% 85% 89% 74% 84% 76% 88% 82% Snow removal 72% 79% 76% 78% 73% 75% 70% 86% 57% 84% 81% 76% 75% 76% Sidewalk maintenance 78% 77% 67% 75% 71% 73% 74% 75% 74% 74% 71% 69% 79% 73% Traffic signal timing 78% 81% 60% 69% 74% 72% 75% 69% 66% 80% 70% 72% 72% 71% C C Table 13: Governance - Natural Environment Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () Garbage collection 92% 92% 93% 94% 91% 93% 89% 94% 89% 92% 94% 93% 92% 92% Recycling 87% 81% 91% 90% 83% 88% 81% 92% 88% 85% 89% 85% 90% 87% Yard waste pick-up 84% 86% 84% 87% 81% 79% 84% 93% 85% 87% 83% 84% 86% 85% Drinking water 88% 89% 90% 90% 88% 85% 89% 93% 93% 89% 87% 88% 91% 89% Table 14: Governance - uilt Environment Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () Storm drainage 63% 60% 69% 64% 65% 61% 64% 69% 64% 58% 67% 57% 70% Sewer services 86% 73% 82% 78% 83% 80% 79% 83% 81% 76% 82% 79% 81% 80% Land use, planning and zoning 77% 80% 70% 71% 80% 73% 71% 80% 80% 75% 71% 71% 79% 75% () 64% 8

62 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 5 years or less Cable television 75% Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 76% 74% 59% 63% 76% 74% 61% 70% 69% 65% 73% 69% 70% 69% C C 52% 73% 67% 69% 59% 67% 77% 61% 69% 71% 69% 69% 68% Table 15: Governance - Economy Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 61% 65% 75% 68% 69% 68% Economic development 71% 66% 69% 67% 68% 60% 66% 81% Table 16: Governance - Recreation and Wellness Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () Village parks 95% 92% 91% 92% 94% 91% 95% 92% 95% 90% 93% 93% 91% 92% Skokie Health Department services 81% 85% 81% 81% 83% 78% 84% 92% 89% 79% 84% 81% 85% 82% Table 17: Governance - Education and Enrichment Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Village-sponsored special events 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 83% 77% 84% 79% 85% 79% 83% 85% 86% 78% 84% 79% 85% 81% Table 18: Governance - Community Engagement Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 86% 83% 84% 81% 88% 84% Public information services 81% 83% 87% 84% 84% 80% 81% 93% 9

63 Table 19: Participation General Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 5 years or less Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 69% 78% 76% 77% 75% Overall sense of community 75% 76% 75% 75% 75% 73% 74% 81% 82% Recommend living in Skokie to someone who asks Remain in Skokie for the next five years Table 20: Participation - Safety Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 92% 89% 85% 88% 89% 86% 94% 87% 92% 87% 85% 87% 87% 87% 80% 94% 5 years or less Was NOT the victim of a crime 98% C 82% 92% 86% 90% 88% 87% 83% 86% 89% 86% 87% 86% Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 94% 91% 96% 92% 93% 93% 94% 93% 96% 93% 94% 94% 94% Did NOT report a crime 89% 88% 85% 88% 85% 85% 90% 86% 84% 89% 87% 85% 89% 87% Stocked supplies in preparation for 16% 16% 20% 20% 15% 16% 15% 24% 5% 21% 20% 21% 13% 18% an emergency Table 21: Participation - Mobility Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 5 years or less Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () Walked or biked instead of driving 73% 79% 70% 77% 71% 66% 70% 88% Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 53% 67% C 47% 50% 61% 81% C 61% 48% 57% 74% C 83% C 57% C 61% 67% 81% 45% 48% 65% () 73% 55% 10

64 Table 22: Participation - Natural Environment Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years Recycle at home 72% 88% More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 89% 94% 72% 79% 78% 98% 72% 82% 93% 89% 80% 84% Table 23: Participation - uilt Environment Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years NOT under housing cost stress 43% 47% 63% Did NOT observe a code violation 78% C Table 24: Participation - Economy Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Purchase goods or services from a business located in Skokie Economy will have positive impact on income More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 54% 52% 25% 52% 88% 40% 57% 56% 51% 55% 53% 5 years or less 69% 63% 67% 71% 79% 59% 67% 71% 63% 72% 66% 72% 69% Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 98% 98% 98% 99% 98% 98% 100% 97% 100% 99% 98% 97% 99% 98% 47% C Work in Skokie 30% 42% C 19% 25% 30% 29% 22% 30% 38% 33% 37% C 23% 31% 30% 32% 28% 36% 34% 38% C 22% 29% 31% 29% 23% 36% 23% 31% Table 25: Participation - Recreation and Wellness Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Used Skokie recreation centers or their services Visited a neighborhood park or Village park 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 63% 66% 69% 70% 62% 61% 66% 80% 72% 72% 58% 71% 58% 66% C C 87% 81% 80% 83% 81% 78% 80% 92% 96% C 83% 75% 81% 85% 82% 11

65 Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity Reported being in "very good" or "excellent" health 5 years or less Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 91% 85% 82% 86% 86% 89% 78% 90% 79% 88% 87% 89% 81% 86% C 82% 80% 82% 85% 77% 69% 88% 76% C 57% 51% 59% 61% 51% 66% 89% 68% 77% 83% 81% 78% 84% 81% 86% C 58% 47% 61% 58% 60% Table 26: Participation - Education and Enrichment Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Used Skokie Public Library or its services ttended a Village-sponsored event 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 82% 86% 80% 80% 85% 82% 85% 84% 90% 82% 78% 86% 76% 82% C 53% 64% C 49% 58% 52% 48% 55% 64% 59% C 66% C 41% 55% 50% 54% Table 27: Participation - Community Engagement Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Skokie 5 years or less 6 to 20 years ttended a local public meeting 4% 13% 17% Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 15% 27% 25% 26% 18% 24% 14% 29% 15% 29% 20% 26% 18% 22% 17% 4% 10% 9% 7% 10% 12% C 75% 84% 92% Vote in local elections 73% 88% 86% 8% 13% 8% 17% 85% 86% 82% 87% 85% 74% 88% 88% 76% 76% 74% 96% 12% 14% 12% 15% 10% 13% 9% 3% 4% 10% 10% 10% 7% 8% 67% 86% 89% 87% 88% 82% 85% 86% 78% 83% 12

66 Table 28: Community Focus reas Percent rating positively (e.g., essential/very important) 5 years or less Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 91% 96% 96% 97% 94% 91% 100% Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 95% 92% 97% 95% 92% 98% 76% 85% 86% 81% 85% 81% 87% 84% 85% 79% 85% 81% 85% 83% 85% 80% 83% 84% 82% 82% 86% 84% 82% 85% 82% 81% 87% 83% 79% 78% 84% 77% 86% () 95% 83% 81% 80% 77% 84% 82% 79% 84% 81% 84% 80% 80% 82% 81% 87% C 83% 74% 85% 75% 84% 80% 81% 81% 87% 80% 83% 86% 81% 87% 83% 80% 88% 77% 85% 84% 81% 83% Overall economic health of Skokie 93% 92% 94% 95% 93% 91% 96% 96% 97% 93% 93% 92% 95% 93% Overall sense of community 88% 86% 76% 84% 81% 84% 85% 82% 86% 84% 80% 85% 79% 82% C C Table 29: Community Characteristics - Skokie-Specific Items Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) 5 years or less In Skokie in general 96% C 6 to 20 years Ease of travel by train in Skokie 59% 75% More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 89% 89% 92% 91% 89% 93% 94% 95% 86% 92% 90% 91% 90% 78% 67% 78% 81% C 64% 67% 57% 73% 82% 77% 67% 72% Ease of travel by bus in Skokie 73% 69% 80% 72% 77% 76% 67% 81% 70% 74% 80% 74% 76% 75% Overall quality of new 73% 72% 62% 66% 70% 67% 65% 72% 55% 72% 72% 68% 68% 67% commercial development in Skokie Overall quality of new residential development in Skokie 66% 68% 56% 59% 66% 62% 63% 67% 66% 62% 61% 60% 65% 62% 13

67 Table 30: Governance - Skokie-Specific Items Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () Skokie's acklot ash 85% 83% 83% 83% 85% 83% 91% 81% 92% 79% 84% 81% 85% 84% Skokie Farmers' Market 78% 90% 87% 83% 90% 84% 93% 85% 93% 84% 86% 84% 87% 86% Public art (murals and sculptures) 80% 85% 75% 78% 82% 77% 80% 85% 88% 79% 78% 83% 76% 79% dministrative hearings (parking or code violations) 74% 77% 64% 63% 79% 69% 71% 68% 80% 71% 66% 69% 72% 70% Sidewalk snow plowing 71% 66% 70% 67% 73% 66% 72% 69% 68% 69% 70% 70% 69% 69% lley maintenance 66% 71% 66% 65% 70% 65% 61% 80% 64% 69% 66% 67% 68% 67% Obtaining a building permit 59% 75% 61% 64% 69% 66% 63% 64% 57% 67% 64% 66% 64% 66% Public information - NewSkokie municipal newsletter 88% 86% 90% 90% 84% 80% 90% 93% 89% 90% 84% 89% 86% 87% Public information - municipal website Public information - Village of Skokie electronic newsletter Shop Local Skokie Facebook page Skokie Police Department Facebook page Overall competence of Police Department employees Police officers' attitudes and behaviors towards citizens Fire prevention - code enforcement Fire prevention - public education Senior Transportation (STR) bus service Knowledge of Village of Skokie employees Responsiveness of Village of Skokie employees 79% 84% 84% 84% 81% 77% 78% 94% 89% 87% 86% 87% 88% 75% 94% 96% 62% 93% 84% 95% C 84% () 81% 86% 83% 80% 88% 89% 87% 79% 73% 67% 66% 81% 67% 77% 71% 84% 74% 62% 74% 73% 72% 78% 86% 77% 78% 83% 71% 92% 85% 84% 86% C 69% 84% 79% 80% 88% 90% 82% 88% 83% 84% 81% 91% 83% 88% 85% 89% 83% 86% 88% 87% 80% 85% 84% 85% 79% 89% 84% 87% 81% 86% 82% 84% 78% 89% 79% 83% 82% 76% 88% 83% 77% 85% 82% 81% 83% 82% 83% 83% 83% 81% 87% 79% 85% 88% 76% 86% 82% 84% 83% 83% 69% 78% 73% 66% 81% 67% 80% 82% 48% 89% C 82% 87% 77% 76% 90% 79% 74% 91% 83% 87% 81% 80% 88% 76% 83% 91% 63% 68% 79% 73% 84% 82% 78% 83% 80% 81% 92% 77% 83% 88% 79% 83% 14

68 Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) Courtesy of Village of Skokie employees 5 years or less Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall 6 to 20 years State of Illinois 31% 40% C Cook County 40% 46% C More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 87% 86% 87% 88% 85% 80% 87% 92% 92% 82% 88% 88% 86% 87% 25% 24% 40% 45% 23% 26% 23% 42% 29% 28% 39% 32% C C 29% 30% 45% 50% C 29% 35% 34% 44% 35% 37% 39% 37% Economic development efforts 72% 68% 65% 69% 64% 57% 66% 78% 64% 66% 73% 72% 65% 67% Skokie Farmers' Market 78% 90% 87% 83% 90% 84% 93% 85% 93% 84% 86% 84% 87% 86% Table 31: Participation - Skokie-Specific Items Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years Paid a cable television bill 44% 63% ccessed the internet from a home computer ccessed the internet from a smart phone Reported a code violation or other hazard in Skokie (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) Contacted the Village of Skokie inperson or on the phone for help or information Contacted the Village of Skokie via or on the internet for help or information More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 72% 69% 53% 54% 51% 77% 47% 61% 69% 64% 57% 61% 86% 83% 83% 86% 82% 78% 82% 94% 84% 83% 77% 84% 77% 68% 83% 12% 9% 12% 13% 10% 8% 20% C 42% 45% 62% 36% C Read NewSkokie newsletter 76% 87% Visited 59% 70% C Listened to 1660 M Skokie radio station 67% 18% 25% 33% 87% 89% 93% 32% 42% 51% 61% 18% 18% 34% 80% 76% 93% 88% 86% 80% 83% 86% 84% 96% C 88% C 66% 79% 82% 81% 8% 13% 10% 13% 14% 9% 12% 32% 55% 65% 56% 52% 58% 76% 9% 18% 10% 9% 17% 22% C 43% 53% 54% 59% 31% 22% 28% 32% 41% 52% 18% 27% 86% 79% 86% 86% 86% 81% 84% 77% C 5% 7% 22% C 66% C 47% 65% 55% 61% 7% 11% 14% 10% 12% 15

69 Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) 5 years or less Length of residency Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 Visited Downtown Skokie 89% 91% 87% 88% 91% 83% 93% Ridden a Senior Transportation for rea Residents (STR) bus Set out yard waste for Village crews to collect Completely filled your refuse container for both of the two weekly collections by Public Works $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 93% 96% 89% 85% 89% 88% 89% C 2% 7% 4% 4% 4% 8% C 42% 48% 56% 41% 48% 63% Visited the Skokie Farmers' Market 40% 54% 71% 69% 44% 51% 23% 35% 52% 4% 1% 4% 3% 6% 4% 5% 4% 66% 31% 42% 50% 64% 39% 38% 45% 55% 35% 50% 57% 50% 47% 49% 48% 52% 54% 56% 47% 52% 32% 56% 44% 51% 37% 45% Table 32: Support for Village Investment Number of years in Skokie Housing unit type nnual household income ge Gender Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., strongly or somewhat support) 5 years or less 6 to 20 years More than 20 years Detached ttached Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 Resurfacing residential streets 94% 97% 96% 97% 94% 92% 99% Implementing economic development initiatives to bring new businesses, create jobs and generate sales tax Translating Village printed and digital publications into multiple languages Creating environmental sustainability initiatives dding additional street lighting on Crawford venue $100,000 or more Female Male () () (C) () () () () (C) () () (C) () () () 95% 94% 95% 97% 99% 92% 96% 90% 93% 93% 93% 90% 82% 100% 74% C 95% C 70% C 70% C 93% C 73% C 54% 54% 75% 79% 87% 89% 83% 97% C 96% 63% 70% 62% 83% C 88% 96% C 86% 95% 94% 94% 91% 92% 63% 56% 67% 61% 64% 86% 86% 91% 85% 88% 57% 61% 69% 62% 70% 61% 68% 64% 65% 70% 61% 65% 16

70 Skokie, IL Comparisons by Geographic Subgroups DRFT Valmont Road Suite North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 oulder, Colorado Washington, DC n-r-c.com icma.org

71 Summary The National Citizen Survey (The NCS ) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management ssociation (ICM). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. Communities conducting The NCS can choose from a number of optional services to customize the reporting of survey results. Skokie s Comparisons by Geographic Subgroups is part of a larger project for the Village and additional reports are available under separate cover. This report discusses differences in opinion of survey respondents by zip code. Understanding the Tables For most of the questions, one number appears for each question. Responses have been summarized to show only the proportion of respondents giving a certain answer; for example, the percent of respondents who rated the quality of life as excellent or good, or the percent of respondents who participated in an activity at least once. It should be noted that when a table that does include all responses (not a single number) for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the common practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number. The subgroup comparison tables contain the crosstabulations of survey questions by zip code. Chi-square or NOV tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns of survey questions. p-value of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of the sample represent real differences among those populations. s subgroups vary in size and each group (and each comparison to another group) has a unique margin of error, statistical testing is used to determine whether differences between subgroups are statistically significant. Statistical testing was not performed on multiple response questions. Each column in the following tables is labeled with a letter for each subgroup being compared. The Overall column, which shows the ratings for all respondents, also has a column designation of (), but no statistical tests were done for the overall rating. For each pair of subgroup ratings within a row (a single question item) that has a statistically significant difference, an upper case letter denoting significance is shown in the cell with the larger column proportion. The letter denotes the subgroup with the smaller column proportion from which it is statistically different. Subgroups that have no upper case letter denotation in their column and that are also not referred to in any other column were not statistically different. For example, in Figure 1 below, respondents in Districts 1 () and 2 () gave significantly lower ratings to overall quality of life than respondents in Districts 3 (C) and 4 (D), as denoted by the listed in the cell of the ratings for Districts 3 and 4. The overall quality of life rating in District 4 (D) also was significantly lower than that of District 3 (C) (as indicated by the D in the rating for District 3). Figure 1: Community Characteristics General (Example Only) 1

72 Three zip codes were tracked for comparison and the number of completed surveys for each are in the figure below. Where differences in opinion were noted, residents who lived in zip code tended to give statistically significantly higher ratings than residents who lived in It is important to note that while ratings for zip code appear to be highly positive for many aspects, statistically significant inferences cannot be drawn for most questions due to the very small number of respondents in this zip code. Figure 2: Geographic reas Zip Code Number of Completed Surveys N= N= N=18 2

73 Table 1: Community Characteristics - General Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) () () (C) () The overall quality of life in Skokie 88% 80% 100% 85% Overall image or reputation of Skokie 84% 73% 90% 79% Skokie as a place to live 91% 85% 100% 88% Your neighborhood as a place to live 85% 79% 100% 83% Skokie as a place to raise children 90% 79% 100% 85% Skokie as a place to retire 65% 66% 85% 66% Overall appearance of Skokie 86% 78% 96% 83% Table 2: Community Characteristics - Safety Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) () () (C) () Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 80% 68% 100% 75% In your neighborhood during the day 95% 87% 100% 91% In Skokie's downtown area during the day 96% 89% 100% 93% Table 3: Community Characteristics - Mobility Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) () () (C) () Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 90% 85% 94% 88% Traffic flow on major streets 79% 72% 65% 75% Ease of public parking 83% 78% 83% 81% Ease of travel by car in Skokie 88% 85% 79% 86% Ease of travel by bicycle in Skokie 75% 79% 73% 77% Ease of walking in Skokie 80% 84% 67% 81% vailability of paths and walking trails 75% 80% 56% 77% 3

74 Table 4: Community Characteristics - Natural Environment Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) () () (C) () Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie 82% 80% 96% 81% Cleanliness of Skokie 85% 78% 96% 82% Table 5: Community Characteristics - uilt Environment Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) () () (C) () Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 79% 72% 65% 75% Public places where people want to spend time 80% 74% 96% 78% Variety of housing options 75% 70% 57% 72% vailability of affordable quality housing 64% 59% 38% 61% Table 6: Community Characteristics - Economy Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) () () (C) () Overall economic health of Skokie 79% 71% 100% 76% Skokie as a place to work 77% 72% 74% 74% Skokie as a place to visit 59% 71% 57% 65% Employment opportunities 54% 54% 31% 54% Shopping opportunities 88% 79% 87% 84% Cost of living in Skokie 53% 49% 69% 52% Overall quality of business and service establishments in Skokie 79% 75% 76% 77% Vibrant downtown Skokie 50% 52% 35% 50% 4

75 Table 7: Community Characteristics - Recreation and Wellness Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) () () (C) () Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie 87% 75% 96% 82% Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 90% 72% 94% 81% Recreational opportunities 88% 73% 94% 81% vailability of affordable quality health care 81% 61% 88% 71% vailability of preventive health services 88% 69% 84% 79% Table 8: Community Characteristics - Education and Enrichment Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) () () (C) () Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 91% 81% 100% 86% vailability of affordable quality child care/preschool 84% 59% 86% 72% Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 82% 78% 73% 79% Table 9: Community Characteristics - Community Engagement Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) () () (C) () Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 79% 61% 69% 70% Opportunities to volunteer 84% 65% 44% 73% C Opportunities to participate in community matters 79% 69% 66% 74% Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 86% 80% 95% 83% Neighborliness of residents in Skokie 72% 66% 82% 70% 5

76 Table 10: Governance - General Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) () () (C) () The Village of Skokie 94% 86% 100% 90% The value of services for the taxes paid to the Village of Skokie 72% 58% 85% 66% The overall direction that Skokie is taking 78% 64% 96% 72% The job Skokie government does at welcoming citizen involvement 78% 77% 53% 77% Overall confidence in Skokie government 76% 62% 86% 70% Generally acting in the best interest of the community 74% 65% 92% 70% eing honest 82% 69% 55% 75% Treating all residents fairly 80% 74% 58% 77% Overall customer service by Skokie employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 91% 75% 100% The Federal Government 44% 40% 35% 42% Table 11: Governance - Safety Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) () () (C) () Police services 91% 85% 96% 88% Fire services 97% 90% 100% 94% mbulance or emergency medical services 98% 88% 100% 93% Crime prevention 84% 74% 100% 80% Fire prevention and education 93% 83% 100% 89% nimal control 83% 82% 100% 83% Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 83% 77% 79% 80% 83% 6

77 Table 12: Governance - Mobility Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) () () (C) () Traffic enforcement 75% 75% 90% 75% Street repair 67% 59% 78% 64% Street cleaning 85% 83% 96% 84% Street lighting 84% 79% 88% 82% Snow removal 86% 65% 78% 76% Sidewalk maintenance 76% 71% 63% 73% Traffic signal timing 70% 74% 54% 71% Table 13: Governance - Natural Environment Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) () () (C) () Garbage collection 95% 89% 100% 92% Recycling 90% 83% 96% 87% Yard waste pick-up 89% 79% 96% 85% Drinking water 91% 87% 100% 89% Table 14: Governance - uilt Environment Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) () () (C) () Storm drainage 62% 66% 58% 64% Sewer services 80% 78% 100% 80% Land use, planning and zoning 74% 74% 88% 75% Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 72% 66% 64% 69% Cable television 72% 65% 49% 68% 7

78 Table 15: Governance - Economy Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) () () (C) () Economic development 75% 61% 75% 68% Table 16: Governance - Recreation and Wellness Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) () () (C) () Village parks 95% 90% 94% 92% Skokie Health Department services 88% 74% 100% 82% Table 17: Governance - Education and Enrichment Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) () () (C) () Village-sponsored special events 82% 80% 94% 81% Table 18: Governance - Community Engagement Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) () () (C) () Public information services 88% 81% 77% 84% Table 19: Participation General Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) () () (C) () Overall sense of community 79% 70% 78% 75% Recommend living in Skokie to someone who asks 93% 82% 100% 88% Remain in Skokie for the next five years 91% 81% 100% 86% 8

79 Table 20: Participation - Safety Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) () () (C) () Was NOT the victim of a crime 95% 92% 100% 94% Did NOT report a crime 85% 88% 92% 87% Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 19% 17% 8% 18% Table 21: Participation - Mobility Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) () () (C) () Walked or biked instead of driving 73% 73% 77% 73% Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 52% 59% C 25% 55% Table 22: Participation - Natural Environment Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) () () (C) () Recycle at home 87% 81% 92% 84% Table 23: Participation - uilt Environment Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) () () (C) () NOT under housing cost stress 55% 49% 70% 53% Did NOT observe a code violation 64% 74% 56% 69% Table 24: Participation - Economy Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) () () (C) () Purchase goods or services from a business located in Skokie 99% 97% 100% 98% Economy will have positive impact on income 32% 26% 33% 29% Work in Skokie 35% C 29% C 0% 31% 9

80 Table 25: Participation - Recreation and Wellness Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) () () (C) () Used Skokie recreation centers or their services 65% 65% 88% 66% Visited a neighborhood park or Village park 87% 78% 82% 82% Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 92% 78% 96% 86% Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 84% 78% 92% 81% Reported being in "very good" or "excellent" health 64% 55% 69% 60% Table 26: Participation - Education and Enrichment Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) () () (C) () Used Skokie Public Library or its services 82% 82% 84% 82% ttended a Village-sponsored event 52% 56% 57% 54% Table 27: Participation - Community Engagement Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) () () (C) () Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Skokie 20% 24% 28% 22% ttended a local public meeting 12% 13% 29% 13% Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 8% 9% 12% 8% Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 90% 80% 94% 85% Vote in local elections 89% 76% 92% 83% 10

81 Table 28: Community Focus reas Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., essential/very important) () () (C) () Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 95% 96% 78% 95% C C Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 85% 80% 92% 83% Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie 83% 83% 78% 83% Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 84% 79% 74% 81% Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie 82% 80% 78% 81% Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 84% 81% 96% 83% Overall economic health of Skokie 95% 93% 78% 93% C Overall sense of community 82% 82% 87% 82% Table 29: Community Characteristics - Skokie-Specific Items Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good, very/somewhat safe) () () (C) () In Skokie in general 93% 88% 100% 90% Ease of travel by train in Skokie 79% 68% 41% 72% C Ease of travel by bus in Skokie 78% 73% 42% 75% Overall quality of new commercial development in Skokie 71% 62% 88% 67% Overall quality of new residential development in Skokie 63% 59% 87% 62% Table 30: Governance - Skokie-Specific Items Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) () () (C) () Skokie's acklot ash 89% 78% 92% 84% Skokie Farmers' Market 87% 85% 93% 86% Public art (murals and sculptures) 82% 77% 80% 79% dministrative hearings (parking or code violations) 78% 63% 71% 70% Sidewalk snow plowing 69% 70% 59% 69% lley maintenance 69% 65% 63% 67% Obtaining a building permit 73% 55% 87% 66% 11

82 Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., excellent/good) () () (C) () Public information - NewSkokie municipal newsletter 94% 80% 91% 87% Public information - municipal website 88% 79% 61% 83% C Public information - Village of Skokie electronic newsletter 92% 83% 82% 87% Shop Local Skokie Facebook page 74% 71% 46% 72% Skokie Police Department Facebook page 79% 79% 100% 80% Overall competence of Police Department employees 93% 79% 100% 86% Police officers' attitudes and behaviors towards citizens 89% 79% 95% 84% Fire prevention - code enforcement 83% 81% 100% 82% Fire prevention - public education 90% 77% 74% 83% Senior Transportation (STR) bus service 71% 73% 100% 73% Knowledge of Village of Skokie employees 86% 76% 79% 81% Responsiveness of Village of Skokie employees 87% 78% 92% 83% Courtesy of Village of Skokie employees 92% 81% 96% 87% State of Illinois 38% 26% 18% 3% Cook County 43% 30% 54% 37% Economic development efforts 73% 59% 72% 67% Skokie Farmers' Market 87% 85% 93% 86% Table 31: Participation - Skokie-Specific Items Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) () () (C) () Paid a cable television bill 63% 58% 72% 61% ccessed the internet from a home computer 86% 82% 86% 84% ccessed the internet from a smart phone 82% 79% 82% 81% Reported a code violation or other hazard in Skokie (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 17% 7% 0% 12% Contacted the Village of Skokie in-person or on the phone for help or information 58% 44% 77% 52% 12

83 Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (e.g., always/sometimes, more than once a month, yes) () () (C) () Contacted the Village of Skokie via or on the internet for help or information 30% 24% 26% 27% Read NewSkokie newsletter 85% 82% 96% 84% Visited 63% 58% 74% 61% Listened to 1660 M Skokie radio station 13% 12% 0% 12% Visited Downtown Skokie 90% 87% 83% 89% Ridden a Senior Transportation for rea Residents (STR) bus 4% 4% 6% 4% Set out yard waste for Village crews to collect 58% 38% 84% 49% Completely filled your refuse container for both of the two weekly collections by Public Works 61% 45% 38% 52% Visited the Skokie Farmers' Market 46% 45% 28% 45% Table 32: Support for Village Investment Zip Code Overall Percent rating positively (strongly or somewhat support) () () (C) () Resurfacing residential streets 98% 94% 91% 96% Implementing economic development initiatives to bring new businesses, create jobs and generate sales tax 93% 91% 100% 92% Translating Village printed and digital publications into multiple languages 63% 64% 78% 64% Creating environmental sustainability initiatives 88% 87% 95% 88% dding additional street lighting on Crawford venue 64% 64% 77% 65% dding bicycle lanes on Village streets and additional multi-use trails 74% 62% 47% 68% 13

84 Skokie, IL Open-ended Responses DRFT Valmont Road Suite North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 oulder, Colorado Washington, DC n-r-c.com icma.org

85 Contents Summary... 1 Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Question... 2 The National Citizen Survey National Research Center, Inc. The NCS is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICM. NRC is a charter member of the POR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices.

86 Summary The National Citizen Survey (The NCS ) is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management ssociation (ICM). The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality research methods and directly comparable results across The NCS communities. This report includes the verbatim responses to an open-ended question included on The NCS 2018 survey for Skokie. dditional reports and the technical appendices are available under separate cover. Respondents were asked to record their opinions about Skokie in the following question: Is there a community issue of concern to you that is not addressed in this survey? Please explain. The verbatim responses were categorized by topic area and those topics are reported in the following chart with the percent of responses given in each category. ecause some comments from residents covered more than a single topic, those verbatim responses are coded and grouped by the first topic listed in each comment whenever a respondent mentioned more than a single topic. Results from the open-ended question are best understood by reviewing the frequencies that summarize responses as well as the actual verbatim responses themselves. total of 356 surveys were completed by Skokie residents; of these, 128 respondents wrote in responses for the open-ended question. bout 2 in 10 residents made a comment related to code enforcement, maintenance, property issues or taxes or to transportation, traffic or roads. bout 1 in 10 commented about law enforcement/crime, the Skokie economy and/or business development, or Village services/policy. nother 1 in 10 residents made a comment about a topic outside of the more commonly mentioned categories, and 2 in 10 indicated that they were not sure about a community issue of concern or that they were happy with Skokie. Figure 1: Question 16 Is there a community issue of concern to you that is not addressed in this survey? Please explain. Code enforcement/maintenance/property/taxes 20% Transportation/traffic/roads 18% Law enforcement/crime 13% Economy/business development 10% Village services/policy 8% Other 9% Don't know/nothing 22% 1

87 Verbatim Responses to Open-ended Question The following pages contain the respondents verbatim responses as written on the survey or entered in the web survey and have not been edited for spelling or grammar. Responses have been organized by coded topic areas. Is there a community issue of concern to you that is not addressed in this survey? Please explain. Code enforcement/maintenance/property/taxes Clean-up garbage, paper on walking path. Cost of living in Skokie is very expensive. The taxes are high in compare to the neighbor cities and jobs rate and businesses are low. Eliminate restaurant tax. this is unfair for Skokie. Fix sewer drains!! Especially when it rains! Garbage & poor care of appliances of many businesses such as Dollar tree & Walgreens on Dempster and Crawford. Parking lots & trash cans overflowing & blowing into streets. Monarch enforce. Giants rats live openly in alley (Kirk St.). It would be helpful to send info about the village demographics, project, budget, etc. with this survey. High taxes due to Cook County taxes. I feel very strongly that Skokie property taxes are unaffordable and has substantially reduced property values. Median household income in Skokie is $60k-$70k, property tax for a sub 1500 sq. ft. home approaches $10k. Do the math! I would like the Howard Street have a little more gas getting finished. They are taking too long in getting it done. I`d like to hear more about what is being done to maintain/improve public schools, especially since our taxes were just increased to shore this up. I'm concern about my neighborhood aren't keep up with their property which makes the property value going down and less appealing. Litter, from passing cars- fireworks being used for 1 month after July 4th. More pest control near restaurants (rats). No parking available at yellow line Oakton station. Non-removal of skunks by animal control. Owners of sections 8 housing must be held accountable for the number of people that ultimately live in their units and are responsible for reporting any illegal activity. Please prohibit renting of single family residences. Please allow leashed dogs at the farmer's market. Please create more dog- friendly parks. Please limit section 8 rentals in Skokie. Property taxes are out of control. Property taxes are too high, too many different tax rates in Skokie depending on your school district. Skokie School District #219 & 73.5 taxes are too high. Skokie real estate taxes general should the spread more evenly. Skunks. Stop spending & reduce taxes. efore Skokie allows anymore new construction they should fix the sewer system first. My basement floods way too often. The monthly rent of apartments increases every year, is there a law on Skokie pt. and can Skokie give people a low budget housing or low rent for Skokie residents. Trees are often planted incorrectly on parkways and in parks. The importance of trees on public and private land should be promoted. Trees on parkways should not be optional. Village got to plant trees in front of every house. Village is not picking grass clipping and not permitting the tree removing when tree is destroying sewers. Why are property values so low compared to neighboring villages? 2

88 Transportation/traffic/roads 1) Consolidate school districts- huge expenses & mgmt. heavy. 2) Elevate the "EL". It's the worst thing about Skokie. You can't drive anywhere & running into the "EL", the highway, a park. Kids can't ride their bikes b/c the streets are all busy b/c only a few go all the way through. 3) Install a traffic circle on main & Lincoln by the old police station. lley make nice like cement road. icycle lanes are dangerous. Enforce higher night lighting standards for bicyclists. IG PROLEM WITH RUTS IN STREET ND VLLEY I hate that people from the train park and there is never parking for residents. Something needs to happen for the residents. I think the timed stoplights doesn't help move traffic and the lights at Oakton when trains are also pass, poor. Is above- hold classes to address language problems. Evanston should contribute to Crawford lighting, bike lanes and trails, consult together to keep costs low. More sidewalks- (Keller ve). More traffic enforcement. Driven distraction or avoiding traffic rules endanger others. Path over Golf or Old Orchard at highway. Please add street lights to Crawford ve. It is so dark can't see someone riding a bike & can't see cars parked in the driveway I try to avoid traveling down Crawford at night because it's so dark. I have 20/20 vision. It is too dark. Potholes in alley & water stays after rain cars get dirty & from splash & germs are in water. Sidewalks are needed in Crawford Manor area! Our street has sidewalks on half the houses only. Dangerous for kids to get to a bus stop with no sidewalks (on Lee street). Skokie lvd & Church is bad intersection. Is it the lights that area of Skokie is high crime!! & Walgreen lot is dirty along with 7 eleven. Street parking near Skokie swift, overcrowded illegal parking of swift riders then residents can't park on the streets and end up getting tickets parking in swift lot. Zone permit not being enforced. Should be different zone #'s for each street other residents parking on our street. Suffield Court Street is very bad shape. Nothing is done last 25 years. Please take care of the street. The need for either speed bumps or STOP signs on Sherwin ve. west of Edens to slow traffic that is trying to avoid Touhy congestion. The Skokie swift station at Oakton is Ugly!! n architecture travesty! Looks like a Quonset hut with windows. It does nothing to enhance the beauty of the street! The space of public parking near the Skokie swift station is needed. The traffic lights on Dempster & Niles Ctr. roads are terrible! Traffic is often backed up to Church St. especially in rush hour! The way the traffic is diverted from 3 lanes down to two on Skokie lvd in front of the Old Orchard shopping mall is dangerous. lso, potholes take years to get fixed so you want more money?? There are too many signs along the streets!! Timing of traffic light where Niles center meets Lincoln ve. (Fork by St. John Church & Haben Undertaker). Today is the issue about more lights in Crawford ve.?? We don't have sidewalks. Dangerous walking or kids biking. Yes. The noise created by motorcycles and autos in the late evening and early morning hours. Cicero avenue and Lincoln avenue seem to be the favorite racing streets for both. Law enforcement/crime lert sirens are not clearly communicated to residents. s a regular synagogue participant, I am fearful of terrorism either in the immediate area or as we walk on the Shabathon holidays to in our neighborhood. Ricky birdsong was murdered on a Saturday tragically. We need more security. Thank you. Gangs or gang development & control or elimination of them & gun control. I do not feel the Skokie police treat all people the same. My son has been harassed by the police (for walking in the neighborhood!) and accused of "casing out" properties for burglary!! Never been in any trouble in his life. I have also been treated rudely by the police when I have needed their help (my house was burglarizes & auto accident. May be they disrespect single women, or women in general? 3

89 I have lived in Skokie over 40 years. I must say I never have seen any patrol cars going down the side streets during day. They used to. Monitor parking lots of commercial and residence for unwanted activity such as drug dealing, loitering, etc. Need more of police present in our neighborhood in late hours and early morning. Police called to quite noise of neighbors or other "bad neighbors" residents. Police only comfort they tell "resident to be quieter"!! "ecause we are condos and have rules and regulation. "If renters they could do more"! So what good is it to even call them!! I could do the same thing. Safety in Skokie keeps declining. More crime, increase crime. Safety of residence in problem areas. Concerns about the new gaming venue ignite community safety. Several burglaries in our neighborhood; none solved or prosecuted to my knowledge. Thieves can't be that proficient. Racial & social sensitivity of police needs improving. Skokie tickets for everything. You should have plenty of money. The issue I have is the increase of crises because of so many section lights. There is a lot of bullying going on and threats that are not addressed! The motto "Skokie welcomes everyone" seems naive to me. There are career criminals out there that should not be welcomed to Skokie! The overall feeling in our family is get out before property values drop - safety is getting to be a real concern see less police presence in the neighborhoods. The section 8 housing that you have allowed in Skokie has made me & my family feel unsafe at night. Can't walk in the neighborhood after dark leaving Weber Center at night. Skokie is not the same as when I or my children were young, Morton Grove has no section 8 & has much crime. The village is doing a great job making Skokie clean and safe! Nothing should charge in this regard. Do not spend money foolishly on extra lighting on Crawford. Just have police drive by more often, so presence is felt. Tree & shrubs on private property from a neighbor growing on my property. Village will do nothing for me! Police will do nothing! What do I do?? Economy/business development dditional economic incentives to encourage new businesses to move to Skokie; Provide more housing subsidies to low-income residents; Some consolidation of primary school districts in order to even-out tax burden across all districts. Continued development of downtown (Oakton). Downtown Skokie on Saturday is a ghost town. Rethink traffic pattern to get into Chase ank parking lot on Lincoln ve.- it is a traffic hazard. Empty car dealerships on Skokie lvd, empty lots/ buildings on Dempster by Evanston, building design of target overshadows beautiful old swift station need more local diners, less nail/ hair places need a bowling alley, need a local book store. Excessive high rise development downtown, lack of varied restaurants & retail downtown. Excessive strip mall development lack of progress w/ CT old orchard extension ground at raised elevated. I think downtown needs to be more alive. It has too many nails and hair shops or saloons, between need more attractive business or restaurants. Taxes are too high in this village. For example, we pay taxes for cars when we already pay taxes for the store. Please find a solution to Skokie's Ghost Town downtown (and along East boundary on Skokie lvd.)... I support the grants available to support new businesses; however, the particular businesses and restaurants that have been added are not competitive (quality, cost) with those nearby. I've lived in skokie for 11 years, and this continues to be a ugly scar on an otherwise very good village. Libertad is successful and popular; perhaps additional high-quality restaurants would also be successful (don't fool yourselves thinking most restaurants downtown are high-quality). If there are no immediate plans for all the vacant buildings, consolidate what's good and tear down the rest--repurpose the land for parks or something else Skokie does well. The development of shopping centers near McCormick and Dempster. There is a vacant shopping center, gas station, and an empty lot that is unsightly. I'd like to see this area of Skokie redeveloped. Too many vacant stores- should have incentives or penalties i.e., landlords should lower rents. Total lack of village development and investment east of Crawford, especially between Main and Dempster. The number of empty storefronts is appalling, yet all investment has been in the 'downtown' over the past 4

90 several years. Those of us living east of Crawford expect better treatment than this! lso, street repair has removed concrete streets for new asphalt. I don't appreciate the decline in overall road quality in this suburb over our 30+ year residence. Turning down Crossfit and Calvary Redemption Center seems to indicate discrimination against key demographic groups, young professionals and frican mericans, respectively. There are enough vacant buildings without these decisions that take entities elsewhere. We need to focus on economic development. Many businesses have closed at Old Orchard Mall. The mall is very important to Skokie Old Orchard Road and the entrance & exit to 94 are in bad shape too. Overall you are doing a good job with city services. Village services/policy 1) 2nd weekly refuse pickup is definitely needed during the summer's warm months. 2) Street cleaning could be i-monthly instead of every week- except for the autumn. ehavior problems are spoiling our library. Ease of getting permits to fix/add-on to property. Some homes have garages while others don't get approved. Guidelines for when a disaster, tornado etc. strike. I have only lived in Skokie 6 months. Skokie govt. should do less. Community groups should do more. Public services & engineering departments poorly staffed by competent & forward thinking employees/managers. Reduce section 8 housing. Skokie swimming pool- lousy monument! Dirty, disorganized, very messy. The way you spend money unwisely! There is a substantial number of frican merican in Skokie and I have called city hall several years and indicated the lack of lack History cognition during the month of Feb, there's no programs and no printed recognition. Wasn't aware of STR program. Weber center should have more yoga classes. The current too few dues are full Pk. dist. budget too big. Don't need all the plants and high Pd. maintenance that goes with adjust traffic signals from Oakton/ Lincoln North 2 blocks to the fork (church) always Jamed up water bill taxes way too high. Too high to water lawn during dry spell. Yes, we don't have any adult fitness areas outside. Other 1) Make sure fairness in Niles North High School. 2) Local city cannot make own law. 3) Non-profit activity need control otherwise another people pay more taxes. 4) Support mall or business people. 1) Need private homes in senior living community for different cultural background. 2) lso need more Indoor jogging and exercise facilities. 1) Not enough sensitivity to disability needs. 2) Too much emphasis on getting rich people to live in Skokie. Guh! asement flooding. Why do we not have federally funded incentives like neighboring towns? Wish there were more (outdoor) dining options like La Libertad. I feel so bad. These owners need professional help choosing an identity decor focused menu. I want to spend my $. Great transit. wful architecture on arterial roads. Skokie looks "fugly". I am not pleased that there are nude explicit statues in Sculpture Park on Mc Kormick, not necc. and not appropriate. I WISH THERE WILL E MORE SENIOR HVING FOR LOW INCOME US CITIZEN IN SKOKIE CCESILE TO USSES ND TRINS THNK YOU More affordable housing and senior housing. Must stop non-profit. Pet owner guidelines, such as encouragement or requirement of having pets (dogs/cats) be trained with at least the basics and reinforce walking dogs with leashes outdoors. Since I am disabled a lot of categories couldn't be answered. This survey should have been sent to someone else. I plan on moving soon to be closer to family for help. Would like to see more support of seniors and housing impossible to find ranch style housing in condos/ townhouse dwellings. 5

91 Your survey is way too large. I think most Skokie inhabitants would who ever figured to use- gree! Green ext your survey paper color- Got my vote! Don t know/nothing Don't know. Good work! Skokie. I'm really satisfied the way the village of Skokie is running or managing the village. N/ No No- Thank you. No, all good. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. When I see an opportunity for Skokie to improve, I've felt heard by the local government & welcomed into the process. None. None. None. None. Praise to both our law enforcement and fire department personnel. They are the best! So are the individuals who work for the village. Thank you all!! 6

92 Skokie, IL Technical ppendices DRFT Valmont Road Suite North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 oulder, Colorado Washington, DC n-r-c.com icma.org

93 Contents The National Citizen Survey ppendix : Complete Survey Responses... 1 ppendix : enchmark Comparisons ppendix C: Detailed Survey Methods ppendix D: Survey Materials The National Citizen Survey National Research Center, Inc. The NCS is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICM. NRC is a charter member of the POR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices.

94 ppendix : Complete Survey Responses Responses excluding don t know The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, excluding the don t know responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with N= ). Table 1: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Skokie: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Skokie as a place to live 46% N=160 43% N=151 10% N=35 1% N=5 100% N=352 Your neighborhood as a place to live 39% N=137 44% N=153 13% N=45 4% N=16 100% N=350 Skokie as a place to raise children 47% N=150 38% N=124 11% N=35 4% N=13 100% N=322 Skokie as a place to work 31% N=74 43% N=105 22% N=54 4% N=9 100% N=242 Skokie as a place to visit 19% N=64 45% N=150 27% N=88 8% N=28 100% N=329 Skokie as a place to retire 26% N=74 40% N=114 23% N=66 11% N=31 100% N=285 The overall quality of life in Skokie 32% N=112 53% N=184 13% N=47 2% N=7 100% N=349 Table 2: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Overall sense of community 27% N=92 48% N=164 20% N=69 5% N=18 100% N=343 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 44% N=154 43% N=151 10% N=35 2% N=8 100% N=348 Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie 32% N=109 49% N=167 17% N=58 2% N=5 100% N=339 Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 27% N=92 48% N=166 21% N=73 3% N=11 100% N=343 Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie 34% N=108 48% N=155 17% N=55 1% N=4 100% N=322 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 43% N=141 43% N=142 11% N=37 2% N=8 100% N=327 Overall economic health of Skokie 22% N=67 54% N=162 19% N=57 5% N=16 100% N=303 Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 27% N=92 48% N=166 18% N=62 7% N=25 100% N=345 Overall image or reputation of Skokie 27% N=92 52% N=178 17% N=58 4% N=14 100% N=342 Table 3: Question 3 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Total Recommend living in Skokie to someone who asks 60% N=207 28% N=96 6% N=22 6% N=19 100% N=345 Remain in Skokie for the next five years 61% N=209 25% N=85 7% N=23 7% N=24 100% N=340 Table 4: Question 4 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Total In your neighborhood during the day 70% N=247 21% N=74 5% N=19 2% N=7 1% N=5 100% N=352 In Skokie's downtown area during the day 69% N=236 24% N=83 5% N=17 1% N=4 1% N=3 100% N=344 In Skokie in general 50% N=176 40% N=140 5% N=18 4% N=14 0% N=1 100% N=350 1

95 Table 5: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Traffic flow on major streets 19% N=66 56% N=194 18% N=61 7% N=25 100% N=347 Ease of public parking 35% N=122 45% N=157 15% N=53 4% N=14 100% N=345 Ease of travel by car in Skokie 42% N=146 44% N=153 11% N=39 3% N=9 100% N=347 Ease of travel by bicycle in Skokie 33% N=86 43% N=111 20% N=51 4% N=9 100% N=257 Ease of walking in Skokie 38% N=129 44% N=149 17% N=60 1% N=4 100% N=341 vailability of paths and walking trails 35% N=114 42% N=138 21% N=68 2% N=7 100% N=327 Cleanliness of Skokie 41% N=143 41% N=146 14% N=48 4% N=15 100% N=352 Overall appearance of Skokie 34% N=118 49% N=170 14% N=50 3% N=10 100% N=349 Public places where people want to spend time 33% N=111 45% N=153 18% N=60 5% N=16 100% N=340 Variety of housing options 22% N=71 49% N=158 24% N=78 4% N=12 100% N=319 vailability of affordable quality housing 17% N=48 44% N=125 30% N=86 9% N=26 100% N=286 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 34% N=109 48% N=154 16% N=53 2% N=7 100% N=323 Recreational opportunities 34% N=115 47% N=156 16% N=54 3% N=10 100% N=334 vailability of affordable quality health care 33% N=90 39% N=107 23% N=64 5% N=15 100% N=276 vailability of preventive health services 33% N=90 46% N=128 16% N=43 5% N=15 100% N=275 Ease of travel by train in Skokie 35% N=112 37% N=116 25% N=78 3% N=10 100% N=315 Ease of travel by bus in Skokie 33% N=87 42% N=112 22% N=58 3% N=9 100% N=266 Table 6: Question 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total vailability of affordable quality child care/preschool 22% N=36 50% N=83 21% N=35 7% N=12 100% N=167 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 38% N=116 42% N=129 18% N=57 2% N=7 100% N=309 Employment opportunities 16% N=32 38% N=77 31% N=63 15% N=31 100% N=203 Shopping opportunities 49% N=169 35% N=119 13% N=46 3% N=10 100% N=345 Cost of living in Skokie 13% N=44 39% N=130 39% N=132 9% N=31 100% N=338 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Skokie 21% N=71 55% N=184 17% N=58 6% N=20 100% N=334 Vibrant downtown Skokie 13% N=45 37% N=127 35% N=121 14% N=49 100% N=342 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 25% N=76 45% N=139 23% N=72 6% N=20 100% N=307 Opportunities to volunteer 25% N=57 47% N=107 22% N=49 6% N=13 100% N=225 Opportunities to participate in community matters 23% N=61 51% N=136 18% N=47 9% N=23 100% N=267 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 42% N=139 41% N=136 13% N=41 4% N=13 100% N=329 Neighborliness of residents in Skokie 27% N=89 43% N=142 24% N=81 6% N=20 100% N=332 Overall quality of new commercial development in Skokie 19% N=54 49% N=142 25% N=72 8% N=23 100% N=290 Overall quality of new residential development in Skokie 19% N=50 43% N=113 29% N=77 9% N=25 100% N=265 2

96 Table 7: Question 7 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Observed a code violation or other hazard in Skokie 69% N=234 31% N= % N=342 Household member was a victim of a crime in Skokie 94% N=328 6% N=22 100% N=349 Reported a crime to the police in Skokie 87% N=303 13% N=46 100% N=349 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 82% N=282 18% N=60 100% N=343 Paid a cable television bill 39% N=136 61% N= % N=349 ccessed the internet from a home computer 16% N=56 84% N= % N=349 ccessed the internet from a smart phone 19% N=67 81% N= % N=346 Reported a code violation or other hazard in Skokie (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 88% N=309 12% N=41 100% N=349 Contacted the Village of Skokie in-person or on the phone for help or information 48% N=169 52% N= % N=349 Contacted the Village of Skokie via or on the internet for help or information 73% N=256 27% N=93 100% N=349 Table 8: Question 8 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Skokie? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Skokie recreation centers or their services 17% N=57 19% N=65 31% N=104 34% N= % N=341 Visited a neighborhood park or Village park 25% N=86 27% N=93 30% N=104 18% N=62 100% N=345 Used Skokie Public Library or its services 23% N=79 33% N=115 26% N=91 18% N=63 100% N=348 ttended a Village-sponsored event 4% N=13 5% N=17 45% N=155 46% N= % N=343 Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 13% N=46 12% N=41 30% N=102 45% N= % N=346 Walked or biked instead of driving 25% N=86 22% N=76 26% N=92 27% N=93 100% N=347 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Skokie 2% N=8 5% N=18 15% N=52 78% N= % N=348 Read NewSkokie newsletter 9% N=32 22% N=76 53% N=184 16% N=56 100% N=348 Visited 5% N=18 10% N=34 45% N=157 39% N= % N=347 Listened to 1660 M Skokie radio station 1% N=2 1% N=5 10% N=35 88% N= % N=347 Visited Downtown Skokie 25% N=85 32% N=113 32% N=110 11% N=40 100% N=347 Ridden a Senior Transportation for rea Residents (STR) bus 1% N=4 1% N=3 2% N=8 96% N= % N=344 Set out yard waste for Village crews to collect 11% N=38 19% N=65 19% N=66 51% N= % N=344 Completely filled your refuse container for both of the two weekly collections by Public Works 15% N=52 15% N=53 22% N=76 48% N= % N=345 Visited the Skokie Farmers' Market 3% N=9 17% N=59 26% N=89 55% N= % N=346 Table 9: Question 9 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like the Skokie Village oard, or a meeting of one of the Village's advisory boards/commissions, etc.) in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total ttended a local public meeting 0% N=2 1% N=3 12% N=41 87% N= % N=350 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 0% N=1 1% N=3 7% N=25 92% N= % N=350 3

97 Table 10: Question 10 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Skokie: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Police services 53% N=173 36% N=118 10% N=32 2% N=6 100% N=329 Fire services 66% N=196 27% N=81 5% N=15 1% N=3 100% N=295 mbulance or emergency medical services 66% N=178 28% N=75 5% N=15 1% N=3 100% N=271 Crime prevention 37% N=104 42% N=117 16% N=44 4% N=12 100% N=278 Fire prevention and education 54% N=132 35% N=85 9% N=23 2% N=5 100% N=246 Traffic enforcement 32% N=93 43% N=128 21% N=61 4% N=12 100% N=294 Street repair 23% N=76 41% N=137 25% N=84 11% N=38 100% N=334 Street cleaning 41% N=137 43% N=144 13% N=44 2% N=8 100% N=333 Street lighting 35% N=116 47% N=157 13% N=43 6% N=19 100% N=334 Snow removal 41% N=139 35% N=118 17% N=59 7% N=22 100% N=338 Sidewalk maintenance 29% N=96 44% N=145 21% N=68 6% N=21 100% N=330 Traffic signal timing 25% N=82 46% N=153 20% N=65 9% N=31 100% N=330 Garbage collection 59% N=196 33% N=111 6% N=19 2% N=6 100% N=332 Recycling 57% N=182 30% N=97 9% N=30 3% N=11 100% N=320 Yard waste pick-up 51% N=134 34% N=91 11% N=29 4% N=11 100% N=265 Storm drainage 21% N=64 43% N=131 23% N=70 13% N=40 100% N=305 Drinking water 46% N=149 43% N=141 7% N=23 4% N=12 100% N=325 Sewer services 35% N=99 45% N=126 14% N=41 6% N=16 100% N=281 Village parks 52% N=172 40% N=133 5% N=16 3% N=9 100% N=330 Land use, planning and zoning 27% N=68 48% N=120 17% N=44 8% N=20 100% N=251 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 26% N=64 43% N=106 22% N=55 9% N=22 100% N=247 nimal control 34% N=89 48% N=126 13% N=33 5% N=12 100% N=260 Economic development 24% N=65 44% N=119 23% N=62 9% N=23 100% N=270 Skokie Health Department services 38% N=93 44% N=105 13% N=32 5% N=12 100% N=242 Public information services 34% N=95 50% N=142 13% N=36 3% N=9 100% N=282 Cable television 26% N=57 42% N=93 24% N=53 8% N=18 100% N=221 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 33% N=72 47% N=105 15% N=34 5% N=10 100% N=221 Village-sponsored special events 35% N=101 46% N=131 15% N=43 3% N=10 100% N=285 Overall customer service by Skokie employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 42% N=132 41% N=130 12% N=38 5% N=14 100% N=315 Skokie's acklot ash 37% N=82 47% N=103 13% N=29 3% N=7 100% N=221 Skokie Farmers' Market 34% N=80 52% N=123 12% N=28 2% N=5 100% N=235 Public art (murals and sculptures) 40% N=119 40% N=119 14% N=43 6% N=18 100% N=300 dministrative hearings (parking or code violations) 23% N=36 47% N=74 21% N=33 9% N=13 100% N=156 Sidewalk snow plowing 33% N=100 36% N=108 16% N=48 14% N=43 100% N=299 lley maintenance 28% N=78 39% N=109 24% N=66 9% N=25 100% N=278 Obtaining a building permit 25% N=37 41% N=62 23% N=35 11% N=17 100% N=152 Public information - NewSkokie municipal newsletter 39% N=108 49% N=134 10% N=26 3% N=8 100% N=276 Public information - municipal website 33% N=80 49% N=118 11% N=26 6% N=15 100% N=240 Public information - Village of Skokie electronic newsletter 40% N=75 47% N=89 9% N=16 4% N=8 100% N=188 Shop Local Skokie Facebook page 27% N=28 45% N=48 18% N=20 10% N=10 100% N=106 4

98 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Skokie: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total Skokie Police Department Facebook page 32% N=43 48% N=64 16% N=21 4% N=6 100% N=135 Overall competence of Police Department employees 47% N=130 39% N=107 11% N=29 3% N=9 100% N=275 Police officers' attitudes and behaviors towards citizens 48% N=139 36% N=105 13% N=37 3% N=9 100% N=290 Fire prevention - code enforcement 45% N=88 38% N=74 12% N=25 5% N=11 100% N=198 Fire prevention - public education 50% N=101 33% N=65 10% N=20 7% N=14 100% N=200 Senior Transportation (STR) bus service 37% N=30 36% N=30 21% N=17 6% N=5 100% N=82 Knowledge of Village of Skokie employees 34% N=84 46% N=113 13% N=32 6% N=14 100% N=244 Responsiveness of Village of Skokie employees 36% N=102 47% N=132 12% N=35 5% N=13 100% N=281 Courtesy of Village of Skokie employees 41% N=121 46% N=135 9% N=28 4% N=11 100% N=295 Table 11: Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The Village of Skokie 43% N=141 48% N=157 8% N=25 2% N=7 100% N=329 The Federal Government 12% N=33 30% N=86 35% N=98 24% N=67 100% N=284 State of Illinois 9% N=27 23% N=66 36% N=104 33% N=95 100% N=292 Cook County 8% N=24 29% N=86 38% N=111 25% N=74 100% N=295 Table 12: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Skokie government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Total The value of services for the taxes paid to the Village of Skokie 25% N=79 40% N=125 23% N=71 11% N=35 100% N=310 The overall direction that Skokie is taking 24% N=76 47% N=148 20% N=63 8% N=26 100% N=312 The job Skokie government does at welcoming citizen involvement 31% N=84 46% N=125 14% N=38 9% N=25 100% N=271 Overall confidence in Skokie government 26% N=83 44% N=138 21% N=66 10% N=30 100% N=316 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 26% N=81 45% N=140 20% N=62 10% N=31 100% N=315 eing honest 32% N=93 43% N=126 18% N=53 6% N=18 100% N=291 Treating all residents fairly 34% N=98 43% N=124 16% N=45 8% N=23 100% N=289 Economic development efforts 28% N=79 39% N=111 23% N=65 10% N=28 100% N=283 Table 13: Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Skokie community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Overall sense of community 42% N=143 41% N=139 15% N=52 2% N=9 100% N=343 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 38% N=129 45% N=155 15% N=52 2% N=7 100% N=343 Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie 38% N=129 45% N=154 15% N=52 2% N=6 100% N=341 Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 34% N=116 47% N=162 16% N=54 3% N=10 100% N=342 Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie 40% N=136 41% N=141 17% N=57 3% N=9 100% N=342 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 49% N=167 34% N=117 14% N=49 3% N=9 100% N=342 Overall economic health of Skokie 52% N=179 41% N=142 6% N=21 1% N=2 100% N=343 Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 69% N=236 26% N=90 5% N=17 0% N=1 100% N=344 Total 5

99 Table 14: Question 14 In times of financial difficulty the Village has to make decisions about how to balance the budget. This will generally be done by either increasing revenue coming in or by decreasing the level of services provided. For each of the following services, please tell us how you would prefer the Village address financial shortfalls. The National Citizen Survey Maintain service level by increasing taxes Maintain service level by adding or increasing user fees Reduce budget and change the service Eliminate the service altogether Second weekly refuse pickup 22% N=57 28% N=73 35% N=94 15% N=40 100% N=265 Yard waste pickup 19% N=46 38% N=93 42% N=103 2% N=5 100% N=247 Leaf collection 23% N=60 37% N=96 34% N=90 6% N=16 100% N=261 Sidewalk snow plowing 27% N=75 36% N=99 25% N=71 12% N=33 100% N=278 Street sweeping 25% N=69 31% N=88 41% N=116 3% N=9 100% N=282 dding street lights to Crawford venue 19% N=42 23% N=50 34% N=73 24% N=52 100% N=217 Subsidized senior transportation (STR) 26% N=58 47% N=103 22% N=48 5% N=10 100% N=220 asic health screenings at Village Hall 23% N=58 40% N=100 25% N=63 12% N=30 100% N=251 nimal control services 24% N=60 40% N=99 33% N=82 2% N=6 100% N=246 Financial support from Village to non-profits (sculpture park, parade, fireworks, etc.) 20% N=53 26% N=70 35% N=93 20% N=53 100% N=268 Mailing of hard copy Village newsletter (NewSkokie) 14% N=38 15% N=42 29% N=82 43% N= % N=281 Table 15: Question 15 How much do you support or oppose Village investment in each of the following? Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Resurfacing residential streets 64% N=217 32% N=110 2% N=7 2% N=7 100% N=342 Implementing economic development initiatives to bring new businesses, create jobs and generate sales tax 65% N=221 27% N=93 4% N=14 4% N=13 100% N=340 Translating Village printed and digital publications into multiple languages 24% N=82 39% N=132 17% N=56 19% N=64 100% N=334 Creating environmental sustainability initiatives 42% N=143 46% N=154 5% N=18 7% N=23 100% N=337 dding additional street lighting on Crawford venue 27% N=88 38% N=126 26% N=86 9% N=31 100% N=332 dding bicycle lanes on Village streets and additional multi-use trails 32% N=110 35% N=120 17% N=56 16% N=54 100% N=340 Table 16: Question D1 How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually lways Total Recycle at home 10% N=34 6% N=21 7% N=24 17% N=57 61% N= % N=347 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Skokie 0% N=1 1% N=5 22% N=75 49% N=168 28% N=95 100% N=344 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 2% N=7 12% N=43 32% N=111 30% N=104 23% N=80 100% N=345 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 3% N=12 15% N=52 36% N=123 31% N=105 14% N=49 100% N=341 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 2% N=8 12% N=42 27% N=92 24% N=83 35% N= % N=344 Vote in local elections 10% N=33 7% N=25 16% N=53 30% N=102 37% N= % N=341 Purchase goods over the Internet 10% N=35 13% N=44 32% N=110 27% N=92 18% N=63 100% N=344 Use a ride-sharing service (Uber, Lyft, etc.) 43% N=148 22% N=78 23% N=81 9% N=33 2% N=8 100% N=348 Strongly oppose Total Total 6

100 Table 17: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 17% N=60 Very good 43% N=149 Good 30% N=103 Fair 9% N=32 Poor 1% N=5 Total 100% N=349 Table 18: Question D3 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number Very positive 9% N=30 Somewhat positive 21% N=71 Neutral 46% N=159 Somewhat negative 20% N=69 Very negative 4% N=14 Total 100% N=342 Table 19: Question D4 What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 50% N=171 Working part time for pay 18% N=62 Unemployed, looking for paid work 3% N=9 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 3% N=11 Fully retired 26% N=91 Total 100% N=344 Table 20: Question D5 Do you work inside the boundaries of Skokie? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 23% N=75 Yes, from home 8% N=25 No 69% N=226 Total 100% N=327 Table 21: Question D6 How many years have you lived in Skokie? Percent Number Less than 2 years 9% N=32 2 to 5 years 19% N=67 6 to 10 years 9% N=31 11 to 20 years 19% N=67 More than 20 years 44% N=152 Total 100% N=349 7

101 Table 22: Question D7 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 55% N=190 uilding with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 42% N=146 Other 3% N=9 Total 100% N=346 Table 23: Question D8 Is this house or apartment... Percent Number Rented 26% N=91 Owned 74% N=257 Total 100% N=348 Table 24: Question D9 bout how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HO) fees)? Percent Number Less than $300 per month 3% N=12 $300 to $599 per month 7% N=22 $600 to $999 per month 13% N=43 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 33% N=111 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 28% N=92 $2,500 or more per month 16% N=55 Total 100% N=334 Table 25: Question D10 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 69% N=236 Yes 31% N=108 Total 100% N=344 Table 26: Question D11 re you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 63% N=219 Yes 37% N=126 Total 100% N=345 8

102 Table 27: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 12% N=40 $25,000 to $49,999 26% N=84 $50,000 to $99,999 31% N=100 $100,000 to $149,999 17% N=55 $150,000 or more 14% N=46 Total 100% N=325 Table 28: Question D13 re you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 92% N=315 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 8% N=28 Total 100% N=343 Table 29: Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number merican Indian or laskan Native 2% N=7 sian, sian Indian or Pacific Islander 23% N=79 lack or frican merican 4% N=15 White 67% N=229 Other 7% N=25 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Table 30: Question D15 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 5% N=18 25 to 34 years 17% N=59 35 to 44 years 12% N=40 45 to 54 years 23% N=81 55 to 64 years 13% N=45 65 to 74 years 17% N=59 75 years or older 13% N=45 Total 100% N=346 Table 31: Question D16 What is your sex? Percent Number Female 56% N=192 Male 44% N=150 Total 100% N=342 9

103 Table 32: Question D17 Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 66% N=230 Land line 17% N=58 oth 17% N=61 Total 100% N=350 10

104 Responses including don t know The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey, including the don t know responses. The percent of respondents giving a particular response is shown followed by the number of respondents (denoted with N= ). Table 33: Question 1 Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Skokie: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Skokie as a place to live 45% N=160 43% N=151 10% N=35 1% N=5 0% N=2 100% N=354 Your neighborhood as a place to live 39% N=137 43% N=153 13% N=45 4% N=16 0% N=2 100% N=352 Skokie as a place to raise children 43% N=150 36% N=124 10% N=35 4% N=13 8% N=26 100% N=349 Skokie as a place to work 21% N=74 30% N=105 16% N=54 3% N=9 30% N= % N=347 Skokie as a place to visit 19% N=64 43% N=150 25% N=88 8% N=28 5% N=17 100% N=346 Skokie as a place to retire 21% N=74 33% N=114 19% N=66 9% N=31 18% N=64 100% N=349 The overall quality of life in Skokie 32% N=112 52% N=184 13% N=47 2% N=7 0% N=1 100% N=351 Table 34: Question 2 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Overall sense of community 26% N=92 47% N=164 20% N=69 5% N=18 2% N=8 100% N=351 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 44% N=154 43% N=151 10% N=35 2% N=8 1% N=2 100% N=350 Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie 32% N=109 48% N=167 17% N=58 2% N=5 2% N=5 100% N=344 Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 27% N=92 48% N=166 21% N=73 3% N=11 1% N=4 100% N=348 Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie 31% N=108 45% N=155 16% N=55 1% N=4 7% N=25 100% N=347 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 41% N=141 41% N=142 11% N=37 2% N=8 6% N=19 100% N=347 Overall economic health of Skokie 20% N=67 47% N=162 17% N=57 5% N=16 12% N=42 100% N=344 Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 26% N=92 48% N=166 18% N=62 7% N=25 1% N=2 100% N=347 Overall image or reputation of Skokie 26% N=92 51% N=178 17% N=58 4% N=14 2% N=6 100% N=348 Table 35: Question 3 Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely Don't know Total Recommend living in Skokie to someone who asks 59% N=207 27% N=96 6% N=22 6% N=19 2% N=6 100% N=351 Remain in Skokie for the next five years 60% N=209 24% N=85 7% N=23 7% N=24 3% N=9 100% N=350 Table 36: Question 4 Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very safe Somewhat safe Neither safe nor unsafe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Don't know Total In your neighborhood during the day 70% N=247 21% N=74 5% N=19 2% N=7 1% N=5 0% N=1 100% N=353 In Skokie's downtown area during the day 67% N=236 24% N=83 5% N=17 1% N=4 1% N=3 2% N=7 100% N=351 In Skokie in general 50% N=176 40% N=140 5% N=18 4% N=14 0% N=1 1% N=2 100% N=351 11

105 Table 37: Question 5 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Traffic flow on major streets 19% N=66 56% N=194 18% N=61 7% N=25 0% N=2 100% N=348 Ease of public parking 35% N=122 45% N=157 15% N=53 4% N=14 1% N=4 100% N=349 Ease of travel by car in Skokie 42% N=146 44% N=153 11% N=39 3% N=9 1% N=2 100% N=349 Ease of travel by bicycle in Skokie 25% N=86 32% N=111 15% N=51 3% N=9 26% N=90 100% N=347 Ease of walking in Skokie 37% N=129 42% N=149 17% N=60 1% N=4 3% N=10 100% N=351 vailability of paths and walking trails 33% N=114 39% N=138 19% N=68 2% N=7 7% N=23 100% N=350 Cleanliness of Skokie 41% N=143 41% N=146 14% N=48 4% N=15 0% N=1 100% N=353 Overall appearance of Skokie 34% N=118 49% N=170 14% N=50 3% N=10 0% N=1 100% N=349 Public places where people want to spend time 32% N=111 44% N=153 17% N=60 5% N=16 3% N=11 100% N=351 Variety of housing options 20% N=71 45% N=158 22% N=78 3% N=12 9% N=32 100% N=351 vailability of affordable quality housing 14% N=48 36% N=125 25% N=86 7% N=26 18% N=61 100% N=347 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 31% N=109 44% N=154 15% N=53 2% N=7 8% N=28 100% N=351 Recreational opportunities 33% N=115 45% N=156 15% N=54 3% N=10 4% N=14 100% N=349 vailability of affordable quality health care 26% N=90 30% N=107 18% N=64 4% N=15 22% N=76 100% N=352 vailability of preventive health services 26% N=90 37% N=128 13% N=43 4% N=15 21% N=71 100% N=346 Ease of travel by train in Skokie 32% N=112 34% N=116 22% N=78 3% N=10 9% N=32 100% N=347 Ease of travel by bus in Skokie 25% N=87 32% N=112 17% N=58 2% N=9 24% N=83 100% N=349 Table 38: Question 6 Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total vailability of affordable quality child care/preschool 11% N=36 24% N=83 10% N=35 4% N=12 52% N= % N=347 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 33% N=116 37% N=129 16% N=57 2% N=7 11% N=38 100% N=347 Employment opportunities 9% N=32 22% N=77 18% N=63 9% N=31 41% N= % N=342 Shopping opportunities 49% N=169 34% N=119 13% N=46 3% N=10 1% N=3 100% N=348 Cost of living in Skokie 13% N=44 37% N=130 38% N=132 9% N=31 3% N=12 100% N=349 Overall quality of business and service establishments in Skokie 21% N=71 54% N=184 17% N=58 6% N=20 3% N=10 100% N=344 Vibrant downtown Skokie 13% N=45 36% N=127 34% N=121 14% N=49 3% N=9 100% N=351 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 22% N=76 40% N=139 21% N=72 6% N=20 12% N=40 100% N=347 Opportunities to volunteer 16% N=57 31% N=107 14% N=49 4% N=13 35% N= % N=348 Opportunities to participate in community matters 18% N=61 39% N=136 14% N=47 7% N=23 23% N=78 100% N=345 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 40% N=139 39% N=136 12% N=41 4% N=13 5% N=18 100% N=347 Neighborliness of residents in Skokie 26% N=89 41% N=142 23% N=81 6% N=20 4% N=14 100% N=346 Overall quality of new commercial development in Skokie 16% N=54 41% N=142 21% N=72 7% N=23 16% N=55 100% N=345 Overall quality of new residential development in Skokie 14% N=50 33% N=113 22% N=77 7% N=25 24% N=82 100% N=347 12

106 Table 39: Question 7 Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Total Observed a code violation or other hazard in Skokie 69% N=234 31% N= % N=342 Household member was a victim of a crime in Skokie 94% N=328 6% N=22 100% N=349 Reported a crime to the police in Skokie 87% N=303 13% N=46 100% N=349 Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 82% N=282 18% N=60 100% N=343 Paid a cable television bill 39% N=136 61% N= % N=349 ccessed the internet from a home computer 16% N=56 84% N= % N=349 ccessed the internet from a smart phone 19% N=67 81% N= % N=346 Reported a code violation or other hazard in Skokie (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 88% N=309 12% N=41 100% N=349 Contacted the Village of Skokie in-person or on the phone for help or information 48% N=169 52% N= % N=349 Contacted the Village of Skokie via or on the internet for help or information 73% N=256 27% N=93 100% N=349 Table 40: Question 8 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Skokie? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total Used Skokie recreation centers or their services 17% N=57 19% N=65 31% N=104 34% N= % N=341 Visited a neighborhood park or Village park 25% N=86 27% N=93 30% N=104 18% N=62 100% N=345 Used Skokie Public Library or its services 23% N=79 33% N=115 26% N=91 18% N=63 100% N=348 ttended a Village-sponsored event 4% N=13 5% N=17 45% N=155 46% N= % N=343 Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 13% N=46 12% N=41 30% N=102 45% N= % N=346 Walked or biked instead of driving 25% N=86 22% N=76 26% N=92 27% N=93 100% N=347 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Skokie 2% N=8 5% N=18 15% N=52 78% N= % N=348 Read NewSkokie newsletter 9% N=32 22% N=76 53% N=184 16% N=56 100% N=348 Visited 5% N=18 10% N=34 45% N=157 39% N= % N=347 Listened to 1660 M Skokie radio station 1% N=2 1% N=5 10% N=35 88% N= % N=347 Visited Downtown Skokie 25% N=85 32% N=113 32% N=110 11% N=40 100% N=347 Ridden a Senior Transportation for rea Residents (STR) bus 1% N=4 1% N=3 2% N=8 96% N= % N=344 Set out yard waste for Village crews to collect 11% N=38 19% N=65 19% N=66 51% N= % N=344 Completely filled your refuse container for both of the two weekly collections by Public Works 15% N=52 15% N=53 22% N=76 48% N= % N=345 Visited the Skokie Farmers' Market 3% N=9 17% N=59 26% N=89 55% N= % N=346 Table 41: Question 9 Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like the Skokie Village oard, or a meeting of one of the Village's advisory boards/commissions, etc.) in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a week or more 2-4 times a month Once a month or less Not at all Total ttended a local public meeting 0% N=2 1% N=3 12% N=41 87% N= % N=350 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 0% N=1 1% N=3 7% N=25 92% N= % N=350 13

107 Table 42: Question 10 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Skokie: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Police services 50% N=173 34% N=118 9% N=32 2% N=6 5% N=16 100% N=345 Fire services 57% N=196 23% N=81 4% N=15 1% N=3 14% N=50 100% N=345 mbulance or emergency medical services 52% N=178 22% N=75 4% N=15 1% N=3 21% N=72 100% N=343 Crime prevention 31% N=104 35% N=117 13% N=44 4% N=12 18% N=59 100% N=337 Fire prevention and education 39% N=132 25% N=85 7% N=23 2% N=5 27% N=91 100% N=337 Traffic enforcement 28% N=93 38% N=128 18% N=61 4% N=12 12% N=42 100% N=335 Street repair 22% N=76 40% N=137 24% N=84 11% N=38 3% N=9 100% N=342 Street cleaning 40% N=137 42% N=144 13% N=44 2% N=8 2% N=6 100% N=339 Street lighting 34% N=116 46% N=157 13% N=43 6% N=19 2% N=5 100% N=339 Snow removal 40% N=139 34% N=118 17% N=59 6% N=22 2% N=6 100% N=344 Sidewalk maintenance 28% N=96 43% N=145 20% N=68 6% N=21 3% N=11 100% N=341 Traffic signal timing 24% N=82 45% N=153 19% N=65 9% N=31 3% N=9 100% N=339 Garbage collection 57% N=196 32% N=111 6% N=19 2% N=6 3% N=12 100% N=344 Recycling 53% N=182 28% N=97 9% N=30 3% N=11 7% N=23 100% N=343 Yard waste pick-up 40% N=134 27% N=91 8% N=29 3% N=11 22% N=74 100% N=339 Storm drainage 19% N=64 39% N=131 21% N=70 12% N=40 10% N=33 100% N=338 Drinking water 44% N=149 41% N=141 7% N=23 4% N=12 5% N=17 100% N=341 Sewer services 29% N=99 37% N=126 12% N=41 5% N=16 17% N=58 100% N=339 Village parks 50% N=172 39% N=133 5% N=16 3% N=9 3% N=11 100% N=342 Land use, planning and zoning 20% N=68 36% N=120 13% N=44 6% N=20 25% N=84 100% N=336 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 19% N=64 32% N=106 16% N=55 7% N=22 26% N=88 100% N=334 nimal control 27% N=89 38% N=126 10% N=33 4% N=12 22% N=74 100% N=334 Economic development 19% N=65 35% N=119 19% N=62 7% N=23 20% N=66 100% N=336 Skokie Health Department services 27% N=93 31% N=105 9% N=32 4% N=12 29% N=97 100% N=339 Public information services 28% N=95 42% N=142 11% N=36 3% N=9 16% N=55 100% N=337 Cable television 17% N=57 28% N=93 16% N=53 5% N=18 34% N= % N=334 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 21% N=72 31% N=105 10% N=34 3% N=10 35% N= % N=340 Village-sponsored special events 30% N=101 40% N=131 13% N=43 3% N=10 14% N=46 100% N=331 Overall customer service by Skokie employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 39% N=132 38% N=130 11% N=38 4% N=14 8% N=26 100% N=340 Skokie's acklot ash 24% N=82 30% N=103 9% N=29 2% N=7 35% N= % N=340 Skokie Farmers' Market 23% N=80 36% N=123 8% N=28 1% N=5 31% N= % N=342 Public art (murals and sculptures) 35% N=119 35% N=119 13% N=43 5% N=18 11% N=37 100% N=336 dministrative hearings (parking or code violations) 11% N=36 22% N=74 10% N=33 4% N=13 53% N= % N=335 Sidewalk snow plowing 29% N=100 32% N=108 14% N=48 13% N=43 12% N=41 100% N=340 lley maintenance 23% N=78 32% N=109 20% N=66 7% N=25 17% N=58 100% N=337 Obtaining a building permit 11% N=37 19% N=62 10% N=35 5% N=17 55% N= % N=336 Public information - NewSkokie municipal newsletter 32% N=108 40% N=134 8% N=26 2% N=8 17% N=58 100% N=334 Public information - municipal website 25% N=80 36% N=118 8% N=26 5% N=15 27% N=87 100% N=327 Public information - Village of Skokie electronic newsletter 23% N=75 27% N=89 5% N=16 2% N=8 43% N= % N=330 14

108 Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Skokie: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total Shop Local Skokie Facebook page 8% N=28 15% N=48 6% N=20 3% N=10 68% N= % N=333 Skokie Police Department Facebook page 13% N=43 19% N=64 6% N=21 2% N=6 59% N= % N=330 Overall competence of Police Department employees 39% N=130 32% N=107 9% N=29 3% N=9 18% N=62 100% N=337 Police officers' attitudes and behaviors towards citizens 41% N=139 31% N=105 11% N=37 3% N=9 15% N=50 100% N=339 Fire prevention - code enforcement 26% N=88 22% N=74 7% N=25 3% N=11 41% N= % N=336 Fire prevention - public education 30% N=101 20% N=65 6% N=20 4% N=14 40% N= % N=334 Senior Transportation (STR) bus service 9% N=30 9% N=30 5% N=17 2% N=5 76% N= % N=337 Knowledge of Village of Skokie employees 25% N=84 34% N=113 10% N=32 4% N=14 28% N=93 100% N=337 Responsiveness of Village of Skokie employees 30% N=102 39% N=132 10% N=35 4% N=13 17% N=59 100% N=340 Courtesy of Village of Skokie employees 36% N=121 40% N=135 8% N=28 3% N=11 13% N=44 100% N=339 Table 43: Question 11 Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The Village of Skokie 41% N=141 46% N=157 7% N=25 2% N=7 4% N=13 100% N=343 The Federal Government 10% N=33 26% N=86 29% N=98 20% N=67 16% N=52 100% N=336 State of Illinois 8% N=27 20% N=66 31% N=104 28% N=95 13% N=44 100% N=336 Cook County 7% N=24 26% N=86 33% N=111 22% N=74 12% N=42 100% N=337 Table 44: Question 12 Please rate the following categories of Skokie government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Total The value of services for the taxes paid to the Village of Skokie 23% N=79 36% N=125 20% N=71 10% N=35 11% N=38 100% N=348 The overall direction that Skokie is taking 22% N=76 43% N=148 18% N=63 7% N=26 9% N=31 100% N=344 The job Skokie government does at welcoming citizen involvement 24% N=84 36% N=125 11% N=38 7% N=25 21% N=73 100% N=345 Overall confidence in Skokie government 24% N=83 40% N=138 19% N=66 9% N=30 8% N=28 100% N=345 Generally acting in the best interest of the community 24% N=81 41% N=140 18% N=62 9% N=31 9% N=32 100% N=346 eing honest 27% N=93 36% N=126 15% N=53 5% N=18 16% N=55 100% N=346 Treating all residents fairly 28% N=98 36% N=124 13% N=45 7% N=23 16% N=57 100% N=346 Economic development efforts 23% N=79 32% N=111 19% N=65 8% N=28 18% N=62 100% N=345 Table 45: Question 13 Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Skokie community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Essential Very important Somewhat important Not at all important Overall sense of community 42% N=143 41% N=139 15% N=52 2% N=9 100% N=343 Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 38% N=129 45% N=155 15% N=52 2% N=7 100% N=343 Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie 38% N=129 45% N=154 15% N=52 2% N=6 100% N=341 Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 34% N=116 47% N=162 16% N=54 3% N=10 100% N=342 Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie 40% N=136 41% N=141 17% N=57 3% N=9 100% N=342 Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 49% N=167 34% N=117 14% N=49 3% N=9 100% N=342 Overall economic health of Skokie 52% N=179 41% N=142 6% N=21 1% N=2 100% N=343 Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 69% N=236 26% N=90 5% N=17 0% N=1 100% N=344 Total 15

109 Table 46: Question 14 In times of financial difficulty the Village has to make decisions about how to balance the budget. This will generally be done by either increasing revenue coming in or by decreasing the level of services provided. For each of the following services, please tell us how you would prefer the Village address financial shortfalls. Maintain service level by increasing taxes Maintain service level by adding or increasing user fees Reduce budget and change the service Eliminate the service altogether Don't know/no opinion Second weekly refuse pickup 17% N=57 22% N=73 28% N=94 12% N=40 21% N=70 100% N=335 Yard waste pickup 14% N=46 28% N=93 31% N=103 2% N=5 25% N=81 100% N=328 Leaf collection 18% N=60 29% N=96 27% N=90 5% N=16 21% N=67 100% N=329 Sidewalk snow plowing 23% N=75 30% N=99 21% N=71 10% N=33 16% N=53 100% N=332 Street sweeping 21% N=69 27% N=88 35% N=116 3% N=9 14% N=44 100% N=326 dding street lights to Crawford venue 13% N=42 16% N=50 23% N=73 16% N=52 33% N= % N=323 Subsidized senior transportation (STR) 18% N=58 31% N=103 15% N=48 3% N=10 33% N= % N=329 asic health screenings at Village Hall 18% N=58 31% N=100 19% N=63 9% N=30 23% N=75 100% N=326 nimal control services 18% N=60 30% N=99 25% N=82 2% N=6 25% N=80 100% N=327 Financial support from Village to non-profits (sculpture park, parade, fireworks, etc.) 16% N=53 22% N=70 28% N=93 16% N=53 18% N=59 100% N=327 Mailing of hard copy Village newsletter (NewSkokie) 12% N=38 13% N=42 25% N=82 36% N=120 14% N=48 100% N=329 Table 47: Question 15 How much do you support or oppose Village investment in each of the following? Strongly support Somewhat support Somewhat oppose Resurfacing residential streets 64% N=217 32% N=110 2% N=7 2% N=7 100% N=342 Implementing economic development initiatives to bring new businesses, create jobs and generate sales tax 65% N=221 27% N=93 4% N=14 4% N=13 100% N=340 Translating Village printed and digital publications into multiple languages 24% N=82 39% N=132 17% N=56 19% N=64 100% N=334 Creating environmental sustainability initiatives 42% N=143 46% N=154 5% N=18 7% N=23 100% N=337 dding additional street lighting on Crawford venue 27% N=88 38% N=126 26% N=86 9% N=31 100% N=332 dding bicycle lanes on Village streets and additional multi-use trails 32% N=110 35% N=120 17% N=56 16% N=54 100% N=340 Table 48: Question D1 How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually lways Total Recycle at home 10% N=34 6% N=21 7% N=24 17% N=57 61% N= % N=347 Purchase goods or services from a business located in Skokie 0% N=1 1% N=5 22% N=75 49% N=168 28% N=95 100% N=344 Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 2% N=7 12% N=43 32% N=111 30% N=104 23% N=80 100% N=345 Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 3% N=12 15% N=52 36% N=123 31% N=105 14% N=49 100% N=341 Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 2% N=8 12% N=42 27% N=92 24% N=83 35% N= % N=344 Vote in local elections 10% N=33 7% N=25 16% N=53 30% N=102 37% N= % N=341 Purchase goods over the Internet 10% N=35 13% N=44 32% N=110 27% N=92 18% N=63 100% N=344 Use a ride-sharing service (Uber, Lyft, etc.) 43% N=148 22% N=78 23% N=81 9% N=33 2% N=8 100% N=348 Strongly oppose Total Total 16

110 Table 49: Question D2 Would you say that in general your health is: Percent Number Excellent 17% N=60 Very good 43% N=149 Good 30% N=103 Fair 9% N=32 Poor 1% N=5 Total 100% N=349 Table 50: Question D3 What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Percent Number Very positive 9% N=30 Somewhat positive 21% N=71 Neutral 46% N=159 Somewhat negative 20% N=69 Very negative 4% N=14 Total 100% N=342 Table 51: Question D4 What is your employment status? Percent Number Working full time for pay 50% N=171 Working part time for pay 18% N=62 Unemployed, looking for paid work 3% N=9 Unemployed, not looking for paid work 3% N=11 Fully retired 26% N=91 Total 100% N=344 Table 52: Question D5 Do you work inside the boundaries of Skokie? Percent Number Yes, outside the home 23% N=75 Yes, from home 8% N=25 No 69% N=226 Total 100% N=327 Table 53: Question D6 How many years have you lived in Skokie? Percent Number Less than 2 years 9% N=32 2 to 5 years 19% N=67 6 to 10 years 9% N=31 11 to 20 years 19% N=67 More than 20 years 44% N=152 Total 100% N=349 17

111 Table 54: Question D7 Which best describes the building you live in? Percent Number One family house detached from any other houses 55% N=190 uilding with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) 42% N=146 Other 3% N=9 Total 100% N=346 Table 55: Question D8 Is this house or apartment... Percent Number Rented 26% N=91 Owned 74% N=257 Total 100% N=348 Table 56: Question D9 bout how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners' association (HO) fees)? Percent Number Less than $300 per month 3% N=12 $300 to $599 per month 7% N=22 $600 to $999 per month 13% N=43 $1,000 to $1,499 per month 33% N=111 $1,500 to $2,499 per month 28% N=92 $2,500 or more per month 16% N=55 Total 100% N=334 Table 57: Question D10 Do any children 17 or under live in your household? Percent Number No 69% N=236 Yes 31% N=108 Total 100% N=344 Table 58: Question D11 re you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? Percent Number No 63% N=219 Yes 37% N=126 Total 100% N=345 18

112 Table 59: Question D12 How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Percent Number Less than $25,000 12% N=40 $25,000 to $49,999 26% N=84 $50,000 to $99,999 31% N=100 $100,000 to $149,999 17% N=55 $150,000 or more 14% N=46 Total 100% N=325 Table 60: Question D13 re you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? Percent Number No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 92% N=315 Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino 8% N=28 Total 100% N=343 Table 61: Question D14 What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race(s) you consider yourself to be.) Percent Number merican Indian or laskan Native 2% N=7 sian, sian Indian or Pacific Islander 23% N=79 lack or frican merican 4% N=15 White 67% N=229 Other 7% N=25 Total may exceed 100% as respondents could select more than one option. Table 62: Question D15 In which category is your age? Percent Number 18 to 24 years 5% N=18 25 to 34 years 17% N=59 35 to 44 years 12% N=40 45 to 54 years 23% N=81 55 to 64 years 13% N=45 65 to 74 years 17% N=59 75 years or older 13% N=45 Total 100% N=346 Table 63: Question D16 What is your sex? Percent Number Female 56% N=192 Male 44% N=150 Total 100% N=342 19

113 Table 64: Question D17 Do you consider a cell phone or landline your primary telephone number? Percent Number Cell 66% N=230 Land line 17% N=58 oth 17% N=61 Total 100% N=350 20

114 ppendix : enchmark Comparisons Comparison Data NRC s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 500 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The National Citizen Survey. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. The Village of Skokie chose to have comparisons made to the entire database. Interpreting the Results Ratings are compared when there are at least five communities in which a similar question was asked. Where comparisons are available, four columns are provided in the table. The first column is Skokie s percent positive. The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., excellent and good, very safe and somewhat safe, etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating yes or participating in an activity at least once a month. The second column is the rank assigned to Skokie s rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The final column shows the comparison of Skokie s rating to the benchmark. In that final column, Skokie s results are noted as being higher than the benchmark, lower than the benchmark or similar to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by Skokie residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. eing rated as enchmark Database Characteristics Region Percent New England 3% Middle tlantic 5% East North Central 15% West North Central 13% South tlantic 22% East South Central 3% West South Central 7% Mountain 16% Pacific 16% Population Percent Less than 10,000 10% 10,000 to 24,999 22% 25,000 to 49,999 23% 50,000 to 99,999 22% 100,000 or more 23% higher or lower than the benchmark means that Skokie s average rating for a particular item was more than 10 points different than the benchmark. If a rating was much higher or much lower, then Skokie s average rating was more than 20 points different when compared to the benchmark. 21

115 National enchmark Comparisons Table 65: Community Characteristics General Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark The overall quality of life in Skokie 85% Similar Overall image or reputation of Skokie 79% Similar Skokie as a place to live 88% Similar Your neighborhood as a place to live 83% Similar Skokie as a place to raise children 85% Similar Skokie as a place to retire 66% Similar Overall appearance of Skokie 83% Similar Table 66: Community Characteristics by Facet Safety Mobility Natural Environment uilt Environment Economy Recreation and Wellness Education and Enrichment Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Overall feeling of safety in Skokie 75% Similar In your neighborhood during the day 91% Similar In Skokie's downtown area during the day 93% Similar Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit 88% Higher vailability of paths and walking trails 77% Higher Ease of walking in Skokie 81% Higher Ease of travel by bicycle in Skokie 77% Higher Ease of travel by car in Skokie 86% Higher Ease of public parking 81% higher Traffic flow on major streets 75% Higher Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie 81% Similar Cleanliness of Skokie 82% Similar Overall "built environment" of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) 75% Higher vailability of affordable quality housing 61% Higher Variety of housing options 72% Higher Public places where people want to spend time 78% Similar Overall economic health of Skokie 76% Similar Vibrant downtown Skokie 50% Similar Overall quality of business and service establishments in Skokie 77% Similar Cost of living in Skokie 52% Similar Shopping opportunities 84% higher Employment opportunities 54% Similar Skokie as a place to visit 65% Similar Skokie as a place to work 74% Higher Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie 82% Similar vailability of preventive health services 79% Higher vailability of affordable quality health care 71% Higher Recreational opportunities 81% Higher Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) 81% Similar Overall opportunities for education and enrichment 86% Higher Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities 79% Higher vailability of affordable quality child care/preschool 72% Higher 22

116 Community Engagement Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Opportunities to participate in social events and activities 70% Similar Neighborliness of Skokie 70% Similar Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds 83% Higher Opportunities to participate in community matters 74% Similar Opportunities to volunteer 73% Similar Table 67: Governance General Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Services provided by the Village of Skokie 90% Higher Overall customer service by Skokie employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) 83% Similar Value of services for the taxes paid to the Village of Skokie 66% Higher Overall direction that Skokie is taking 72% Higher Job Skokie government does at welcoming citizen involvement 77% Higher Overall confidence in Skokie government 70% Higher Generally acting in the best interest of the community 70% Higher eing honest 75% Higher Treating all residents fairly 77% Higher Services provided by the Federal Government 42% Similar Table 68: Governance by Facet Safety Mobility Natural Environment uilt Environment Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Police services 88% Higher Fire services 94% Similar mbulance or emergency medical services 93% Similar Crime prevention 80% Higher Fire prevention and education 89% Higher nimal control 83% Higher Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) 80% Higher Traffic enforcement 75% Higher Street repair 64% Higher Street cleaning 84% Higher Street lighting 82% Higher Snow removal 76% Higher Sidewalk maintenance 73% Higher Traffic signal timing 71% Higher Garbage collection 92% Higher Recycling 87% Higher Yard waste pick-up 85% Higher Drinking water 89% Higher Storm drainage 64% Similar Sewer services 80% Similar Land use, planning and zoning 75% Higher Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) 69% Higher 23

117 Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Cable television 68% Higher Economy Economic development 68% Higher Recreation and Wellness Village parks 92% Higher Skokie Health Department services 82% Higher Education and Enrichment Village-sponsored special events 81% Higher Community Engagement Public information services 84% Higher Table 69: Participation General Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Sense of community 75% Similar Recommend living in Skokie to someone who asks 88% Similar Remain in Skokie for the next five years 86% Similar Table 70: Participation by Facet Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency 18% Lower Did NOT report a crime to the police 87% Similar Safety Household member was NOT a victim of a crime 94% Similar Used bus, rail or other public transportation instead of driving 55% higher Mobility Walked or biked instead of driving 73% Higher Natural Environment Recycle at home 84% Similar uilt Environment Economy Recreation and Wellness Education and Enrichment Community Engagement Did NOT observe a code violation or other hazard in Skokie 69% Higher NOT experiencing housing costs stress 53% Lower Purchase goods or services from a business located in Skokie 98% Similar Economy will have positive impact on income 29% Similar Work inside boundaries of Skokie 31% Lower Used Skokie recreation centers or their services 66% Similar Visited a neighborhood park or Village park 82% Similar Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day 86% Similar Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity 81% Similar In very good to excellent health 60% Similar Used Skokie Public Library or its services 82% Higher ttended Village-sponsored event 54% Similar Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Skokie 22% Lower ttended a local public meeting 13% Similar Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting 8% Lower Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) 85% Similar Vote in local elections 83% Similar 24

118 Communities included in national comparisons The communities included in Skokie s comparisons are listed on the following pages along with their population according to the 2010 Census. dams County, CO ,603 irway Heights city, W... 6,114 lbany city, OR... 50,158 lbemarle County, V... 98,970 lbert Lea city, MN... 18,016 lexandria city, V ,966 lgonquin village, IL... 30,046 liso Viejo city, C... 47,823 merican Canyon city, C... 19,454 mes city, I... 58,965 nkeny city, I... 45,582 nn rbor city, MI ,934 pache Junction city, Z... 35,840 rapahoe County, CO ,003 rkansas City city, R rlington city, TX ,438 rvada city, CO ,433 sheville city, NC... 83,393 shland city, OR... 20,078 shland town, M... 16,593 shland town, V... 7,225 spen city, CO... 6,658 thens-clarke County, G ,452 uburn city, L... 53,380 ugusta CCD, G ,777 urora city, CO ,078 ustin city, TX ,390 von town, CO... 6,447 von town, IN... 12,446 vondale city, Z... 76,238 zusa city, C... 46,361 ainbridge Island city, W... 23,025 altimore city, MD ,961 artonville town, TX... 1,469 attle Creek city, MI... 52,347 ay City city, MI... 34,932 ay Village city, OH... 15,651 aytown city, TX... 71,802 edford city, TX... 46,979 edford town, M... 13,320 ellevue city, W ,363 ellingham city, W... 80,885 enbrook city, TX... 21,234 end city, OR... 76,639 ethlehem township, P... 23,730 ettendorf city, I... 33,217 illings city, MT ,170 loomington city, IN... 80,405 loomington city, MN... 82,893 lue Springs city, MO... 52,575 oise City city, ID ,671 onner Springs city, KS... 7,314 oone County, KY ,811 oulder city, CO... 97,385 owling Green city, KY... 58,067 ozeman city, MT... 37,280 rentwood city, MO... 8,055 rentwood city, TN... 37,060 righton city, CO... 33,352 righton city, MI... 7,444 ristol city, TN... 26,702 roken rrow city, OK... 98,850 rookline CDP, M... 58,732 rooklyn Center city, MN... 30,104 rooklyn city, OH... 11,169 roomfield city, CO... 55,889 rownsburg town, IN... 21,285 uffalo Grove village, IL... 41,496 urlingame city, C... 28,806 Cabarrus County, NC ,011 Cambridge city, M ,162 Canandaigua city, NY... 10,545 Cannon each city, OR... 1,690 Cañon City city, CO... 16,400 Canton city, SD... 3,057 Cape Coral city, FL ,305 Carlisle borough, P... 18,682 Carlsbad city, C ,328 Carroll city, I... 10,103 Cartersville city, G... 19,731 Cary town, NC ,234 Castine town, ME... 1,366 Castle Rock town, CO... 48,231 Cedar Hill city, TX... 45,028 Cedar Rapids city, I ,326 Celina city, TX... 6,028 Centennial city, CO ,377 Chandler city, Z ,123 Chandler city, TX... 2,734 Chanhassen city, MN... 22,952 Chapel Hill town, NC... 57,233 Chardon city, OH... 5,148 Charles County, MD ,551 Charlotte city, NC ,424 Charlotte County, FL ,978 Charlottesville city, V... 43,475 Chattanooga city, TN ,674 Chautauqua town, NY... 4,464 Chesterfield County, V ,236 Clackamas County, OR ,992 Clarendon Hills village, IL... 8,427 Clayton city, MO... 15,939 Clearwater city, FL ,685 Cleveland Heights city, OH... 46,121 Clinton city, SC... 8,490 Clive city, I... 15,447 Clovis city, C... 95,631 College Park city, MD... 30,413 College Station city, TX... 93,857 Colleyville city, TX... 22,807 Columbia city, MO ,500 Columbia city, SC ,272 Columbia Falls city, MT... 4,688 Commerce City city, CO... 45,913 Concord city, C ,067 Concord town, M... 17,668 Conshohocken borough, P... 7,833 Coolidge city, Z... 11,825 Coon Rapids city, MN... 61,476 Copperas Cove city, TX... 32,032 Coral Springs city, FL ,096 Coronado city, C... 18,912 Corvallis city, OR... 54,462 Cottonwood Heights city, UT... 33,433 25

119 Creve Coeur city, MO... 17,833 Cupertino city, C... 58,302 Dacono city, CO... 4,152 Dakota County, MN ,552 Dallas city, OR... 14,583 Dallas city, TX... 1,197,816 Danville city, KY... 16,218 Dardenne Prairie city, MO... 11,494 Darien city, IL... 22,086 Davenport city, FL... 2,888 Davidson town, NC... 10,944 Dayton city, OH ,527 Dayton town, WY Dearborn city, MI... 98,153 Decatur city, G... 19,335 Del Mar city, C... 4,161 DeLand city, FL... 27,031 Delaware city, OH... 34,753 Denison city, TX... 22,682 Denton city, TX ,383 Denver city, CO ,158 Des Moines city, I ,433 Des Peres city, MO... 8,373 Destin city, FL... 12,305 Dover city, NH... 29,987 Dublin city, C... 46,036 Dublin city, OH... 41,751 Duluth city, MN... 86,265 Durham city, NC ,330 Durham County, NC ,587 Dyer town, IN... 16,390 Eagan city, MN... 64,206 Eagle Mountain city, UT... 21,415 Eagle town, CO... 6,508 Eau Claire city, WI... 65,883 Eden Prairie city, MN... 60,797 Eden town, VT... 1,323 Edgerton city, KS... 1,671 Edgewater city, CO... 5,170 Edina city, MN... 47,941 Edmond city, OK... 81,405 Edmonds city, W... 39,709 El Cerrito city, C... 23,549 El Dorado County, C ,058 El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) city, C... 29,793 Elk Grove city, C ,015 Elko New Market city, MN... 4,110 Elmhurst city, IL... 44,121 Englewood city, CO... 30,255 Erie town, CO... 18,135 Escambia County, FL ,619 Estes Park town, CO... 5,858 Euclid city, OH... 48,920 Fairview town, TX... 7,248 Farmers ranch city, TX... 28,616 Farmersville city, TX... 3,301 Farmington Hills city, MI... 79,740 Farmington town, CT... 25,340 Fayetteville city, NC ,564 Fernandina each city, FL... 11,487 Flagstaff city, Z... 65,870 Flower Mound town, TX... 64,669 Forest Grove city, OR... 21,083 Fort Collins city, CO ,986 Franklin city, TN... 62,487 Frederick town, CO... 8,679 Fremont city, C ,089 Friendswood city, TX... 35,805 Fruita city, CO... 12,646 Gahanna city, OH... 33,248 Gaithersburg city, MD... 59,933 Galveston city, TX... 47,743 Gardner city, KS... 19,123 Georgetown city, TX... 47,400 Germantown city, TN... 38,844 Gilbert town, Z ,453 Gillette city, WY... 29,087 Glen Ellyn village, IL... 27,450 Glendora city, C... 50,073 Glenview village, IL... 44,692 Golden city, CO... 18,867 Golden Valley city, MN... 20,371 Goodyear city, Z... 65,275 Grafton village, WI... 11,459 Grand lanc city, MI... 8,276 Grants Pass city, OR... 34,533 Grass Valley city, C... 12,860 Greeley city, CO... 92,889 Greenville city, NC... 84,554 Greenwich town, CT... 61,171 Greenwood Village city, CO... 13,925 Greer city, SC... 25,515 Gunnison County, CO... 15,324 Haltom City city, TX... 42,409 Hamilton city, OH... 62,477 Hamilton town, M... 7,764 Hampton city, V ,436 Hanover County, V... 99,863 Harrisburg city, SD... 4,089 Harrisonburg city, V... 48,914 Harrisonville city, MO... 10,019 Hastings city, MN... 22,172 Hayward city, C ,186 Henderson city, NV ,729 Herndon town, V... 23,292 High Point city, NC ,371 Highland Park city, IL... 29,763 Highlands Ranch CDP, CO... 96,713 Homer Glen village, IL... 24,220 Honolulu County, HI ,207 Hooksett town, NH... 13,451 Hopkins city, MN... 17,591 Hopkinton town, M... 14,925 Hoquiam city, W... 8,726 Horry County, SC ,291 Howard village, WI... 17,399 Hudson town, CO... 2,356 Huntley village, IL... 24,291 Hurst city, TX... 37,337 Hutchinson city, MN... 14,178 Hutto city, TX... 14,698 Independence city, MO ,830 Indianola city, I... 14,782 Indio city, C... 76,036 Iowa City city, I... 67,862 Irving city, TX ,290 Issaquah city, W... 30,434 Jackson city, MO... 13,758 Jackson County, MI ,248 James City County, V... 67,009 Jefferson County, NY ,229 Jefferson Parish, L ,552 Johnson City city, TN... 63,152 Johnston city, I... 17,278 Jupiter town, FL... 55,156 Kalamazoo city, MI... 74,262 Kansas City city, KS ,786 Kansas City city, MO ,787 Keizer city, OR... 36,478 Kenmore city, W... 20,460 26

120 Kennedale city, TX... 6,763 Kent city, W... 92,411 Kerrville city, TX... 22,347 Kettering city, OH... 56,163 Key West city, FL... 24,649 King City city, C... 12,874 Kirkland city, W... 48,787 Kirkwood city, MO... 27,540 Knoxville city, I... 7,313 La Plata town, MD... 8,753 La Vista city, NE... 15,758 Laguna Niguel city, C... 62,979 Lake Forest city, IL... 19,375 Lake in the Hills village, IL... 28,965 Lake Stevens city, W... 28,069 Lake Worth city, FL... 34,910 Lake Zurich village, IL... 19,631 Lakeville city, MN... 55,954 Lakewood city, CO ,980 Lakewood city, W... 58,163 Lancaster County, SC... 76,652 Lane County, OR ,715 Lansing city, MI ,297 Laramie city, WY... 30,816 Larimer County, CO ,630 Las Cruces city, NM... 97,618 Las Vegas city, NM... 13,753 Lawrence city, KS... 87,643 Lawrenceville city, G... 28,546 Lee's Summit city, MO... 91,364 Lehi city, UT... 47,407 Lenexa city, KS... 48,190 Lewisville city, TX... 95,290 Lewisville town, NC... 12,639 Libertyville village, IL... 20,315 Lincolnwood village, IL... 12,590 Lindsborg city, KS... 3,458 Little Chute village, WI... 10,449 Littleton city, CO... 41,737 Livermore city, C... 80,968 Lombard village, IL... 43,165 Lone Tree city, CO... 10,218 Long Grove village, IL... 8,043 Longmont city, CO... 86,270 Longview city, TX... 80,455 Lonsdale city, MN... 3,674 Los lamos County, NM... 17,950 Los ltos Hills town, C... 7,922 Louisville city, CO... 18,376 Lower Merion township, P... 57,825 Lynchburg city, V... 75,568 Lynnwood city, W... 35,836 Macomb County, MI ,978 Manassas city, V... 37,821 Manhattan each city, C... 35,135 Manhattan city, KS... 52,281 Mankato city, MN... 39,309 Maple Grove city, MN... 61,567 Maplewood city, MN... 38,018 Maricopa County, Z... 3,817,117 Marion city, I... 34,768 Mariposa County, C... 18,251 Marshfield city, WI... 19,118 Martinez city, C... 35,824 Marysville city, W... 60,020 Matthews town, NC... 27,198 Maui County, HI ,834 Mcllen city, TX ,877 McKinney city, TX ,117 McMinnville city, OR... 32,187 Menlo Park city, C... 32,026 Menomonee Falls village, WI... 35,626 Mercer Island city, W... 22,699 Meridian charter township, MI... 39,688 Meridian city, ID... 75,092 Merriam city, KS... 11,003 Mesa city, Z ,041 Mesa County, CO ,723 Miami each city, FL... 87,779 Miami city, FL ,457 Middleton city, WI... 17,442 Midland city, MI... 41,863 Milford city, DE... 9,559 Milton city, G... 32,661 Minneapolis city, MN ,578 Minnetrista city, MN... 6,384 Missouri City city, TX... 67,358 Modesto city, C ,165 Monroe city, MI... 20,733 Monterey city, C... 27,810 Montgomery city, MN... 2,956 Montgomery County, MD ,777 Monticello city, UT... 1,972 Montrose city, CO... 19,132 Monument town, CO... 5,530 Moraga town, C... 16,016 Morristown city, TN... 29,137 Morrisville town, NC... 18,576 Morro ay city, C... 10,234 Mountain Village town, CO... 1,320 Mountlake Terrace city, W... 19,909 Murphy city, TX... 17,708 Naperville city, IL ,853 Napoleon city, OH... 8,749 Nederland city, TX... 17,547 Needham CDP, M... 28,886 Nevada City city, C... 3,068 Nevada County, C... 98,764 New raunfels city, TX... 57,740 New righton city, MN... 21,456 New Hope city, MN... 20,339 New Orleans city, L ,829 New Smyrna each city, FL... 22,464 New Ulm city, MN... 13,522 Newberg city, OR... 22,068 Newport city, RI... 24,672 Newport News city, V ,719 Newton city, I... 15,254 Noblesville city, IN... 51,969 Norcross city, G... 9,116 Norfolk city, NE... 24,210 Norfolk city, V ,803 North Mankato city, MN... 13,394 North Port city, FL... 57,357 North Richland Hills city, TX... 63,343 North Yarmouth town, ME... 3,565 Novato city, C... 51,904 Novi city, MI... 55,224 O'Fallon city, IL... 28,281 O'Fallon city, MO... 79,329 Oak Park village, IL... 51,878 Oakland city, C ,724 Oakley city, C... 35,432 Oklahoma City city, OK ,999 Olathe city, KS ,872 Old Town city, ME... 7,840 Olmsted County, MN ,248 Olympia city, W... 46,478 Orange village, OH... 3,323 Orland Park village, IL... 56,767 27

121 Orleans Parish, L ,829 Oshkosh city, WI... 66,083 Oshtemo charter township, MI... 21,705 Oswego village, IL... 30,355 Ottawa County, MI ,801 Overland Park city, KS ,372 Paducah city, KY... 25,024 Palm each Gardens city, FL... 48,452 Palm Coast city, FL... 75,180 Palo lto city, C... 64,403 Palos Verdes Estates city, C... 13,438 Papillion city, NE... 18,894 Paradise Valley town, Z... 12,820 Park City city, UT... 7,558 Parker town, CO... 45,297 Parkland city, FL... 23,962 Pasco city, W... 59,781 Pasco County, FL ,697 Payette city, ID... 7,433 Pearland city, TX... 91,252 Peoria city, Z ,065 Peoria city, IL ,007 Pflugerville city, TX... 46,936 Pinehurst village, NC... 13,124 Piqua city, OH... 20,522 Pitkin County, CO... 17,148 Plano city, TX ,841 Platte City city, MO... 4,691 Pleasant Hill city, I... 8,785 Pleasanton city, C... 70,285 Polk County, I ,640 Pompano each city, FL... 99,845 Port Orange city, FL... 56,048 Port St. Lucie city, FL ,603 Portland city, OR ,776 Powell city, OH... 11,500 Powhatan County, V... 28,046 Prince William County, V ,002 Prior Lake city, MN... 22,796 Pueblo city, CO ,595 Purcellville town, V... 7,727 Queen Creek town, Z... 26,361 Raleigh city, NC ,892 Ramsey city, MN... 23,668 Raymond town, ME... 4,436 Raymore city, MO... 19,206 Redmond city, OR... 26,215 Redmond city, W... 54,144 Redwood City city, C... 76,815 Reno city, NV ,221 Reston CDP, V... 58,404 Richland city, W... 48,058 Richmond city, C ,701 Richmond Heights city, MO... 8,603 Rio Rancho city, NM... 87,521 River Falls city, WI... 15,000 Riverside city, C ,871 Roanoke city, V... 97,032 Roanoke County, V... 92,376 Rochester Hills city, MI... 70,995 Rock Hill city, SC... 66,154 Rockville city, MD... 61,209 Roeland Park city, KS... 6,731 Rogers city, MN... 8,597 Rohnert Park city, C... 40,971 Rolla city, MO... 19,559 Roselle village, IL... 22,763 Rosemount city, MN... 21,874 Rosenberg city, TX... 30,618 Roseville city, MN... 33,660 Round Rock city, TX... 99,887 Royal Oak city, MI... 57,236 Royal Palm each village, FL... 34,140 Sacramento city, C ,488 Sahuarita town, Z... 25,259 Sammamish city, W... 45,780 San nselmo town, C... 12,336 San Diego city, C... 1,307,402 San Francisco city, C ,235 San Jose city, C ,942 San Marcos city, C... 83,781 San Marcos city, TX... 44,894 San Rafael city, C... 57,713 Sangamon County, IL ,465 Santa Fe city, NM... 67,947 Santa Fe County, NM ,170 Santa Monica city, C... 89,736 Sarasota County, FL ,448 Savage city, MN... 26,911 Schaumburg village, IL... 74,227 Schertz city, TX... 31,465 Scott County, MN ,928 Scottsdale city, Z ,385 Sedona city, Z... 10,031 Sevierville city, TN... 14,807 Shakopee city, MN... 37,076 Sharonville city, OH... 13,560 Shawnee city, KS... 62,209 Shawnee city, OK... 29,857 Sherborn town, M... 4,119 Shoreline city, W... 53,007 Shoreview city, MN... 25,043 Shorewood village, IL... 15,615 Shorewood village, WI... 13,162 Sierra Vista city, Z... 43,888 Silverton city, OR... 9,222 Sioux Center city, I... 7,048 Sioux Falls city, SD ,888 Skokie village, IL... 64,784 Snoqualmie city, W... 10,670 Snowmass Village town, CO... 2,826 Somerset town, M... 18,165 South Jordan city, UT... 50,418 South Lake Tahoe city, C... 21,403 Southlake city, TX... 26,575 Spearfish city, SD... 10,494 Spring Hill city, KS... 5,437 Springfield city, MO ,498 Springville city, UT... 29,466 St. ugustine city, FL... 12,975 St. Charles city, IL... 32,974 St. Cloud city, FL... 35,183 St. Joseph city, MO... 76,780 St. Joseph town, WI... 3,842 St. Louis County, MN ,226 State College borough, P... 42,034 Steamboat Springs city, CO... 12,088 Sugar Grove village, IL... 8,997 Sugar Land city, TX... 78,817 Suisun City city, C... 28,111 Summit County, UT... 36,324 Summit village, IL... 11,054 Sunnyvale city, C ,081 Surprise city, Z ,517 Suwanee city, G... 15,355 Tacoma city, W ,397 Takoma Park city, MD... 16,715 Tamarac city, FL... 60,427 Temecula city, C ,097 Tempe city, Z ,719 28

122 Temple city, TX... 66,102 Texarkana city, TX... 36,411 The Woodlands CDP, TX... 93,847 Thousand Oaks city, C ,683 Tigard city, OR... 48,035 Tracy city, C... 82,922 Trinidad CCD, CO... 12,017 Tualatin city, OR... 26,054 Tulsa city, OK ,906 Tustin city, C... 75,540 Twin Falls city, ID... 44,125 Unalaska city, K... 4,376 University Heights city, OH... 13,539 University Park city, TX... 23,068 Upper rlington city, OH... 33,771 Urbandale city, I... 39,463 Vail town, CO... 5,305 Ventura CCD, C ,889 Vernon Hills village, IL... 25,113 Vestavia Hills city, L... 34,033 Victoria city, MN... 7,345 Vienna town, V... 15,687 Virginia each city, V ,994 Walnut Creek city, C... 64,173 Warrensburg city, MO... 18,838 Washington County, MN ,136 Washington town, NH... 1,123 Washoe County, NV ,407 Washougal city, W... 14,095 Wauwatosa city, WI... 46,396 Waverly city, I... 9,874 Wentzville city, MO... 29,070 West Carrollton city, OH... 13,143 Western Springs village, IL... 12,975 Westerville city, OH... 36,120 Westlake town, TX Westminster city, CO ,114 Weston town, M... 11,261 Wheat Ridge city, CO... 30,166 White House city, TN... 10,255 Wichita city, KS ,368 Williamsburg city, V... 14,068 Willowbrook village, IL... 8,540 Wilmington city, NC ,476 Wilsonville city, OR... 19,509 Windsor town, CO... 18,644 Windsor town, CT... 29,044 Winnetka village, IL... 12,187 Winter Garden city, FL... 34,568 Woodbury city, MN... 61,961 Woodinville city, W... 10,938 Woodland city, C... 55,468 Wyandotte County, KS ,505 Yakima city, W... 91,067 York County, V... 65,464 Yorktown town, IN... 9,405 Yorkville city, IL... 16,921 Yountville city, C... 2,933 29

123 ppendix C: Detailed Survey Methods The National Citizen Survey (The NCS ), conducted by National Research Center, Inc., was developed to provide communities an accurate, affordable and easy way to assess and interpret resident opinion about important local topics. Standardization of common questions and survey methods provide the rigor to assure valid results, and each community has enough flexibility to construct a customized version of The NCS. Results offer insight into residents perspectives about the community as a whole, including local amenities, services, public trust, resident participation and other aspects of the community in order to support budgeting, land use and strategic planning and communication with residents. Resident demographic characteristics permit comparison to the Census as well as comparison of results for different subgroups of residents. The Village of Skokie funded this research. Please contact nn Tennes, Director of Marketing and Communications for the Village of Skokie at nn.tennes@skokie.org if you have any questions about the survey. Survey Validity The question of survey validity has two parts: 1) how can a community be confident that the results from those who completed the questionnaire are representative of the results that would have been obtained had the survey been administered to the entire population? and 2) how closely do the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do? To answer the first question, the best survey research practices were used for the resources spent to ensure that the results from the survey respondents reflect the opinions of residents in the entire community. These practices include: Using a mail-out/mail-back methodology, which typically gets a higher response rate than phone for the same dollars spent. higher response rate lessens the worry that those who did not respond are different than those who did respond. Selecting households at random within the community to receive the survey to ensure that the households selected to receive the survey are representative of the larger community. Over-sampling multi-family housing units to improve response from hard-to-reach, lower income or younger apartment dwellers. Selecting the respondent within the household using an unbiased sampling procedure; in this case, the birthday method. The cover letter included an instruction requesting that the respondent in the household be the adult (18 years old or older) who most recently had a birthday, irrespective of year of birth. Contacting potential respondents three times to encourage response from people who may have different opinions or habits than those who would respond with only a single prompt. Inviting response in a compelling manner (using appropriate letterhead/logos and a signature of a visible leader) to appeal to recipients sense of civic responsibility. Providing a pre-addressed, postage-paid return envelope. Offering the survey in Spanish or other language when requested by a given community. Weighting the results to reflect the demographics of the population. The answer to the second question about how closely the perspectives recorded on the survey reflect what residents really believe or do is more complex. Resident responses to surveys are influenced by a variety of factors. For questions about service quality, residents expectations for service quality play a role as well as the objective quality of the service provided, the way the resident perceives the entire community (that is, the context in which the service is provided), the scale on which the resident is asked to record his or her opinion and, of course, the opinion, itself, that a resident holds about the service. Similarly a resident s report of certain behaviors is colored by what he or she believes is the socially desirable response (e.g., reporting tolerant behaviors toward oppressed groups, likelihood of voting for a tax increase for services to poor people, use of alternative modes of travel to work besides the single occupancy vehicle), his or her memory of the actual behavior (if it is not a question speculating about future actions, like a vote), his or her confidence that he or she can be honest without suffering any negative consequences (thus the need for anonymity) as well as the actual behavior itself. How closely survey results come to recording the way a person really feels or behaves often is measured by the coincidence of reported behavior with observed current behavior (e.g., driving habits), reported intentions to behave with observed future behavior (e.g., voting choices) or reported opinions about current community quality 30

124 with objective characteristics of the community (e.g., feelings of safety correlated with rates of crime). There is a body of scientific literature that has investigated the relationship between reported behaviors and actual behaviors. Well-conducted surveys, by and large, do capture true respondent behaviors or intentions to act with great accuracy. Predictions of voting outcomes tend to be quite accurate using survey research, as do reported behaviors that are not about highly sensitive issues (e.g., family abuse or other illegal or morally sanctioned activities). For self-reports about highly sensitive issues, statistical adjustments can be made to correct for the respondents tendency to report what they think the correct response should be. Research on the correlation of resident opinion about service quality and objective ratings of service quality vary, with some showing stronger relationships than others. NRC s own research has demonstrated that residents who report the lowest ratings of street repair live in communities with objectively worse street conditions than those who report high ratings of street repair (based on road quality, delay in street repair, number of road repair employees). Similarly, the lowest rated fire services appear to be objectively worse than the highest rated fire services (expenditures per capita, response time, professional status of firefighters, breadth of services and training provided). Resident opinion commonly reflects objective performance data but is an important measure on its own. NRC principals have written, If you collect trash three times a day but residents think that your trash haul is lousy, you still have a problem. Selecting Survey Recipients Sampling refers to the method by which households were chosen to receive the survey. ll households within the Village of Skokie were eligible to participate in the survey. list of all households within the zip codes serving Skokie was purchased from Go-Dog Direct based on updated listings from the United States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes that serve the Village of Skokie households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the community, the exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to community boundaries using the most current municipal boundary file (updated on a quarterly basis) and addresses located outside of the Village of Skokie boundaries were removed from consideration. Each address identified as being within Village boundaries was further identified as being within one of three Skokie zip codes. To choose the 1,600 survey recipients, a systematic sampling method was applied to the list of households previously screened for geographic location. Systematic sampling is a procedure whereby a complete list of all possible households is culled, selecting every Nth one, giving each eligible household a known probability of selection, until the appropriate number of households is selected. Multi-family housing units were selected at a higher rate as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in singlefamily housing units. Figure 1 displays a map of the households selected to receive the survey. In general, because of the random sampling techniques used, the displayed sampling density will closely mirror the overall housing unit density (which may be different from the population density). While the theory of probability assumes no bias in selection, there may be some minor variations in practice (meaning, an area with only 15% of the housing units might be selected at an actual rate that is slightly above or below that). n individual within each household was selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the person whose birthday has most recently passed to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. In addition to the scientific, random selection of households, a link to an online opt-in survey was publicized and posted to the Village of Skokie website. This opt-in survey was identical to the scientific survey and open to all Village residents. (The data presented in this report exclude the opt-in survey data. These data can be found in the Supplemental Online Survey Results provided under separate cover.) 31

125 Figure 1: Location of Survey Recipients The National Citizen Survey 32

126 Survey dministration and Response The National Citizen Survey Selected households received three mailings, one week apart, beginning on July 23, The first mailing was a prenotification postcard announcing the upcoming survey. The next mailing contained a letter from the Mayor inviting the household to participate, a questionnaire and a postage-paid return envelope. The final mailing contained a reminder letter, another survey and a postage-paid return envelope. The second cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who had already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. The survey was available in English. Respondents could also opt to take the survey online if they preferred. The Village of Skokie chose to augment their administration of The NCS with several additional services, including demographic and geographic subgroup comparisons and an open-ended question. The results of these additional services have been provided under separate cover. Completed surveys were collected over the following seven weeks. The online opt-in survey became available to all residents on ugust 23, 2018 and remained open for two and a half weeks. bout 2% of the 1,600 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 1,567 households that received the survey, 356 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 23%. Of the 356 completed surveys, 30 were completed online. dditionally, responses were tracked by zip code; response rates by zip code ranged from 20% to 28%. The response rates were calculated using POR s response rate #2 1 for mailed surveys of unnamed persons. dditionally, 1,677 residents completed the online opt-in survey; results of the opt-in survey can be found in the Supplemental Online Survey Results report provided under separate cover. Table 71: Survey Response Rate Overall Total sample used ,600 I=Complete Interviews P=Partial Interviews R=Refusal and break off NC=Non Contact O=Other UH=Unknown household UO=Unknown other ,211 Response rate: (I+P)/(I+P) + (R+NC+O) + (UH+UO) 28% 20% 20% 23% Confidence Intervals It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a level of confidence and accompanying confidence interval (or margin of error). traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents opinions are relied on to estimate all residents opinions. 2 The margin of error for the Village of Skokie survey is no greater than plus or minus five percentage points around any given percent reported for all respondents (356 completed surveys). For subgroups of responses, the margin of error increases because the number of respondents for the subgroup is smaller. Survey Processing (Data Entry) Upon receipt, completed surveys were assigned a unique identification number. dditionally, each survey was reviewed and cleaned as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out 1 See POR s Standard Definitions here: for more information 2 95% confidence interval indicates that for every 100 random samples of this many residents, 95 of the confidence intervals created will include the true population response. This theory is applied in practice to mean that the true perspective of the target population lies within the confidence interval created for a single survey. For example, if 75% of residents rate a service as excellent or good, then the 4% margin of error (for the 95% confidence interval) indicates that the range of likely responses for the entire community is between 71% and 79%. This source of uncertainty is called sampling error. In addition to sampling error, other sources of error may affect any survey, including the non-response of residents with opinions different from survey responders. Though standardized on The NCS, on other surveys, differences in question wording, order, translation and data entry, as examples, can lead to somewhat varying results. 33

127 of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; in this case, NRC would use protocols to randomly choose two of the three selected items for inclusion in the dataset. ll surveys then were entered twice into an electronic dataset; any discrepancies were resolved in comparison to the original survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. NRC used SurveyGizmo, a web-based survey and analytics platform, to collect the online survey data. Use of an online system means all collected data are entered into the dataset when the respondents submit the surveys. Skip patterns are programmed into system so respondents are automatically skipped to the appropriate question based on the individual responses being given. Online programming also allows for more rigid control of the data format, making extensive data cleaning unnecessary. series of quality control checks were also performed in order to ensure the integrity of the web data. Steps may include and not be limited to reviewing the data for clusters of repeat IP addresses and time stamps (indicating duplicate responses) and removing empty submissions (questionnaires submitted with no questions answered). Survey Data Weighting The demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared to those found in the 2010 Census and merican Community Survey estimates for adults in the Village of Skokie. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey respondents reflective of the larger population of the community. The characteristics used for weighting were housing tenure (rent or own), race, and sex and age. No adjustments were made for design effects. The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the following table. 34

128 Table 72: Skokie, IL 2018 Weighting Table Characteristic 2010 Census Unweighted Data Weighted Data Housing Rent home 28% 16% 26% Own home 72% 84% 74% Detached unit* 57% 63% 55% ttached unit* 43% 37% 45% Race and Ethnicity White 62% 73% 63% Not white 38% 27% 37% Not Hispanic 92% 96% 92% Hispanic 8% 4% 8% White alone, not Hispanic 58% 71% 61% Hispanic and/or other race 42% 29% 39% Sex and ge Female 54% 65% 56% Male 46% 35% 44% years of age 25% 7% 22% years of age 35% 21% 35% 55+ years of age 40% 72% 43% Females % 5% 13% Females % 12% 19% Females % 48% 24% Males % 2% 10% Males % 9% 16% Males % 24% 18% RE % 51% 48% % 44% 49% % 5% 3% * U.S. Census ureau, merican Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Survey Data nalysis and Reporting The survey dataset was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part, the percentages presented in the reports represent the percent positive. The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., excellent and good, very safe and somewhat safe, essential and very important, etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating yes or participating in an activity at least once a month. On many of the questions in the survey respondents may answer don t know. The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in ppendix. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the reports. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. When a table for a question that only permitted a single response does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the common practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number. The data for the opt-in survey are presented separately in the report titled Supplemental Online Survey Results. 35

129 ppendix D: Survey Materials 36

130 Dear Skokie Resident, It won t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping us shape the future of Skokie! Sincerely, Dear Skokie Resident, It won t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping us shape the future of Skokie! Sincerely, George Van Dusen Mayor George Van Dusen Mayor Dear Skokie Resident, It won t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping us shape the future of Skokie! Sincerely, Dear Skokie Resident, It won t take much of your time to make a big difference! Your household has been randomly selected to participate in a survey about your community. Your survey will arrive in a few days. Thank you for helping us shape the future of Skokie! Sincerely, George Van Dusen Mayor George Van Dusen Mayor

131 5127 Oakton Street Skokie, IL Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PID oulder, CO Permit NO Oakton Street Skokie, IL Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PID oulder, CO Permit NO Oakton Street Skokie, IL Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PID oulder, CO Permit NO Oakton Street Skokie, IL Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PID oulder, CO Permit NO. 94

132 5127 Oakton Street Skokie, IL Presorted First Class Mail US Postage PID oulder, CO Permit NO.94

133 ugust 2018 Mayor Clerk Trustees Manager Counsel George Van Dusen Pramod C. Shah Michele L. romberg Karen Gray-Keeler Ralph Klein Randall E. Roberts Edie Sue Sutker Ilonka Ulrich John T. Lockerby Michael M. Lorge Dear Village of Skokie Resident: Please help us shape the future of Skokie! You have been selected at random to participate in the 2018 Skokie Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. Your feedback will help Skokie make decisions that affect our Village. few things to remember: Your responses are completely anonymous. In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at: If you have any questions about the survey please call Thank you for your time and participation! Sincerely, ll merica City Finalist merican Public Works ssociation (PW) ccreditation Commission on ccreditation for Law Enforcement gencies (CLE) Commission on Fire ccreditation International (CFI) Fitch IC Financial ond Rating Gold Level Clean ir Counts Community Governor s Hometown ward Government Finance Officers ssociation udget ward Government Finance Officers ssociation Certificate of chievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Illinois Law Enforcement ccreditation (ILEP) Insurance Services Office (ISO) Class One Fire Department State of Illinois Certified Health Department Tree City U.S.. Distinction George Van Dusen Mayor

134 ugust 2018 Mayor Clerk Trustees Manager Counsel George Van Dusen Pramod C. Shah Michele L. romberg Karen Gray-Keeler Ralph Klein Randall E. Roberts Edie Sue Sutker Ilonka Ulrich John T. Lockerby Michael M. Lorge Dear Village of Skokie Resident: Here s a second chance if you haven t already responded to the 2018 Skokie Citizen Survey! (If you completed it and sent it back, we thank you for your time and ask you to recycle this survey. Please do not respond twice.) Please help us shape the future of Skokie! You have been selected at random to participate in the 2018 Skokie Citizen Survey. Please take a few minutes to fill out the enclosed survey. Your participation in this survey is very important especially since your household is one of only a small number of households being surveyed. Your feedback will help Skokie make decisions that affect our Village. few things to remember: Your responses are completely anonymous. In order to hear from a diverse group of residents, the adult 18 years or older in your household who most recently had a birthday should complete this survey. You may return the survey by mail in the enclosed postage-paid envelope, or you can complete the survey online at: If you have any questions about the survey please call ll merica City Finalist merican Public Works ssociation (PW) ccreditation Commission on ccreditation for Law Enforcement gencies (CLE) Commission on Fire ccreditation International (CFI) Fitch IC Financial ond Rating Gold Level Clean ir Counts Community Governor s Hometown ward Government Finance Officers ssociation udget ward Government Finance Officers ssociation Certificate of chievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Illinois Law Enforcement ccreditation (ILEP) Insurance Services Office (ISO) Class One Fire Department State of Illinois Certified Health Department Tree City U.S.. Distinction Thank you for your time and participation! Sincerely, George Van Dusen Mayor

135 The Village of Skokie 2018 Citizen Survey Please complete this questionnaire if you are the adult (age 18 or older) in the household who most recently had a birthday. The adult s year of birth does not matter. Please select the response (by circling the number or checking the box) that most closely represents your opinion for each question. Your responses are anonymous and will be reported in group form only. 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Skokie: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don t know Skokie as a place to live Your neighborhood as a place to live Skokie as a place to raise children Skokie as a place to work Skokie as a place to visit Skokie as a place to retire The overall quality of life in Skokie Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don t know Overall sense of community Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie Overall built environment of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie Overall opportunities for education and enrichment Overall economic health of Skokie Overall feeling of safety in Skokie Overall image or reputation of Skokie Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following: Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don t likely likely unlikely unlikely know Recommend living in Skokie to someone who asks Remain in Skokie for the next five years Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don t safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day In Skokie s downtown area during the day In Skokie in general Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don t know Traffic flow on major streets Ease of public parking Ease of travel by car in Skokie Ease of travel by bicycle in Skokie Ease of walking in Skokie vailability of paths and walking trails Cleanliness of Skokie Overall appearance of Skokie Public places where people want to spend time Variety of housing options vailability of affordable quality housing Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) Recreational opportunities vailability of affordable quality health care vailability of preventive health services Ease of travel by train in Skokie Ease of travel by bus in Skokie Page 1 of 5

136 6. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Skokie as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don t know vailability of affordable quality child care/preschool Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities Employment opportunities Shopping opportunities Cost of living in Skokie Overall quality of business and service establishments in Skokie Vibrant downtown Skokie Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Opportunities to volunteer Opportunities to participate in community matters Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds Neighborliness of residents in Skokie Overall quality of new commercial development in Skokie Overall quality of new residential development in Skokie Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Observed a code violation or other hazard in Skokie (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) Household member was a victim of a crime in Skokie Reported a crime to the police in Skokie Stocked supplies in preparation for an emergency Paid a cable television bill ccessed the internet from a home computer ccessed the internet from a smart phone Reported a code violation or other hazard in Skokie (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) Contacted the Village of Skokie in-person or on the phone for help or information Contacted the Village of Skokie via or on the internet for help or information In the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members done each of the following in Skokie? 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not week or more a month or less at all Used Skokie recreation centers or their services Visited a neighborhood park or Village park Used Skokie Public Library or its services ttended a Village-sponsored event Used bus, rail, or other public transportation instead of driving Walked or biked instead of driving Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Skokie Read NewSkokie newsletter Visited Listened to 1660 M Skokie radio station Visited Downtown Skokie Ridden a Senior Transportation for rea Residents (STR) bus Set out yard waste for Village crews to collect Completely filled your refuse container for both of the two weekly collections by Public Works Visited the Skokie Farmers Market Thinking about local public meetings (of local elected officials like the Skokie Village oard, or a meeting of one of the Village s advisory boards/commissions, etc.), in the last 12 months, about how many times, if at all, have you or other household members attended or watched a local public meeting? 2 times a 2-4 times Once a month Not week or more a month or less at all ttended a local public meeting Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting The National Citizen Survey National Research Center, Inc. Page 2 of 5

137 The Village of Skokie 2018 Citizen Survey 10. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Skokie: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don t know Police services Fire services mbulance or emergency medical services Crime prevention Fire prevention and education Traffic enforcement Street repair Street cleaning Street lighting Snow removal Sidewalk maintenance Traffic signal timing Garbage collection Recycling Yard waste pick-up Storm drainage Drinking water Sewer services Village parks Land use, planning and zoning Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) nimal control Economic development Skokie Health Department services Public information services Cable television services Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) Village-sponsored special events Overall customer service by Skokie employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) Skokie s acklot ash Skokie Farmers Market Public art (murals and sculptures) dministrative hearings (parking or code violations) Sidewalk snow plowing lley maintenance Obtaining a building permit Public information NewSkokie municipal newsletter Public information municipal website Public information Village of Skokie electronic newsletter Shop Local Skokie Facebook page Skokie Police Department Facebook page Overall competence of Police Department employees Police officers attitudes and behaviors towards citizens Fire prevention code enforcement Fire prevention public education Senior Transportation (STR) bus service Knowledge of Village of Skokie employees Responsiveness of Village of Skokie employees Courtesy of Village of Skokie employees Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don t know The Village of Skokie The Federal Government State of Illinois Cook County Page 3 of 5

138 12. Please rate the following categories of Skokie government performance: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don t know The value of services for the taxes paid to the Village of Skokie The overall direction that Skokie is taking The job Skokie government does at welcoming citizen involvement Overall confidence in Skokie government Generally acting in the best interest of the community eing honest Treating all residents fairly Economic development efforts Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Skokie community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important Overall sense of community Overall ease of getting to the places you usually have to visit Quality of overall natural environment in Skokie Overall built environment of Skokie (including overall design, buildings, parks and transportation systems) Health and wellness opportunities in Skokie Overall opportunities for education and enrichment Overall economic health of Skokie Overall feeling of safety in Skokie In times of financial difficulty the Village has to make decisions about how to balance the budget. This will generally be done by either increasing revenue coming in or by decreasing the level of services provided. For each of the following services, please tell us how you would prefer the Village address financial shortfalls. (Circle one item in each row). Maintain service Maintain service Reduce budget Eliminate Don t level by level by adding or and change this service know/ increasing taxes increasing user fees the service altogether no opinion Second weekly refuse pickup Yard waste pickup Leaf collection Sidewalk snow plowing Street sweeping dding street lights to Crawford venue Subsidized senior transportation (STR) asic health screenings at Village Hall nimal control services Financial support from Village to non-profits (sculpture park, parade, fireworks, etc.) Mailing of hard copy Village newsletter (NewSkokie) How much do you support or oppose Village investment in each of the following? Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly support support oppose oppose Resurfacing residential streets Implementing economic development initiatives to bring new businesses, create jobs and generate sales tax Translating Village printed and digital publications into multiple languages Creating environmental sustainability initiatives dding additional street lighting on Crawford venue dding bicycle lanes on Village streets and additional multi-use trails Is there a community issue of concern to you that is not addressed in this survey? Please explain. The National Citizen Survey National Research Center, Inc. Page 4 of 5

139 The Village of Skokie 2018 Citizen Survey Our last questions are about you and your household. gain, all of your responses to this survey are completely anonymous and will be reported in group form only. D1. How often, if at all, do you do each of the following, considering all of the times you could? Never Rarely Sometimes Usually lways Recycle at home Purchase goods or services from a business located in Skokie Eat at least 5 portions of fruits and vegetables a day Participate in moderate or vigorous physical activity Read or watch local news (via television, paper, computer, etc.) Vote in local elections Purchase goods over the Internet Use a ride-sharing service (Uber, Lyft, etc.) D2. Would you say that in general your health is: Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor D3. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: Very positive Somewhat positive Neutral Somewhat negative Very negative D4. What is your employment status? Working full time for pay Working part time for pay Unemployed, looking for paid work Unemployed, not looking for paid work Fully retired D5. Do you work inside the boundaries of Skokie? Yes, outside the home Yes, from home No D6. How many years have you lived in Skokie? Less than 2 years years 2-5 years More than 20 years 6-10 years D7. Which best describes the building you live in? One family house detached from any other houses uilding with two or more homes (duplex, townhome, apartment or condominium) Other D8. Is this house or apartment... Rented Owned D9. bout how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance and homeowners association (HO) fees)? Less than $300 per month $300 to $599 per month $600 to $999 per month $1,000 to $1,499 per month $1,500 to $2,499 per month $2,500 or more per month D10. Do any children 17 or under live in your household? No Yes D11. re you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? No Yes Page 5 of 5 D12. How much do you anticipate your household s total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more Please respond to both questions D13 and D14: D13. re you Spanish, Hispanic or Latino? No, not Spanish, Hispanic or Latino Yes, I consider myself to be Spanish, Hispanic or Latino D14. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) merican Indian or laskan Native sian, sian Indian or Pacific Islander lack or frican merican White Other D15. In which category is your age? years years years years years 75 years or older years D16. What is your sex? Female Male D17. Do you consider a cell phone or land line your primary telephone number? Cell Land line oth Thank you for completing this survey. Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO ox 549, elle Mead, NJ 08502

140 Skokie, IL Supplemental Online Survey Results DRFT Valmont Road Suite North Capitol Street NE Suite 500 oulder, Colorado Washington, DC n-r-c.com icma.org

141 Contents bout this Report... 1 Complete Survey Responses... 2 Verbatim Responses to Open Ended Question The National Citizen Survey National Research Center, Inc. The NCS is presented by NRC in collaboration with ICM. NRC is a charter member of the POR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices.