Vanderburgh County Critical Issue Identification Methods

Professional Input: Four (4) public input sessions were held February 12 – 16, 2000 to gather the perceptions of community needs from the professional community (See Attachment E). Initiations to attend were mailed to over 120 local non-profit organizations and known community volunteers. Seventy (70) volunteers and staff professionals participated in the process and produced a list of 112 distinct community critical issues.

General Public Focus Groups: The study sponsored two (2) focus groups of randomly selected persons from the general public. Gore/Knauff Research Associates conducted the focus groups and identified fifteen (15) distinct issues for inclusion in the community survey (See Attachment F).

Client Focus Groups: Non-profit agencies were asked to recruit clients to participate in a focus group about community needs. Nineteen (19) agencies recruited twenty-six (26) clients for participation. The groups identified forty-nine (49) separate issues (See Attachment G).

The Steering Committee met at the conclusion of the input process and combined all common identified issues, edited the wording, and approved a final list of fifty-six (56) distinct community issues (See Attachment D).

Critical Issue Survey

Critical issue lists from each county were edited and placed into a standardized format asking the respondent to rate the “critical” degree issues posed for each county. Warrick and Spencer County surveys were mailed out in questionnaire format and returned to the United Way for data input and statistical analysis. Vanderburgh County used a combination of mailed questionnaires, hand-delivered client surveys, and a telephone survey from a randomly selected sample of the general public -- conducted by SIGCORP, Inc. (See Attachment D).

Survey Respondents – Vanderburgh County

Respondent Selection:

The Respondent Groups for Vanderburgh County were defined in five (5) areas:

1. Community Leaders -- composed of:

Ø United Way Leadership Database (individual volunteers and donors, and all businesses and corporations).

Ø Members of Citizen Advisory Committee -- Department of Metropolitan Development.

Ø Church Pastors.

All Community Leaders were mailed a questionnaire.

Total Community Leaders Database: 1,138 individuals & businesses

2. Service Providers. All service providers listed with the United Way First Call for Help “Community Resource Guide” were mailed a copy of the questionnaire.

Total Service Providers Database: 299

3. Service Provider Clients. Service Providers were invited to make copies of the questionnaire and distribute it to their clientele. Agencies were asked to collect the surveys from their clients and return it to United Way by the survey due date.

4. Neighborhood Association Residents. All Evansville Neighborhood Associations were invited to participate in the survey process. They were provided with fifty (50) copies of the survey and asked to distribute it within their neighborhood. The Associations were asked to collect the surveys and return it to United Way by the survey due date.

5. General Public. A scientifically drawn representative sample of the Vanderburgh general public was interviewed via the telephone during the survey dates. SIGCORP, Inc. conducted the survey. The order of the questions was altered from the questionnaire survey by grouping the issues in common theme areas (e.g. health issues, crime issues, etc.).

Vanderburgh Critical Issue Survey: Returned and Completed Surveys

a) Mailed Survey Return Rates:

Respondent

Group

Number

Mailed

Number Returned (Rate)

Community Leaders:

Uway Leader Database

Citizens Adv. Com (DMD)

Churches/Pastors

Total Community Leaders:

801

315

1,138

403 (50.3%)

14 (63.6%)

72 (22.8%)

489 (42.9%)

Service Providers

299

107 (35.8%)

TOTAL MAILED/RETURNED

1,437

596 (41.4%)

b) Hand Delivered Surveys:

Provider Clients

238

Neighborhood Assoc. Residents

210

TOTAL HAND DELIVERED RETURNED SURVEYS

448

c) Telephone Surveys:

TOTAL COMPLETED TELEPHONE SURVEYS

280

TOTAL SURVEYS COMPLETED: 1,324 respondents

1999 Vanderburgh County Critical Issues Survey

Respondent Demographic Profile Summary

(COMPARISONS TO VANDERBURGH COUNTY 1990 CENSUS DATA)

	Gender	Race	Education	Income	Age	Residence
All Groups	Normal	Normal	Skewed to higher education	Skewed to lower-middle income	Skewed to middle age	N/a
General Public	Skewed to females	Normal	Less skewed to higher education	Skewed to lower-middle income	Skewed to middle & older age	N/a
Community Leaders	Skewed to males	Normal	Skewed to higher education	Skewed to high income	Skewed to middle age	Normal except skewed to 47711
Service Providers	Normal	Normal	Skewed to higher education	Skewed to middle-high income	Skewed to middle age	Normal
Neighborhood Association Residents	Normal	Blacks slightly over-represented	Less skewed to higher education	Skewed to lower-middle income	Skewed to middle and older ages	Skewed to 47713 and 47714
Service Clients	Skewed to females	Blacks slightly over-represented	Less skewed to higher education	Normal with slight skew to lower-middle income	Normal with slight skew to young adults	Normal