Table 1 Continued

Age of Respondent

Age	Frequency	Percent
18-24	66	5.0
25-34	178	13.4
35-44	261	19.7
45-54	324	24.5
55-64	197	14.9
65+	251	19.0
Total Responses	1277	96.5
Missing Information	47	3.5
Combined Total	1324	100.0

The demographic data are somewhat representative of the 1990 census data for Vanderburgh County. The census data indicated that in 1990 53% of the county residents were female and 47% were males as compared to 58% and 40% for this survey. The census data for 1990 reported that county residents were 91% white and 8% black. This study’s respondents were 86.1% white and also 8% black. This survey had a higher percentage of college graduates and above than was reported in the 1990 census and a lower percentage of high school graduates and below. The census data reported 16% had a college degree or above and approximately 50% of the current survey respondents reported a college degree or above. These results suggests the Critical Issues Survey is representative of the gender and racial demographic for Vanderburgh County but less representative for education and other demographic variables.

Ranking of Critical Issues

As part of the statistical analysis, the 56 critical issues on the survey were ranked based upon the respondents’ evaluation as to how critical they were to the community. This ranking was accomplished in two stages. In the first stage the mean responses for each item were calculated and then ranked from highest to lowest based upon the mean response value. Following this ranking an effort was made to determine if the individual items, not the mean scores, were statistically different from one another in terms of ranking. The statistical differences were calculated using the Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test. The Wilcoxon Test assesses whether a respondent score on an item was ranked differently and also measures the difference in magnitude between the rankings. Thus it measured whether an item was ranked higher than another was, and if so, by how much. The test uses these two factors to determine if there were statistically significant differences between items.

The results of these statistical procedures are in Table 2. An initial review of the data connotes that the mean scores vary from 3.56 to 2.31. The review also shows that differences between many of the means were small. These scores are based on a four-point scale. The maximum score that could have been obtained was 4. This would denote that all 1,324 respondents ranked the item as very critical. The lowest possible means score that could have been obtained was 1. This would have implied that all respondents would have ranked that item as being a very minor issue.

The top three ranked items were “In home services for elderly…” (Mean score=3.56), “Teenage, sex, pregnancy and parenthood” (Mean score =3.50), and “Child abuse and neglect” (Mean score=3.47). The three lowest ranking items were “Community acceptance of ex-offenders” (Mean score=2.31), Revitalize downtown and riverfront….” (Mean score=2.33), and “Preserve historic buildings and homes” (Mean score=2.45). Table 2 provides all mean scores and the rankings of the items.

As noted above, many of the mean difference were quite small. The difference between the items ranked 5 and 6 was .02. This small difference could have been due to random sampling error and there could in fact be no statistically significant difference between the items. The Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test was used to determine if there were statistically significant differences, and to reduce the possibility that the differences were due to sampling error. Table 2 contains the results and notes that there were statistically significant differences. For example, the difference between the items ranked 1 and 2 was found to be statistically significant at the p=. 0020 level. This suggests it is highly likely that respondents saw item 1 statistically more critical than item 2. It also suggests that they found item 1 as statistically more critical than the other 54 items because all their means were lower than the mean of the item ranked number 2.

In reading Table 2 if an item does not have a p value in the statistically significant column then that item is not statistically different from items below unless there is a p values located in the significance column. They are also not statistically different from items above them if there are no p values located in any of the significant columns located above that item.

Table 2

Ranking of Items and Statistical Differences Between Item Rankings

Rank	Critical Issue Questions	Mean Scores	Significance Level (>.05)

1	In home services for elderly persons who want to remain independent	3.56	P=.0022
2	Teenage sex, pregnancy and parenthood	3.50
3	Child abuse and neglect	3.47	P=.0112
4	Drug and alcohol abuse	3.44
5	Lack of affordable health care/insurance	3.44	P=.0265
6	Support for people caring for disabled in home	3.38
7	Children needing parents to be more involved in their lives	3.35	P=.0020
8	Jobs which pay living wages	3.29	P=.0495
9	Support for caregivers and patients with long-term and terminal illness	3.24
10	Teach life skills to meet needs of families and children	3.23
11	Teenage violence	3.23
12	Support for people with disabilities	3.23
13	Community supports for troubled children/youth	3.21
14	Support for people with mental illness	3.20
15	Spouse abuse and the safety of victims	3.19
16	Affordable housing for low-income people	3.18	P=.0143
17	Lack of affordable, quality child care (including p.m. and infant care)	3.17
18	Reduce fraud and abuse of public welfare	3.16
19	Gang activity and crime	3.15	P=.0407
20	Financial security for families and their children	3.11
21	Need to improve parenting and family skills	3.09	P=.0428
22	Absentee landlords not maintaining older neighborhood properties	3.07
23	Families in need of supportive friends, relatives, groups, neighbors	3.05
24	Quality of air and associated breathing problems	3.05
25	Affordable college education for all who want it	3.01	P=.0171
26	After-school and summer activities for children/youth	3.00
27	Legal protection and advocacy for children, low-income persons, elderly	2.99
28	Shelters and support programs for the homeless	2.99
29	Low-income persons in need of dependable transportation	2.97
30	Lack of marketable job skills for unemployed and underemployed	2.96	P=.0313
31	Increase the religious and moral life of the community	2.96
32	Give recipients of service the ability to give back to the community	2.93
33	Work-place policies which support family needs	2.91
34	Better road maintenance	2.90
35	Increase efforts to attract environmentally clean industries	2.90
36	Better traffic planning and traffic flow	2.89	P=.0200
37	More affordable recreational activities for youth, young adults, and families	2.85
38	Improve race relations in our city	2.85
39	Litter, noise, substandard housing, sidewalk problems in older neighborhoods	2.84
40	Efforts to protect the physical environment	2.83
41	Improve neighborhoods and strengthen neighborhood relationships	2.82
42	Efforts to ensure that all children are prepared to enter kindergarten	2.82
43	Expand hours/routes for public transportation	2.81
44	Overcrowded county jail	2.81	P=.0336
45	Better preparation and support for marriages and marital relations	2.79
46	Inadequate welfare reform rules to protect needs of families and children	2.79
47	Greater emphasis on health prevention lifestyles and services	2.78
48	Volunteer support for families leaving public assistance	2.76
49	Increase low-income home ownership	2.76
50	Small business and economic development in the central city	2.71	P=.0234
51	Schools showing parents how to help children with advanced homework	2.71
52	Community organizations cooperate to address gaps in service	2.67	P=.0007
53	Better information about accessing community services	2.60	P=.0007
54	Preserve historic buildings and homes	2.45	P=.0001
55	Revitalize downtown and riverfront with more attractions for everyone	2.33
56	Community acceptance of ex-offenders	2.31

For example item 9 has no p value located in the significance column and is thus not statistically different from items 10, 11, 12…16. But since there were p values for items 17 through 56 this would suggest that item 9 is statistically different from them. There is also a significance value located in the column for item 8 and this would indicated that items 8 and 9 are statistically different.

In summary, as noted above, there are statistically significant differences between the rankings of the various items. But, it is also important to note that many of the differences between the various items were very small even when they were statistically significant. Therefore in determining which critical issues might be addressed, the United Way and other interest groups may want to consider other practical issues such as group interest and availability of money as well as statistical significance when deciding which issue to focus on.

Ranking of Critical Issues for Demographic Groups

An analysis was also done to determine if the ranking of the critical issues varied based upon which demographic group a respondent was in. This was done in two steps. During the initial step the mean rankings for the 56 critical items were created for each subgroups of a demographic category. These rankings were then compared to the ranking for the items on the combined sample. The results of these rankings are in Appendix B in Table 1-5. During the second step, a correlation analysis was done between the ranking of the items for each subgroup to determine the level of correlation between the ranks for subgroups. The correlation tables are located in the text of this report.

The first analysis was done on the survey respondent subgroups that data were collected from. United Way divided the survey respondent groups into community leaders, service providers, clients of service providers, neighborhood residents, and the general public. Community leaders included United Way volunteers and donors, businesses and corporations, members of the Citizen Advisory Committee, and church pastors. The Service Providers were drawn from the United Way First Call for Help Community Resource Guide. The Neighborhood Residents were drawn from the Evansville Neighborhood Associations who selected respondents. SIGCORP provided a randomly drawn sample for the general public subgroup.

The results suggest that there was high agreement among all respondent groups regarding many of the critical issues. Table 1 Appendix B shows that the rankings for the combined sample, community leaders, service providers, and client groups were quite similar. The correlations from Table 3 below show that the correlations between these groups were between .856 and .950 and were all significant at .01 level or higher.

Table 3

Spearman’s Rho Correlations for Respondent Groups

	Ranking for Means for Community Leader	Ranking for Mean for Service Providers	Ranking for Means for Neighborhood Respondents	Ranking of Means of the Clients	Rankings of Means for the General Public
Ranking for the Means for Combined Samples
.950**	.866**	.738**	.940**	.776**
Ranking for Means for Community Leader
	.901**	.646**	.877**	.666**
Ranking for Mean for Service Providers
		.543**	.856**	.577**
Ranking for Means for Neighborhood Respondents
			.646**	.357**
Ranking of Means of the Clients
				.740**

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

The rankings and correlations were not as highly correlated between the rankings for the general public and other subgroups. These ranged from .357 to .776 with the lowest correlations occurring between general public and neighborhood respondents. A review of the rankings helps explain some of the differences. The neighborhood respondents’ number one issue was “absentee landlords not maintaining older properties” and the general public’s number one issue was “lack of affordable healthcare/insurance.” Logically the neighborhood associations would be concerned with absentee landlords more so than the general public. These analyses then suggest that although there is high agreement between some of the major survey respondent groups, for others this is not as true and thus different respondent groups may want to focus on different critical issues.

The second analysis of demographic variables was done on the rankings for the age subgroups. The same two procedures were again used as were done for the survey respondent groups. Rankings of the means were done for the 56 critical items and then correlations were done between the rankings.

Table 2 Appendix B summarizes the subgroups rankings as compared to the combined sample rankings for the 56 critical issues. The rankings and correlations between the combined sample rankings and the age subgroups where high. Table 4 below shows that the correlations ranged from .813 to .981 and all were significant at the .01 level or higher.

Table 4

Spearman’s Rho Correlations for Age Groups

	Rankings of ages 18-24	Rankings of ages 25-34	Rankings of ages 35-44	Rankings of ages 45-54	Rankings of ages 55-64	Rankings of ages 65+
Ranking for the Means for Combined Samples
.813**	.915**	.981**	.971**	.979**	.896**
Rankings of ages 18-24
	.874**	.777**	.712**	.779**	.673**
Rankings of ages 25-34
		.895**	.849**	.864**	.756**
Rankings of ages 35-44
			.971**	.967**	.846**
Rankings of ages 45-54
				.965**	.844**
Rankings of ages 55-64
					.870**

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

The lowest correlation occurred between the combined sample and the 18-24 age groups. The 18-24 year old group had the lowest correlations with all other age subgroups. Table 2, Appendix B shows the 18-24 years olds were most concerned with “children needing parents to be more involved”, “affordable college education”, “and child abuse and neglect” whereas other groups were more concerned with “in home services for the elderly…” ,“teenage sex, pregnancy and parenthood”, and “child abuse and neglect.” In summary, there are similarities but the rankings also reflect age appropriate concerns.

The third analysis studied the relationships between the rankings of the various educational subgroups and their relationship to the combined sample ranking for the critical items. Table 3 Appendix B provides the summary results of the rankings. Overall the ranking for the educational subgroups and the combined sample were highly correlated. Table 5 below shows that the correlations ranged from .884 to .966 and all were significant at the .01 level or higher. This suggests high agreement between these subgroups

Table 5

Spearman’s Rho Correlations for Educational Groups

	Ranking of for Respondents with Some High School	Rankings for High School Grad Respondents	Rankings for Voc. Grads	Rankings for College Grads	Rankings for Post Grads
Ranking for the Means for Combined Samples
.884**	.955**	.938**	.966**	.888**
Ranking of Items for Respondents with Some High School
	.922**	.854**	.813**	.723**
Rankings for High School Grad Respondents
		.943	.896	.758
Rankings for Voc. Grads
			.890	.743
Rankings for College Grads
				.880

** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).

and the combined sample. A review of Table 3 Appendix B shows that all saw “in home services for the elderly…” as being one of the most critical issues. “Teenage sex, pregnancy and parenthood” and “lack of affordable health care/insurance” were also important issues. The lowest correlations occurred between the Post Graduates and the other subgroups but yet this group's rankings were still highly correlated with the rankings of the other groups (correlations ranged from .723 to .888).

An analysis was also done to determine the impact of gender on the rankings of the 56 critical issues. Table 4 Appendix B provides a summary of the comparisons between the rankings of the combined sample and the rankings of males and females. A comparison of the rankings again shows a strong relationship between the various subgroups. The combined sample, male, and females all ranked “in home services for elderly…” and “teenage sex, pregnancy and parenthood” as number 2. The Spearman’s Rho correlation data indicate that male and female rankings correlated with the combined sample rankings at the .963 and .985 level respectively. And the male and female rankings had a correlation of .915. All were significant at the .01 level or above. These results suggest that there were very little differences in how men, women and the combined sample ranked the items. A review of Table 4 Appendix B highlights one other interesting difference between male and female individual scoring of critical items. That is with the exception of two items, the females scored all other items as more critical than the males did. The female mean scores for criticality for these 54 items were higher than that of the males. Males coded “better traffic planning and traffic flow” and “lack of marketable job skills for unemployed…” as more critical than females.

The final analysis of the demographic variables was done on the impact of race. Since approximately 98% of the respondents were either white or black a comparison was done on only these two groups. Table 5 Appendix B provides a summary of the comparisons between the rankings of the combined group and the rankings of the black and white respondents. There is some comparability on ranking for the three groups for the first two items. These items were “in home services for the elderly…” and “teenage sex, pregnancy and parenthood.” After these rankings the black respondents tended to differ from the other two groups some but the correlations between all the subgroups still tended to be strong. The correlations between the combined sample and black sample and combined sample with white sample rankings were .803 and .996 respectively. The correlation between the black and white rankings was .764. All correlations were significant at the .01 level or higher. It would be expected that the white and combined samples would have the highest correlation since the combined sample was made up of approximately 90% whites.

In summary, the review of the demographic variable rankings for various subgroups has demonstrated that in general most subgroup rankings were highly correlated with the combined sample. But there were subgroups such as the neighborhood respondents, the 18-24 year olds, and the black subgroups that had the critical items ranked differently. These data maybe helpful in assisting various subgroup in determine what critical items are most important to them and thus possibly their focus of attention.

Factor Analysis Results

As noted in the introduction of this statistical analysis, a factor analysis was done on the results for the 56 items. Factor analysis is a data reduction technique. It attempts to simplify complex and diverse relationships that exist among a set of observed variables. In the current study the observed variables are the responses on the 56 items in the Critical Issues Study. It uses statistical procedures for uncovering common dimensions or factors that link together the seemingly unrelated variables, and consequently provides insight into the underlying structure of the data. For example, the common underlying dimension of social class may account for the strong positive correlations frequently found among income, education, and occupation. Thus instead of having to understand three variables in this situation, we can simplify matters to the extent that we may only have to consider one variable, social class, because it characterizes the underlying structure of the data.

A factor analysis was thus done on the 56 items of the Critical Issues Study to determine if there were underlying factors that account for the correlations between the various items. These underlying factors would then simplify the interpretation of the results. When this was done it was found that there were eleven factors that accounted for much of the correlation between the 56 items. Table 6 below has the results. The table provides the individual critical issue item, its survey study number and its factor score. The factor scores for the items ranged from .313 to .828. These scores are used to provide an interpretation for the underlying factor. For example in Factor 1 that has been labeled “Education and Training Concerns…” item 53 from the study has a factor score of .709 and item 35 has a score of .401. The higher scoring items are given more weight in the interpretation of the factor. In this case items 53, 49, and 43 all have factor scores of .621 or above. Thus, it is suggested that the underlying factor for Critical Issues Study items 53, 49, 43, 47, 24, 37, 23, 55, 15, and 35 has to do with education, training and job security. These items insure the family has its basic financial and welfare needs meet. Survey respondents who stated item 53 was more critical probably also felt the same about the other items in this factor.

For Factor 2 all items that loaded on this issue had to do with support/protection of the disabilities and support for the caregivers of the disabled. Their scores ranged from .385 to .782. Thus, clearly this underlying factor deals with disabilities and the caregivers of the disabled and the seven items that loaded on this factor can be simplified to these concepts.

Table 6

Factor Analysis 1999 Comprehensive

Community Survey

Factor 1: Education and Training Concerns Leading to Family Security

		SCORE
53	Affordable college education for all who want it	.709
49	Schools showing parents how to help children with advanced homework	.633
43	Efforts to ensure that all children are prepared to enter kindergarten	.621
47	Work-place policies which support family needs	.534
24	More affordable recreational activities for youth, young adults and families	.491
37	Inadequate welfare reform rules to protect needs of families and children	.482
23	After-school and summer activities for children/youth	.476
55	Jobs which pay living wages	.437
15	Lack of affordable, quality child care (including p.m. and infant care)	.424
35	Lack of marketable job skills for unemployed and under-employed	.401

Factor 2: Support for Caregivers of Disabled and Ill and Support for Disabled and Ill.

		SCORE
4	Support for people caring for disabled in home	.782
3	In home services for elderly persons who want to remain independent	.667
33	Support for care-givers and patients with long term and terminal illnesses	.655
11	Support for people with mental illness	.646
56	Support for people with disabilities	.625
12	Lack of affordable health care/insurance	.440
17	Legal protection and advocacy for children, low-income persons, and elderly	.385

Factor 3: Abuse of Self and Others.

		SCORE
44	Child abuse and neglect	.723
26	Teenage violence	.680
9	Drug and alcohol abuse	.624
40	Spouse abuse and the safety of victims	.611
51	Gang activity and crime	.576
45	Community supports for troubled children/youth	.564
6	Teenage sex, pregnancy, and parenthood	.512
30	Shelters and support programs for the homeless	.348

Factor 4: Support for Low Income.

		SCORE
8	Affordable housing for low-income people	.757
14	Low-income persons in need of dependable transportation	.596
10	Financial security for families and their children	.545
32	Increase low-income home ownership	.526

Factor 5: Solutions for Family Problems.

		SCORE
21	Need to improve parenting and family skills	.658
22	Better preparation and support for marriages and marital relations	.615
7	Teach life skills to meet needs of family and children	.593
54	Increase the religious and moral life of the community	.572
39	Children needing parents to be more involved in their lives	.507
2	Families in need of supportive friends, relatives, groups, neighbors	.453
20	Volunteer support for families leaving public assistance	.360

Factor 6: Maintaining Neighborhoods.

		SCORE
25	Absentee landlords not maintaining older neighborhood properties	.689
50	Litter, noise, substandard housing, sidewalk problems in older neighborhoods	.677
36	Improve neighborhoods and strengthen neighborhood relationships	.638
48	Overcrowded county jail	.359

Factor 7: Community Service Issues.

		SCORE
41	Community organizations cooperate to address gaps in service	.710
31	Better information about accessing community services	.555
16	Greater emphasis on health prevention lifestyles and services	.537
28	Improve race relations in our city	.367
27	Community acceptance of ex-offenders	.340

Factor 8: Environmental Protection Issues.

		SCORE
19	Quality of air and associated breathing problems	.828
18	Efforts to protect the physical environment	.776
38	Increase efforts to attract environmentally clean industries	.631

Factor 9: Improved Roads.

		SCORE
42	Better traffic planning and traffic flow	.784
29	Better road maintenance	.704
52	Give recipients of service the ability to give back to the community	.313

Factor 10: Revitalization of the Downtown.

		SCORE
34	Revitalize downtown and riverfront with more attractions for everyone	.695
1	Preserve historic buildings and homes	.651
5	Small business and economic development in the central city	.602

Factor 11: Reduce Welfare Abuse.

		SCORE
13	Reduce fraud and abuse of public welfare	.594
46	Expand hours/routes for public transportation	-.366

The eight items that loaded on Factor 3 all have content related to abuse of self, abuse of others, or support for someone who has been abused. The scores ranged from .348 to .723 with the highest occurring for item 44, “Child abuse and neglect.” Therefore it is suggested that the underlying construct for these eight items is abuse and this includes abuse of self or abuse of others.

Factor 4 had four items that loaded on it. Their scores ranged from .526 to .757 with the highest score occurring on item 8, “Affordable housing for low-income people.” The common theme of these items suggests that the underlying construct for this factor has to do with support for the low-income.

Factor 5 had seven items load on it and their factor scores ranged from .360 to .658. The highest score, .658, occurred for item 21, “Need to improve parenting and family skills.” The construct that appears to be present in all seven items is solutions for family problems. Solutions could be parent training, teaching life skills, increased religion, etc.

Factor 6 had four items that loaded on it and the scores ranged from .359 to .689. Three items, 25, 50, and 36 deal with maintaining the neighborhood. The individuals who also highly endorsed these items as critical were also very concerned about overcrowded jails which probably also has to do with maintaining the jail setting. Therefore, it is believed that these items represent an underlying construct of wanting to maintain the neighborhood.

Factor 7 had five study items that loaded on it and the scores ranged from .340 to .710. These items tended to represent community services, community agencies and relations between the agencies. It is thought that the underlying construct for these five items then reflects community service and agency issues. If a respondent felt strongly about the need to have “community service agencies to cooperate to avoid service gaps” they probably also felt strongly about the need for better information about accessing community services.

Factor 8 had three items that loaded on it and all items had very high factor scores (.828-.631) and reflected concern about the environment. It seems clear that the underlying construct for these three items is the environment and its protection.

Factor 9 had three items that loaded on it. Two clearly had to do with traffic and road maintenance. These two items had the highest scores and thus are given greater emphasis in the interpretation of the factor. One item, 52, had to do with giving recipients of service the ability to give back to the community but had a factor score of .313 and thus was given less emphasis in the interpretation of the factor. Therefore, it is though that this factor has to do with improving the roads, which would then lead to better traffic flow.

Factor 10 also had three items that loaded on it. Their factor scores were all fairly uniform and ranged from .602 to .695. All the items appeared to have something to do with revitalizing the downtown area to in order to make it more attractive and economically viable. It is believed that this is the underlying construct for these three items.

The final factor, Factor 11, had two items that loaded on it. One, item 13 had a high positive loading, and has to do with reducing fraud and abuse of public welfare. Item 46 had a lower and negative factor loading to identify a need to expand hours/routes for public transportation. A negative score usually suggests that this item has a negative impact on the underlying construct. It is believed that the underlying construct for this factor has to do with reducing welfare abuse.

In summary the factor analysis suggests that the content of the 56 items from the Critical Issues Study can be reduced down to eleven underlying constructs. These constructs have been labeled as “educational and training concerns leading to family security”, “support for caregivers of the disabled/ill and support for the disabled/ill”, “types of self or other abuse”, “support for the low-income”, “solutions to family problems”, “maintaining the neighborhoods”, “community agency service issues”, “protection of the environment”, “improved roads and traffic planning”, “revitalizing the downtown area”, and reducing welfare abuse and fraud.” These eleven factor/underlying constructs could be used to simplify the interpretation of the results for the 56 critical survey issues. They could also be used as focal issues in need of future attention. The survey items that loaded on each factor could help in the understanding of what each construct represents.

APPENDIX B

Table 1

1999 Comprehensive Community Assessment

Items Rankings by Respondent Groups

Ranking for Combined Sample	Question	Ranking of Community Leaders	Ranking for Service Providers	Rankings for Neighborhood Respondents	Rankings for Client Respondents	Rankings for General Public
1	In home services for elderly persons who want to remain independent.	1	4	2	3	4
2	Teenage sex, pregnancy and parenthood	2	2	14	2	9
3	Child abuse and neglect	4	3	8	1	11
4	Drug and alcohol abuse	3	1	7	4	20
5	Lack of affordable health care/insurance	5	7	12	7	1
6	Support for people caring for disabled in home	6	6	15	9	5
7	Children needing parents to be more involved in their lives	8	9	10	6	8
8	Jobs which pay living wages	10	12	5	5	18
9	Support for caregivers and patients with long-term and terminal illness	13	24	16	21	6
10	Teach life skills to meet needs o families and children	7	5	33	20	14
11	Teenage violence	11	14	6	8	37
12	Support for people with disabilities	18	20	11	16	7
13	Community support for troubled children/youth	9	8	20	12	29
14	Support for people with mental illness	17	18	24	17	3
15	Spouse abuse and the safety of victims	15	11	22	11	15
16	Affordable housing for low-income people	12	13	25	14	22
17	Lack of affordable, quality childcare (including P.M. and infant care)	14	10	39	10	13
18	Reduce fraud and abuse of public welfare	24	44	13	15	10
19	Gang activity and crime	16	19	4	13	45
20	Financial security for families and their children	21	16	29	18	21
21	Need to improve parenting and family skills	19	15	41	29	12
22	Absentee Landlords not maintaining older neighborhood properties	28	26	1	24	41
23	Families in need of supportive friends, relatives, groups, neighbors	20	21	36	19	34
24	Quality of air and associated breathing problems	23	17	19	32	28
25	Affordable college education for all who want it	33	38	42	25	2
26	After-school and summer activities for children/youth	27	23	32	22	30
27	Legal protection and advocacy for children, low-income persons, elderly	30	27	30	26	19
28	Shelters and support programs for the homeless	25	22	40	23	32
29	Low-income persons in need of dependable transportation	22	40	27	35	46
30	Lack of marketable job skills for unemployed and underemployed	8	9	38	30	23
31	Increase the religious and moral life of the community	34	29	26	28	31
32	Give recipients of service the ability to give back to the community	36	42	28	42	16
33	Work-place policies which support family needs	40	43	37	31	17
34	Better road maintenance	31	28	23	37	40
35	Increase efforts to attract environmentally clean industries	37	47	17	40	35
36	Better traffic planing and traffic flow	29	54	18	50	39
37	More affordable recreational activities for youth, young adults, and families	39	25	35	41	44
38	Improve race relations in our city	48	37	34	27	36
39	Litter, noise, substandard housing, sidewalk problems in older neighborhoods	50	48	3	48	43
40	Efforts to protect the physical environment	38	31	31	49	47
41	Improve neighborhoods and strengthen neighborhood relationships	45	39	52	33	24
42	Effort to ensure that all children are prepared to enter kindergarten	47	46	9	44	48
43	Expand hours/routes for public transportation	44	32	21	34	50
44	Overcrowded county jail	46	30	44	38	33
45	Better preparation and support for marriages and marital relations	41	49	53	45	25
46	Inadequate welfare reform rules to protect needs of families and children	51	45	46	39	27
47	Greater emphasis on health prevention lifestyles and services	32	34	49	47	49
48	Volunteer support for families leaving public assistance	49	50	43	36	38
49	Increase low-income home ownership	43	41	50	46	42
50	Small business and economic development in the central city	35	33	45	53	54
51	Schools showing parents how to help children with advanced homework	53	51	51	43	26
52	Community organizations cooperate to address gaps in service	42	35	47	52	55
53	Better information about accessing community services	52	52	48	51	53
54	Preserve historic buildings and homes	54	53	54	55	51
55	Revitalize downtown and riverfront with more attractions for everyone	55	55	56	56	52
56	Community acceptance of ex-offenders	56	56	55	54	56

Table 2

Rankings for Age Groups

Ranking for Combined Sample	Question	Ranking of 18-24 Year Olds	Ranking for 25-34 Year Olds	Rankings for 35-44 Year Olds	Rankings for 45-54 Year Olds	Rankings for 55-64 Year Olds	Rankings for 64 + Year Olds
1	In home services for elderly persons who want to remain independent.	7	7	2	1	1	1
2	Teenage sex, pregnancy and parenthood	5	2	1	3	2	5
3	Child abuse and neglect	3	1	3	2	5	12
4	Drug and alcohol abuse	13	5	6	4	3	3
5	Lack of affordable health care/insurance	4	3	4	5	4	4
6	Support for people caring for disabled in home	24	10	5	6	6	2
7	Children needing parents to be more involved in their lives	1	4	7	9	7	10
8	Jobs which pay living wages	14	8	8	7	9	11
9	Support for caregivers and patients with long-term and terminal illness	31	18	14	12	12	6
10	Teach life skills to meet needs of families and children	10	16	13	18	15	7
11	Teenage violence	20	17	11	11	8	13
12	Support for people with disabilities	8	15	9	8	10	17
13	Community support for troubled children/youth	29	11	18	10	13	18
14	Support for people with mental illness	18	22	16	15	19	9
15	Spouse abuse and the safety of victims	6	12	17	13	14	21
16	Affordable housing for low-income people	11	13	10	16	11	19
17	Lack of affordable, quality childcare (including P.M. and infant care)	12	6	15	14	18	28
18	Reduce fraud and abuse of public welfare	25	9	20	23	25	8
19	Gang activity and crime	32	26	12	19	16	15
20	Financial security for families and their children	16	19	21	21	17	31
21	Need to improve parenting and family skills	15	24	22	20	22	27
22	Absentee Landlords not maintaining older neighborhood properties	9	29	27	25	20	14
23	Families in need of supportive friends, relatives, groups, neighbors	42	30	23	17	21	29
24	Quality of air and associated breathing problems	27	21	19	22	23	37
25	Affordable college education for all who want it	2	14	25	33	31	32
26	After-school and summer activities for children/youth	19	25	28	28	24	39
27	Legal protection and advocacy for children, low-income persons, elderly	26	27	24	30	30	24
28	Shelters and support programs for the homeless	28	23	26	24	27	41
29	Low-income persons in need of dependable transportation	45	38	29	32	29	16
30	Lack of marketable job skills for unemployed and underemployed	21	41	31	26	28	33
31	Increase the religious and moral life of the community	40	39	30	29	26	30
32	Give recipients of service the ability to give back to the community	38	33	35	31	40	23
33	Work-place policies which support family needs	17	20	32	40	41	40
34	Better road maintenance	33	36	39	36	35	20
35	Increase efforts to attract environmentally clean industries	47	44	34	27	34	34
36	Better traffic planing and traffic flow	44	45	36	35	37	22
37	More affordable recreational activities for youth, young adults, and families	46	34	37	37	36	44
38	Improve race relations in our city	22	31	38	44	33	46
39	Litter, noise, substandard housing, sidewalk problems in older neighborhoods	34	46	45	41	38	26
40	Efforts to protect the physical environment	51	43	33	34	42	47
41	Improve neighborhoods and strengthen neighborhood relationships	36	50	41	43	32	35
42	Effort to ensure that all children are prepared to enter kindergarten	23	28	47	50	47	38
43	Expand hours/routes for public transportation	41	51	48	45	39	25
44	Overcrowded county jail	48	47	44	39	44	42
45	Better preparation and support for marriages and marital relations	43	37	50	48	45	36
46	Inadequate welfare reform rules to protect needs of families and children	35	40	42	49	49	43
47	Greater emphasis on health prevention lifestyles and services	49	48	40	38	43	49
48	Volunteer support for families leaving public assistance	37	35	49	51	46	45
49	Increase low-income home ownership	39	42	43	47	50	50
50	Small business and economic development in the central city	30	32	51	53	52	48
51	Schools showing parents how to help children with advanced homework	54	53	46	42	48	51
52	Community organizations cooperate to address gaps in service	53	52	52	46	51	53
53	Better information about accessing community services	50	49	53	52	53	52
54	Preserve historic buildings and homes	52	54	54	54	55	54
55	Revitalize downtown and riverfront with more attractions for everyone	55	55	55	55	56	56
56	Community acceptance of ex-offenders	56	56	56	56	54	55

Table 3

Rankings of Educational Groups

Ranking for Combined Sample	Question	Ranking for Respondents with Some High School	Ranking for Respondents Who Grad. High School	Rankings for Vocational School Graduates	Rankings for College Graduates	Rankings for Respondents withGrad. Education
1	In home services for elderly persons who want to remain independent.	2	2	1	1	1
2	Teenage sex, pregnancy and parenthood	3	3	3	2	2
3	Child abuse and neglect	5	6	4	3	4
4	Drug and alcohol abuse	8	10	10	4	3
5	Lack of affordable health care/insurance	1	1	2	5	6
6	Support for people caring for disabled in home	10	7	8	6	5
7	Children needing parents to be more involved in their lives	4	5	7	7	8
8	Jobs which pay living wages	13	4	6	11	11
9	Support for caregivers and patients with long-term and terminal illness	14	11	5	14	16
10	Teach life skills to meet needs o families and children	17	14	27	8	9
11	Teenage violence	15	13	14	9	13
12	Support for people with disabilities	11	8	11	18	19
13	Community support for troubled children/youth	22	21	22	10	10
14	Support for people with mental illness	12	12	13	13	18
15	Spouse abuse and the safety of victims	21	17	15	15	15
16	Affordable housing for low-income people	6	18	28	22	7
17	Lack of affordable, quality childcare (including P.M. and infant care)	19	22	18	12	12
18	Reduce fraud and abuse of public welfare	7	9	9	17	36
19	Gang activity and crime	16	16	19	16	21
20	Financial security for families and their children	24	15	17	21	22
21	Need to improve parenting and family skills	33	32	29	19	14
22	Absentee Landlords not maintaining older neighborhood properties	9	20	16	26	29
23	Families in need of supportive friends, relatives, groups, neighbors	43	35	23	24	17
24	Quality of air and associated breathing problems	26	27	33	20	20
25	Affordable college education for all who want it	28	19	12	23	43
26	After-school and summer activities for children/youth	23	31	30	25	27
27	Legal protection and advocacy for children, low-income persons, elderly	20	30	35	28	25
28	Shelters and support programs for the homeless	25	24	24	27	34
29	Low-income persons in need of dependable transportation	37	34	21	36	23
30	Lack of marketable job skills for unemployed and underemployed	45	29	37	30	26
31	Increase the religious and moral life of the community	18	26	32	42	28
32	Give recipients of service the ability to give back to the community	32	28	25	31	41
33	Work-place policies which support family needs	41	23	20	35	44
34	Better road maintenance	46	41	26	32	30
35	Increase efforts to attract environmentally clean industries	31	25	31	33	49
36	Better traffic planing and traffic flow	44	38	40	29	48
37	More affordable recreational activities for youth, young adults, and families	48	49	42	39	24
38	Improve race relations in our city	30	33	34	41	50
39	Litter, noise, substandard housing, sidewalk problems in older neighborhoods	36	36	39	43	46
40	Efforts to protect the physical environment	47	48	41	34	31
41	Improve neighborhoods and strengthen neighborhood relationships	42	37	46	48	42
42	Effort to ensure that all children are prepared to enter kindergarten	40	45	36	38	45
43	Expand hours/routes for public transportation	29	39	47	51	35
44	Overcrowded county jail	38	43	45	50	39
45	Better preparation and support for marriages and marital relations	39	47	44	44	37
46	Inadequate welfare reform rules to protect needs of families and children	35	42	38	49	51
47	Greater emphasis on health prevention lifestyles and services	50	50	50	37	32
48	Volunteer support for families leaving public assistance	49	46	49	45	38
49	Increase low-income home ownership	34	40	43	53	47
50	Small business and economic development in the central city	53	52	54	40	33
51	Schools showing parents how to help children with advanced homework	27	44	48	46	53
52	Community organizations cooperate to address gaps in service	52	53	51	47	40
53	Better information about accessing community services	51	51	53	52	52
54	Preserve historic buildings and homes	55	54	52	54	54
55	Revitalize downtown and riverfront with more attractions for everyone	56	56	56	55	55
56	Community acceptance of ex-offenders	54	55	55	56	56

Table 4

Rankings for Women and Men

Ranking for Combined Sample	Question	Ranking of Males Respondents	Ranking for Females Respondents	Rankings for Mean Scores Males	Rankings for Mean Scores Females
1	In home services for elderly persons who want to remain independent.	1	1	3.46	3.62
2	Teenage sex, pregnancy and parenthood	2	2	3.41	3.57
3	Child abuse and neglect	4	4	3.35	3.53
4	Drug and alcohol abuse	6	3	3.28	3.54
5	Lack of affordable health care/insurance	3	5	3.37	3.48
6	Support for people caring for disabled in home	7	6	3.24	3.46
7	Children needing parents to be more involved in their lives	5	8	3.32	3.37
8	Jobs which pay living wages	9	7	3.13	3.41
9	Support for caregivers and patients with long-term and terminal illness	11	10	3.11	3.32
10	Teach life skills to meet needs o families and children	14	9	3.06	3.33
11	Teenage violence	10	11	3.12	3.30
12	Support for people with disabilities	8	14	3.14	3.28
13	Community support for troubled children/youth	12	18	3.10	3.26
14	Support for people with mental illness	17	12	3.03	3.30
15	Spouse abuse and the safety of victims	16	16	3.05	3.27
16	Affordable housing for low-income people	15	15	3.05	3.27
17	Lack of affordable, quality childcare (including P.M. and infant care)	19	13	2.99	3.29
18	Reduce fraud and abuse of public welfare	18	17	2.99	3.27
19	Gang activity and crime	13	20	3.08	3.18
20	Financial security for families and their children	25	19	2.92	3.24
21	Need to improve parenting and family skills	21	21	2.96	3.18
22	Absentee Landlords not maintaining older neighborhood properties	26	22	2.90	3.17
23	Families in need of supportive friends, relatives, groups, neighbors	23	24	2.93	3.14
24	Quality of air and associated breathing problems	22	25	2.94	3.12
25	Affordable college education for all who want it	27	26	2.87	3.12
26	After-school and summer activities for children/youth	28	28	2.84	3.10
27	Legal protection and advocacy for children, low-income persons, elderly	35	23	2.76	3.16
28	Shelters and support programs for the homeless	31	27	2.82	3.11
29	Low-income persons in need of dependable transportation	32	31	2.82	3.05
30	Lack of marketable job skills for unemployed and underemployed	20	33	2.97	2.96
31	Increase the religious and moral life of the community	37	30	2.75	3.07
32	Give recipients of service the ability to give back to the community	33	32	2.79	3.02
33	Work-place policies which support family needs	47	29	2.65	3.09
34	Better road maintenance	30	34	2.83	2.96
35	Increase efforts to attract environmentally clean industries	29	36	2.84	2.95
36	Better traffic planing and traffic flow	24	45	2.93	2.86
37	More affordable recreational activities for youth, young adults, and families	43	37	2.69	2.94
38	Improve race relations in our city	39	38	2.72	2.92
39	Litter, noise, substandard housing, sidewalk problems in older neighborhoods	38	39	2.73	2.91
40	Efforts to protect the physical environment	34	43	2.77	2.87
41	Improve neighborhoods and strengthen neighborhood relationships	44	40	2.69	2.90
42	Effort to ensure that all children are prepared to enter kindergarten	36	46	2.76	2.86
43	Expand hours/routes for public transportation	51	35	2.58	2.96
44	Overcrowded county jail	45	42	2.69	2.88
45	Better preparation and support for marriages and marital relations	48	41	2.61	2.89
46	Inadequate welfare reform rules to protect needs of families and children	41	47	2.70	2.86
47	Greater emphasis on health prevention lifestyles and services	40	49	2.71	2.83
48	Volunteer support for families leaving public assistance	50	44	2.59	2.87
49	Increase low-income home ownership	46	48	2.65	2.85
50	Small business and economic development in the central city	52	50	2.58	2.79
51	Schools showing parents how to help children with advanced homework	42	51	2.69	2.73
52	Community organizations cooperate to address gaps in service	49	52	2.61	2.70
53	Better information about accessing community services	53	53	2.49	2.66
54	Preserve historic buildings and homes	54	54	2.36	2.52
55	Revitalize downtown and riverfront with more attractions for everyone	55	56	2.36	2.34
56	Community acceptance of ex-offenders	56	55	2.12	2.40

Table 5

Rankings of White and Black Respondents

Ranking for Combined Sample	Question	Ranking of Black Respondents	Ranking for White Respondents
1	In home services for elderly persons who want to remain independent.	3	1
2	Teenage sex, pregnancy and parenthood	1	2
3	Child abuse and neglect	7	3
4	Drug and alcohol abuse	10	4
5	Lack of affordable health care/insurance	2	5
6	Support for people caring for disabled in home	11	6
7	Children needing parents to be more involved in their lives	15	7
8	Jobs which pay living wages	5	8
9	Support for caregivers and patients with long-term and terminal illness	23	9
10	Teach life skills to meet needs o families and children	13	10
11	Teenage violence	12	11
12	Support for people with disabilities	8	12
13	Community support for troubled children/youth	9	13
14	Support for people with mental illness	28	14
15	Spouse abuse and the safety of victims	29	15
16	Affordable housing for low-income people	6	18
17	Lack of affordable, quality childcare (including P.M. and infant care)	20	16
18	Reduce fraud and abuse of public welfare	35	17
19	Gang activity and crime	17	19
20	Financial security for families and their children	14	20
21	Need to improve parenting and family skills	31	21
22	Absentee Landlords not maintaining older neighborhood properties	4	24
23	Families in need of supportive friends, relatives, groups, neighbors	48	22
24	Quality of air and associated breathing problems	30	23
25	Affordable college education for all who want it	26	25
26	After-school and summer activities for children/youth	19	28
27	Legal protection and advocacy for children, low-income persons, elderly	27	26
28	Shelters and support programs for the homeless	32	27
29	Low-income persons in need of dependable transportation	39	29
30	Lack of marketable job skills for unemployed and underemployed	25	30
31	Increase the religious and moral life of the community	18	33
32	Give recipients of service the ability to give back to the community	47	31
33	Work-place policies which support family needs	34	36
34	Better road maintenance	52	32
35	Increase efforts to attract environmentally clean industries	41	34
36	Better traffic planing and traffic flow	53	35
37	More affordable recreational activities for youth, young adults, and families	21	38
38	Improve race relations in our city	22	39
39	Litter, noise, substandard housing, sidewalk problems in older neighborhoods	16	40
40	Efforts to protect the physical environment	54	37
41	Improve neighborhoods and strengthen neighborhood relationships	38	41
42	Effort to ensure that all children are prepared to enter kindergarten	36	43
43	Expand hours/routes for public transportation	42	44
44	Overcrowded county jail	24	46
45	Better preparation and support for marriages and marital relations	49	42
46	Inadequate welfare reform rules to protect needs of families and children	33	47
47	Greater emphasis on health prevention lifestyles and services	43	45
48	Volunteer support for families leaving public assistance	46	48
49	Increase low-income home ownership	37	49
50	Small business and economic development in the central city	44	50
51	Schools showing parents how to help children with advanced homework	40	51
52	Community organizations cooperate to address gaps in service	50	52
53	Better information about accessing community services	45	53
54	Preserve historic buildings and homes	55	54
55	Revitalize downtown and riverfront with more attractions for everyone	56	55
56	Community acceptance of ex-offenders	51	56

Gender	Frequency	Percent
Male	520	39.3
Female	755	57.0
Total Responses	1275	96.3
Missing Information	49	3.7
Combined Total	1324	100.0

	Frequency	Percent
Some High School	100	7.6
High School Grad	343	25.9
Vocational School Grad	107	8.1
College Grad	357	27.0
Post Graduate	315	23.8
Total Responses	1222	92.3
Missing Information	102	7.7
Combined Total	1324	100.0

Income Level	Frequency	Percent
Below $20,000	204	15.4
$20,000-$39,999	295	22.3
$40,000-$59,999	228	17.2
$60,000-$79,999	153	11.6
$80,000-$99,999	97	7.3
$100,000 +	164	12.4
Total Responses	1141	86.2
Missing Information	183	13.8
Combined Total	1324	100.0

Race	Frequency	Percent
White	1140	86.1
Black	106	8.0
Hispanic	7	.5
Asian	6	.5
Other	7	.5
Total Responses	1266	95.6
Missing Information	58	4.4
Combined Total	1324	100.0

Demographic Results

Table 1

Gender of Respondent

Educational Level of Respondent

Household Income of Respondent

Race of Respondent

Table 1 Continued

Age of Respondent

Ranking of Critical Issues

Table 2

Ranking of Items and Statistical Differences Between Item Rankings

Rank

Critical Issue Questions

Ranking of Critical Issues for Demographic Groups

Table 3

Spearman’s Rho Correlations for Respondent Groups

Table 4

Spearman’s Rho Correlations for Age Groups

Table 5

Spearman’s Rho Correlations for Educational Groups

Factor Analysis Results

Table 6

SCORE

SCORE

SCORE

SCORE

SCORE

SCORE

SCORE

SCORE

SCORE

SCORE

Question

Table 2

Question

Table 3

Question

Table 4

Question

Males

Table 5

Question