 |
|||
| A
publication of the Justice Center |
Alaska Justice Statistical Analysis Center |
||
 |
|||
|
What follows is the first offering in a
Justice Center public education project designed to provide information
about various aspects of Anchorage. We have used data from a telephone
survey conducted in late spring 2003 to present a descriptive mapping
of Anchorage residents’ attitudes toward five issues: police performance,
emergency medical services, public transportation, snow removal and schools.
The survey sampled residents of Anchorage
who were 18 years old or older. Over 1900 individuals participated. Of
this number, 70 percent provided enough information to permit geocoding
responses according to residence location. Each map reflects the average
response of residents by community council area.
The maps present the mean (average) response
to each question for each group of respondents in a particular area. For
a more nuanced picture of responses, we have also included data tables
for each question. These tables present not just the means but also the
medians and standard deviations for responses in the community council
areas.
We have chosen to show the results from
the survey according to community council areas because the areas are
readily recognized referents. We need to note, however, that this is a
framework for presentation that we chose after conducting the survey.
The telephone survey itself was not designed to be geographically representative
of individual community council areas; hence, some areas were very under-sampled.
(Also, these maps reflect community council areas in summer 2003. Boundaries
have since been slightly changed.)
The maps do not display results from those
areas where the number of geocoded responses was under five—Downtown,
South Fork, Basher, and Glen Alps. The data tables accompanying each map,
however, do contain figures for these areas. Also—for the areas
of Eklutna Valley, Turnagain Arm, Portage Valley and Girdwood (where there
was no community council at the time the maps were created) no responses
geocoded—that is, while these areas probably did contain survey
participants, the data associated with residence location were not sufficient
for precise mapping.
Satisfaction with Police Performance
To measure satisfaction with police performance,
we asked the question “In general, how good a job are the police
doing to keep order on the streets and sidewalks in this neighborhood
these days?” We elicited answers along the three-point scale—very
good, good, not good. The map indicates that, overall, police performance
is viewed favorably, with most community council areas colored as good.
When the map is viewed in conjunction with the data table, it can be seen
that in most colored areas the average (mean) of the responses fell between
good and very good, with no area showing an average below good. Further,
no area exhibits a median below 2.0, or good.
Research has shown that, in general, the
public tends to be satisfied with police performance, but the satisfaction
levels registered are rarely this geographically uniform. The three-point
scale used for this question in this survey did not permit a finely detailed
picture of attitudes. Permitting evaluation across a wider scale would
probably uncover more nuances in public attitudes—some of which
might have a geographic association.
A deeper look might also correlate attitudes
with actual police contacts as well as with respondent demographics and
calls for service—things this survey did not do. Other research
conducted elsewhere has shown that, in general, minority populations are
less favorable toward police, as are younger respondents and those with
direct contact. Whether Anchorage respondents would exhibit these patterns
is unknown. (Another article in this issue of the Forum, “A
Further Perspective on Satisfaction with Policing”, based on
results from an earlier survey, provides a somewhat more detailed look
at attitudes toward policing.)
Satisfaction with Emergency Medical Services
To elicit attitudes toward emergency medical
services, we asked the question, “In general, how satisfied are
you with emergency medical services in your neighborhood?” Responses
were given along a four-point scale: very satisfied, somewhat satisfied,
somewhat dissatisfied, very dissatisfied. Responses revealed widespread
satisfaction with services. All community council areas with sufficient
numbers of respondents to be colored expressed satisfaction averaging
between very satisfied and somewhat satisfied.
The map and its associated data do not provide
any comment on the actual delivery of services. A more extensive study
might examine what relation exists between experience of service and attitudes
and possible relationships grounded in demographics. One interesting point
is that this survey was conducted after the intense media attention given
to police and emergency services responses in the wake of the murder of
Glenn Godfrey and the attack on his wife in summer 2002.
Satisfaction with Public Transportation
Our data reveal that there is much less
satisfaction with public transportation in the municipality than with
the police or EMS. As the map and table show, the average response in
over half the community council areas indicates a level of dissatisfaction.
These areas included neighborhoods as diverse as Eagle River Valley, Mountain
View, Sand Lake and Mid-Hillside, which differ with regard to average
income level, housing types and other demographics.
When the map is viewed in conjunction with
the table it can be seen that the level of dissatisfaction is most extreme
in Rogers Park, Hillside East, Mid-Hillside, Huffman/O’Malley and
Rabbit Creek.
A further study might explore patterns of
public transportation use: Did respondents use buses? When? For what purposes?
It might also be helpful to look at those community council areas expressing
higher levels of satisfaction to learn what underlies the differences.
Satisfaction with Snow Removal
Survey participants registered a middling
level of satisfaction with snow removal throughout the municipality, with
community council areas in the central and northeast parts of the city
(Taku/Campbell, Spenard, Northstar, Fairview, Airport Heights, Mountain
View, Russian Jack, Northeast Anchorage and Government Hill) indicating
some dissatisfaction.
As with the other questions, the survey
did not probe for reasons that would explain the different levels of satisfaction.
To gain a fuller understanding, it would be helpful to know what residents
focus on with regard to snow removal: Timing? Streets? Sidewalks? Child
safety? Are attitudes related to wealth, housing density, traffic concentration,
actual service delivery? This survey was conducted following a winter
in which the snowfall was relatively light. A winter with more snow might
affect resident attitudes.
Satisfaction with Schools
The final map presented here exhibits
the average level of satisfaction with Anchorage schools as expressed
in the community council areas. For most areas, the average response fell
in the mid-range between the extremes of poor and excellent, but residents
in several areas gave the schools a higher average rating—Mid-Hillside,
Bear Valley, Rogers Park, Government Hill, Eagle River Valley and Birchwood.
As with the other issues considered here,
this map is only broadly descriptive, but it does suggest other questions
that might be asked on a very complex topic. Further study might focus
on discerning what underlies attitudes in the areas exhibiting higher
levels of satisfaction: Is there a relationship to household income? Educational
level of the adults in the household? School test scores?
Similar questions could be used to probe
for what underlies attitudes in areas expressing more dissatisfaction—as
shown by the median scores in the data table. Some of the areas show appreciably
more dissatisfaction as indicated by the median—Taku/Campbell, Northstar,
Spenard, Fairview, Russian Jack, Northeast, Abbott Loop, Tudor, and Campbell
Park.
****
These first maps from the Anchorage Community
Indicators project are broadly descriptive of general resident opinions
about certain aspects of community life. By providing a visual interpretation
of the quantitative survey results, they provoke additional questions—some
of which have been mentioned here—and suggest further lines of inquiry
to refine these first insights. The Justice Center will continue to incorporate
this type of spatial analysis in the Community Indicators project.