Boise Citizens Survey 1976 Final Report

              BOISE CITIZENS SURVEY
1976 FINAL REPORT
Archives
F
754
B65
B35
1976

BOISE CITIZENS SURVEY
1976
FINAL REPORT
December 1976
Prepared By:
Mr. Jim Baker
Mr. Phil Hanson
A UNIVER·CITY PROJECT
A PUBLICATION OF THE
BOISE CENTER FOR URBAN RESEARCH
c/o BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
1910 College Boulevard
Boise, Idaho 83725
(208) 385-1573
BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

The research and studies forming the basis for the report
were conducted pursuant to a contract between the Depart­ment
of Housing and Urban Development and the League of
Cities-Conference of Mayors, Inc. (LCCMl Financial sup­port
for project research was provided both through LCCM
and the Boise Community Development Department. The
substance of such research is dedicated to the public.
The author and publisher are solely responsible for the
accuracy of statements or interpretations contained herein.

Section l
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Section 7
Section 8
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Summary of Major Findings and Conclusions
Report Summary
Energy and Solid Waste Survey
Local Planning and Zoning Services Survey
City Park Usage Survey
Community Development Survey
Miscellaneous Surveys
LIST OF APPENDICES
Tabulation of Responses to the Boise Center for
Urban Research's Energy and Solid Waste Survey
Tabulations of Responses to the Local Planning and
Zoning Services Survey
Tabulations of Responses to the Boise Public
Library Survey
Tabulations of Responses to the Community Develop-ment
Survey
C20DAC Youth Alternatives Directory (Samp 1 e Page)
Tabulations of Responses to the Ada Planning Agency's
Elderly and Handicapped Survey
I I
Page
l
3
5
6
13
16
23
35
39
52
56
67
78
80
Table 4A
Table 4B
Table 4C
Table 4D
Table 4E
Table 6A
Table 6B
Table 6C
Table 7A
Table 7B
Table 7C
Table 7D
Table 7E
Table 7F
Table 7G
Table 7H
Table 8A
Map l
Figure l
Figure 2
Figure 3
LIST OF TABLES
Number of Respondents Selected by Community
Number of Completed Responses by Community
Age of Residences - Ada County
Types of Heating Used by Ada County Residents
One-Way Commuting Distance Between Work and
Home
Ann Morrison Park Car Count
Julia Davis Park Activities Count
Winstead Park Count
Number of Households 1970 vs. 1976
Number of Questionnaires Mailed and Completed
By Census Tract
Length of Residence By Census Tract
Sex of Respondent By Census Tract
Age of Respondent By Census Tract
Ethnic Background By Census Tract
Number of Persons Per Household By Census
Tract
Income By Census Tract
Number of Surveys Completed By Public Library
LIST OF MAPS
Community Development Project Area
LIST OF FIGURES
Local Planning and Zoning Survey Follow-up Form
City Park Usage Survey Work Schedule
City Park Usage Survey Form
III
Page
8
8
9
9
ll
18
19
21
26
27
27
28
29
30
31
32
36
24
14
17
20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
'" '.
SECTION ONE
Introduction
The Citizen Survey Project which forms the basis for the information
contained in this report is one in a series of studies undertaken by the
Boise Urban Observatory. The Boise Urban Observatory is one of ten
similar research centers established for smaller cities in 1975 through
the Department of Housing and Urban Development sponsorship and under the
executive guidance of the National League of Cities.
Although the scope of the various Observatories is similar to many
other research centers focussing upon urban issues, it's operation and
objectives are fairly unique. Local government department heads, faced with
the increasing need for data analysis and problem solving advice, are brought
within the Observatory to combine their talents and resources with those of
university faculty. The result is a workable joint effort on the part of
two extensive, reasonably autonomous organizations whose personnel, inter­ests,
and mutual aid have traditionally remained separate. The economic and
practical utility of the Observatory is thus obvious. Local needs and issues
are treated by local personnel. The city profits by having ready access to
established research capabilities, thus reducing its need to develop its own
research organization or turn to costly outside consulting firms. The uni­versity
benefits principally through the increased research and practical
problem solving opportunities available to its faculty.
Urban Observatories were first established in large cities such as
Denver, Nashville, and Atlanta. In most instances their first project was a
Citizen Survey. In Denver the project was titled, "Citizen Attitudes in the
City and County of Denver." In Nashville, it was "Citizen Attitudes about
Urban Issues." And in Atlanta the project title was "Citizen Attitudes
Toward Public Policies and Political Authorities." The results of these and
similar studies done in other large cities proved to be highly informative
in guiding and establishing budgetary priorities. As the second round of
Observatories was established for smaller cities such as Boise, the Citizen
Survey was considered and became the first project for the Boise Observa­tory.
What is the Citizen Survey specifically designed to accomplish? The
philosophy which guides such a project suggests a basic answer. The Citizen
Survey is fundamentally aimed at helping close the gap between citizens and
their local government. Residents are provided in the survey with an
opportunity for greater involvement. Public officials, as well as scholars,
are presented with a data base for gauging and monitoring citizen satisfac­tion
for purposes of program development, program evaluation, and policy
analysis.
-1-
"""
More specifically, the purposes behind the Citizen Survey are:
l. To compliment and extend other more traditional means of obtaining
citizen input such as local elections, pressure group activities,
and mass media comments.
2. To obtain data otherwise either unavailable or highly speculative,
such as opinion concerning present services, parks, bus routes, trash
collection - or facts such as the amount of criminal offenses not
otherwise reported to officials.
3. To pre-test the acceptability of proposals for future programs or
policies prior to full-scale implementation.
4. Although certainly more difficult to gauge, a major purpose of the
Citizen Survey lies in constituting a "public referendum," -a means
of heightening citizen interest and a feeling of participation in
local government.
The 1976 Citizen Survey(s) represent a relatively major departure in
survey methodology and format. The first citizen survey, conducted during
the summer of 1975, was a broad-based general opinion survey. While the
first survey supplied a great deal of useful information, one common com­plaint
was that information gathered in this fashion was too general in
nature. That is, the various city departments and agencies expressed a
need for information directed more specifically toward their own opera­tional
needs and requirements. To better meet these needs and require­ments,
the format and methodology for the 1976 Citizen Survey was altered.
It was concluded that the most effective system of data gathering
would be achieved through departmental level and/or issue oriented surveys.
Telephone interviews and mail-out surveys were selected as the principle
data collection methods.
In all, six agencies and/or city departments requested research
assistance. They include:
l) Mayor and City Council
2) Community Youth Development (C20DAC)
3) Community Development
4) Boise Public Library
5) Boise Parks Department
6) Ada Planning Agency
The 5,897 surveys completed for these departments covered over 21,000
households or individuals in the Boise SMSA.*
* In addition the Boise Center for Urban Research assisted the Boise Public
Library in conducting more than 3,000 surveys in libraries throughout Idaho.
-2-
'j I
'
SECTION TWO
Summary of Major Findings and Conclusions
Surveys Generally
1. There are many levels of detail to opinion surveys that parallel the
levels of use. Generally, however, it has been found, for Boise, that
more detailed surveys are most useful.
2. Both telephone, in-person, and mail-out surveys were tried. Telephone
surveys are preferred because they are more efficient, less costly, and
permit a high rate of response.
3. The availability of CETA personnel significantly reduced the costs of
conducting surveys and analyzing resulting data.
Energy Survey
l. Boise is heavily dependent upon fuel oil and natural gas for residential
space heating. Seventy-nine percent of Boise homes rely on these
sources of heat while nationally only 50 percent do. Natural gas de­regulation
and OPEC oil price increases will put an undue pressure on
Boise residences.
2. Approximately l/3 of Boise residents are considering changes their form
of space heating because of the increasing cost of natural gas and fuel
oil.
3. Two major targets for energy conservation in Boise are carpooling and
improved window insulation. Fixty plus percent of employees travel
2+ miles to work, while 45 percent of residents do not have double pane
or storm windows.
4. Seventy-eight percent of Ada County residents feel that first priority
must be given to energy conservation and environment in preference to
improving the standard of living.
5. More than 80 percent of Ada County residents believe that present fran­chised
garbage collection is efficient.
6. Approximately 80 percent of residents would be willing to separate
garbage as a resource conservation measure. In the 1g75 survey, 78
percent of the residents were so inclined which indicates a steady and
perhaps growing, concern for conservation.
Park and Planning Surveys
1. In both of these surveys BCUR collected and compiled data but have not
been asked to assist in data analysis. At this time no feedback has
been received concerning the specific use of results from the surveys.
-3-
•
2. It was feared at the beginning of this survey that households that are
very poor, poorly educated, and possessing low civic motivation would
not respond to this survey. It has been confirmed by word of mouth
that that has evidently happened to an undetermined degree. Nonethe­less
responses from "eligible" households was better than expected.
-4-
II
II
SECTION THREE
Report Summary
At the inception of the Boise Urban Observatory a three year program
of citizens surveys was conceived. The purposes of three years of opinion
surveys were to evaluate methods, costs, and benefits of using opinion
surveys as a mechanism to solicit resident input to formulation of City
policies and programs. The first year a broad survey of general issues was
completed. This survey was designed to identify the major problem areas as
seen by Boise area residents. The respondents to this survey unequivocally
identified those problems they regard as most serious -- downtown redevelop­ment,
traffic, and planning growth. While this clear identification of
City problems was satisfying, its usefulness in specific policy and program
formulation is questionable. Specific guidance in a course of action is
preferable, and this the 1975 survey did not supply.
Consequently in 1976 a new approach to use of surveys was considered.
In this approach surveys were to be conducted to provide answers to specific
questions raised by specific agencies. As a result of this new approach,
eight surveys were conducted covering 21,000 households in Boise. This
document describes these surveys in some detail. Generally this descrip­tion
supports the value of specific surveys as being more useful. In some
respects the surveys may be regarded as a tool to analyze the market for
public programs. There is a good chance that a marketing approach to
public programs will be more responsive to public need than the traditional,
more diffuse approach to needs definition.
In spite of this improvement upon use of survey results, it is still
possible that greater benefits are possible. These benefits will not
accrue from methodological refinement since survey methodologies are highly
developed so that further investments in this area will produce only mar­ginal
results. Additional benefits will also not largely result from
improved question phrasing. The largest additional benefit will result
from major improvements on user input. If the users are the City Council
members, much time must be spent with them to insure that they can obtain
useful information from surveys concerning areas in which they are rela­tively
ignorant, e.g. engineering design, police operations, or urban
planning; and furthermore, topics to which they can give only very limited
amounts of time. If the users are department managers, a professional
capability already exists in specific subject areas so that this is not the
source of problems in using survey results. Instead the problem is to
separate professional requirements from public opinions where those opin­ions
possess little detailed information, i.e. uninformed public opinion.
Each of the eight 1976 surveys is described in this document. The
descriptions cover survey methodology, results, and conclusions in general.
More detail for many of the surveys resides in BCUR occasional papers.
-5-
II
II
II
l"'
SECTION FOUR
Energy and Solid Waste Survey*
In the May 25, 1976, presidential primary, Ada County voters marked an
advisory ballot concerning energy policy in a manner which revealed both an
understanding of the socioeconomic costs of exponential growth as well as a
heightened consiousness of waste in energy and resource use. Fifty-six
percent of the voters said "no" to the construction of Idaho Power Company's
proposed Pioneer Coal-Fired Electric Plant near Boise, while 70 percent
indicated their preference for energy conservation ("Ada County government
should do everything it can to encourage the public to conserve energy").
Other local channels of public opinion have also begun to convey a similarly
strong interest in the need for conservation, and a concern for environ­mental
and other "quality of life" issues.
Such recent expressions of public sentiment were a major factor in the
decision by the Ada County Commissioners and Boise's Mayor and City Council
to give highest priority to energy use and solid waste as initial subjects
for this years series of Citizen Surveys.
Upon selection as the first survey topic, researchers from BCUR met
with representatives of the city and county departments operationally in­volved
with energy and solid waste management to begin refinement of the
questions to be used. The decision was made to conduct a telephone survey
of a sample of 660 randomly selected households in Ada County. Three indi­viduals
worked part-time for approximately two weeks completing 402 ques­tionnaires.
Sample Selection and Survey Response
Six hundred and sixty telephone numbers were randomlyl selected from
the 1975 Mountain Bell Telephone Directory representing Ada County and the
communities of Boise, Eagle, Garden City, Meridian, Kuna, and Star. Table
4A shows the number of households selected and the response rate from each
community.
Four hundred and two surveys (61% of the total sample) were completed.
Of the 258 surveys not completed, 158 persons (24%) could not be contacted
for various reasons, i.e. phone disconnected, resident repeatedly not at
home, etc., while 100 persons (15%) actually refused to respond. Thus the
response rate for those persons actually contacted by the telephone inter­viewers
was 80 percent.
* Taken from P-26, BCUR publication written by Martin Scheffer, September
1976, "1976 Citizen Survey, Enerqy Conservation & Solid Waste."
1. Using C.R.C. Standard Mathematical Tables.
-6-
Community response rates ranged from a low of 46 percent in Eagle to a
high of 89 percent in Garden City. Table 4B indicates that the percent of
total surveys completed in each community closely approximated the actual
distribution of Ada County's population. For example, Boise makes up
roughly 86 percent of Ada County's total population. Eighty-eight percent
of our completed surveys came from Boise.
Energy Uses
Data were collected in this survey in two main areas of personal
energy use: residential and transportation, which together account for
somewhat more than a third of the total U.S. energy use {industry takes the
largest share, approximately 40%).
The analysis of residential energy use begins with a few basic demo­graphic
statistics: 81 percent of the respondents own their own homes while
17 percent rent. Single family homes accounted for 83 percent of the resi­dences,
with apartments or duplexes representing 10 percent, mobile homes 6
percent and condominiums 1 percent. Table 4C provides a distribution which
indicates the age of residences in five age ranges. Residences with an
age of 20 or more years constitute well over a quarter of the total sample.
The two most frequent forms of energy used by survey
residential heating are natural gas (61%) and oil (18%).
principal residential heating modes is presented in Table
respondents in
A full listing of
40.
The two most frequent energy forms used in home heating have both
experienced supply problems in Ada County in recent years. This factor,
plus a desire to increase efficiency over older heating systems are pro­bable
reasons why 31 percent of the homeowners sampled indicated that they
were considering modifying their present heating arrangements. These
individuals noted that information about the cost of alternative heating
methods was the most important factor in such-a-Gonsideration.
An approximate four percent national annual increase in residential
energy consumption may be largely accounted for by the increased use of
electrically operated home convenience features. Respondents indicated the
same rate of use as nationally reported for garbage disposals (36%).
Central air conditioning was reported by 35 percent, while survey respon­dents
revealed a lower than national average use of window air conditioners
{30% as opposed to 52%). Only five, (1%) of those surveyed reported use of
a garbage compactor.
A second major energy use by individuals involves the methods of per­sonal
transportation. Each survey respondent, if employed outside of the
home, was asked to indicate their normal means of transportation. Ninety­one
percent said they use an automobile, four percent a bicycle, three
percent use the city bus, and one percent use other means.
-7-
....
TABLE 4A
Number of Respondents Selected by Community
# Respondents # Surveys % Surveys
~ommunity Selected Completed Completed
Boise 580 351 60.5%
Eagle 11 5 45.5%
Garden City 9 8 B8.9%
Kuna 14 10 71.4%
Meridian 38 23 60.5%
Star 8 5 62.5%
Tota 1 660 402 60.9%
TABLE 4B
Number of Completed Responses by Community
% of County * # Surveys % Surveys
Community Population Completed Completed
Boise 86% 351 87.5%
Eagle 2~0 5 1 . 2~6
Star 20/
" 5 1.2%
Garden City 1"/o 8 1.9%
Meridian 7% 23 5.8%
Kuna 2'1 10 2.4%
Tota 1 100% 402 100.0%
* 1970 Census Data
-8-
TABLE 4C
Age of Residences - Ada County
Age of Residences
(Year)
20+
14-20
l 0-13
6-9
Up To 5
Number of
Residences
l 09
62
62
64
92
TABLE 4D
% of
Total Residences
28%
16%
16%
16%
24%
Types of Heating Used by Ada County Residents
Heating Mode % Use Total
Gas, Forced Air 60.7 Ada County
Oil Furnace 17.9 Gas
Electric, Forced Air 12. 4 Oil
Coal Furnace l . 7 Electricity
Electric, Baseboard 1.5 Other
Electric, Ceiling Cable 1.2
Wood Stove . 7 National (1974)
Heat Pump . 7 Gas
Hot Water . 5 Oil
Wa 11 Heater .2 Electricity
Fireplace .2 Other
No Information 1.7
-9-
61%
18%
16%
5%
41%
9%
49%
1%
•
II
II
II
l~
Conservation Measures
Beginning in 1974 a major effort was made locally to increase the
amount of carpooling among automobile commuters who share similar work
hours and residential location. A question on the survey concerning dis­tance
between work and home found the median distance driven each day to be
approximately nine miles. The complete distribution is provided in Table
4E for one-way distance.
Thus it is evident that carpooling could save a considerable amount of
gasoline for the individual automobile user. Three questions were included
in the survey concerning use of carpooling. Obviously it was found that
the use of a carpool increases as distance from residence to work increases.
However, the majority of long distance drivers do not use a carpool. In
fact, an average of only 11 percent presently make use of this conservation
method (13% of those who drive over 10 miles roundtrip). Twenty-one per­cent
of the respondents indicated that they had been part of a carpool at
some earlier time. Ex-carpoolers as well as those who had never made use
of carpools were asked to provide the main reason why they do not presently
belong to a carpool. Forty-two percent felt it was too inconvenient, 27
percent did not know anyone who commuted from their area, six percent
thought it too unreliable and the remaining 25 percent offered a variety of
other reasons. A cross check of responses indicates that the above mentioned
reasons do not vary by where people live in Ada County.
Home insulation has become a second very popular area of individual
energy conservation efforts. Very few homes in Ada County are without some
form of ceiling and wall insulation, but many homes were constructed during
the period of plentiful supply of low cost heating fuels. The amount of
insulation in these homes is considered below standard today. This is
undoubtedly the main reason why the survey found that 20 percent of the
respondents (25% of homeowners) had added insulation to their walls or
ceiling within the last two years. Still, 28 percent of the homeowners and
46 percent of the renters said they felt that their residence was not
adequately insulated. Most of these individuals mentioned walls and ceiling,
but drafty single pane windows were also noted quite frequently. Forty-five
percent of the residents surveyed did not have either double pane
windows or storm windows for winter use. However, slightly more than half
of these people have used plastic sheeting over their windows on occasion.
Attitudes Toward Energy Use and Conservation
The importance of energy conservation as part of our nations overall
energy policy has become a matter of increasing public awareness. More
than three times as many Ada County residents would appear to consider
energy conservation as a serious problem than as not really a problem. On
a seven point Likert Scale, 40 percent of those interviewed place them-se
1 ves 1 or 2 ("A very serious prob 1 em") as compared with 13 percent who
p 1 aced themse 1 ves 6 or 7 ("Really not a prob 1 em"). A cross check showed no
relationship between the number of years the respondent had been a resident
of Ada County, and attitude toward the energy conservation issue. This
-10-
TABLE 4E
One-Way Commuting Distance Between Work and Home
Distance One-Way
(Miles}
0-1
2-3
4-5
6-7
8-9
10-11
11-12
13-14
15-16
17+
Percent of
Respondents
11.6
30.6
20.2
12.7
1 0. 1
6.3
1.9
1.1
2.6
3.0
suggests that the energy conservation oriented person is not largely an
in-migrant to the county. The survey showed that most people receive their
information about this issue about equally from newspapers (32%) and radio
and TV (31%) with many other incidental sources like books, news magazines,
speeches and conversation with friends and relatives accounting for the
bulk of the remaining 37 percent.
Each person interviewed was asked whether they felt that the overall
quality of Idaho's physical environment was being reduced in order to main­tain
or improve our standard of living. Fifty-two percent said "yes,"
which suggests that many Idahoans see the conservation issue in zero-sum
terms i.e. where an increase in one variable necessarily means a decrease
in another. Seventy-eight percent of those who answered yes, felt that
first priority must be given to energy conservation and environmental
quality as opposed to improving the standard of living. Only 11 percent of
those who answered yes, were willing to sacrifice what they saw as a
worsening environment for the sake of growth. It should be noted, however,
that 32 percent of those surveyed did not feel that Idaho's environmental
quality was being reduced and 16 percent were not sure enough to draw a
positive conclusion.
As a final indication of energy conservation attitudes, the survey
found that a majority (55%) of the respondents feel that the county should
require new residential units to have double pane windows and maximum insu­lation.
-11-
II
II
II
II
II
S~lid Waste Disposal
Every citizen in Ada County can have solid waste collected from their
homes if they wish to hire one of several private haulers to do so. Or,
citizens may choose to haul their own solid waste to the County's sanitary
landfill. Based upon state and national studies, it is estimated that 5\
pounds of solid waste must be disposed of for each county resident each day
of the year.
Statistics from the present survey indicate that 85 percent of Ada
County residents utilize a garbage collection service, while 14 percent do
not. The survey found that people who live in the urban portions of Ada
County are 44 percent more likely to subscribe to a collection service than
rural residents. One further check showed no connection between socio­economic
status and method of residential solid waste disposal.
Most individuals who do not subscribe to a collection service, haul
their own solid waste to the landfill (67%). Eleven percent dispose of it
on their property, and nine percent have friends, neighbors or relatives
who dispose of it for them. Fourteen percent offered a variety of other
methods of disposal.
Asked to rate the efficiency of their garbage collection service, 82
percent of the users considered it efficient or very efficient while 18
percent felt it to be inefficient or very inefficient.
It is interesting to note that some people (especially in Meridian)
who do not have service apparently would either prefer not to subscribe to
a collection service or at least are opposed to mandatory collection out of
principle. The survey found that 37 percent are opposed to an ordinace
requiring service for all residents. However, if mandatory collection was
initiated, 80 percent of those surveyed indicated they would want to pay
through a separate invoice rather than as part of their property tax bill
(9% favored the latter means).
Finally, many people are becoming aware of the volume of recyclable
material which needlessly ends up in the landfill and are willing to help
i~ preventing this waste of this potential energy resource. Eighty percent
of the survey respondents said that they would be willing to separate
recyclable material from their household garbage for separate pick-up as
long as the cost of collection remained the same. A further check indica­tes
that this high level of willingness to cooperate in a source separation
program does not vary either by sex or socio-economic status of the respon­dent.
The figure of 80 percent closely parallels the 78 percent of Boise
residents who expressed similar sentiment on the 1975 Citizen Survey.
-12-
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
SECTION FIVE
Local Planning and Zoning Services Survey
The Local Planning and Zoning Services Survey was conducted at the
request of the Director of the Ada Planning Agency and the City Council
President. The survey is part of a continuing effort to improve general
and local planning services. It was felt that a survey of the users or
clients of local planning services would be very helpful. Information
generated by the survey will be used to assess methods for improvement of
planning and zoning services.
The survey approach chosen was to gather direct comments and opinions
on the services provided by the local planning and zoning offices. Survey
results will assist in determination of additional staff needs, modifica­tion
of procedures, and the amendment of ordinances to provide improvements
in service.
Sample Selection and Methodology
When looking at local planning service, it seems apparent that there
are at least two specific groups to which the service is provided. The
first group is individuals, businesses and other agents or entities who
seek to develop land within the city. This obviously includes the indivi­duals
who own land and desire to develop property, large land developers,
firms, government agencies, and other units which require development
permits. A sample of these clients was drawn from Ada Planning Agency
application files and telephone call notes.
The second group is composed of general citizens of the community and
particularly those citizens who live within 300 feet of any zoning action
request which goes to public hearing. A sample of these persons was drawn
from the minutes of the Boise Planning and Zoning Commission.
Two telephone survey questionnaires were developed, one designed for
applicants, and the other for non-applicants (persons attending public
hearings). The survey instruments were developed to assess the effec­tiveness
of the present local planning and zoning service.
Questionnaires were structured in a manner which permitted respondents
to rate effectiveness of the local planning and zoning function. In
addition, a follow-up comment program was started. In the course of the
survey, we expected that some respondents would have specific problems or
questions which may require follow-up by the local planning staff. A form
was provided (Figure 1) for notation of special problems and a procedure
for follow-up by the local planning staff was established.
In total, a sample of 200 persons was selected. Telephone surveys
were conducted each evening for two weeks during May, 1976. Eighty-one
persons among the applicants responded to the survey while 63 persons who
had attended public hearings responded, resulting in a total response rate
of 72 percent. Various reasons for the 56 surveys (28%) not completed were
cited, including: phone disconnected, resident repeatedly not at home, or
simple refusal to respond.
-13-
FIGURE l
FOLLOH-UP FORM
LOCAL PLANNING SERVICE FOLLOW-UP
COMt1ENT
Int No. Date ---------------------
Time Called, ____________ _ a.m. --------------·------_J·m.
Urgent ___________ Telephone Number _______________________________________________ __
Client Name ---------------------------------------------
C 0 M M E N T S
Client expects to be called? Yes No, _______ __
Called to: Date _________________ _
Disposition Date ______________________________________ _
-14- -
II
II
II
II
Research Role of the Boise Center for Urban Research
The Boise Center for Urban Research was involved in three key areas of
the Local Planning and Zoning Services Survey. First, BCUR researchers
assisted local officials in questionnaire development and pretest. As a
second task, BCUR was given the responsibility of conducting the telephone
surveys. The third area of BCUR involvement centered around data coding,
keypunching, and analysis. Simple BMD statistical programs (frequency
counts and cross correlations) were used in data analysis. Tabulations for
the surveys (Appendix B) are attached to this report.
Summary
Design of the Local Planning and Zoning Services Survey precluded de­tailed
statistical analysis. The primary purpose of the survey was to
encourage public input into the local planning and zoning function. Imme­diately
following the completion of data coding, keypunching and analysis,
survey results were given to the Mayor, the City Council, the Ada Planning
Agency, and the Boise Planning and Zoning Commission for their use and
dissemination. It is expected that information gathered from the survey
.will assist these local agencies in their attempts to better serve the
public.
-15-
SECTION SIX
City Park Usage Survey
During the summer of 1976 the Boise Center for Urban Research in co­operation
with the City Parks Department conducted an extensive traffic and
facilities usage study for two major city parks: Ann Morrison and Julia
Davis. In addition the number of persons using various facilities in all
nine neighborhood parks were enumerated. These parks include:
1) Winstead Park
2) Bowden Park
3) Cassia Park
4) Camelsback Park
5) Elms Grove Park
6) Memorial Park
7) Fairview Park
8) Fort Boise
The objectives of the survey were to: 1) estimate average daily and
weekly attendance over the peak visitor period (22 weeks from May through
September)*; 2) measure and evaluate intensity of use by determing peak
visitor hours and tabulating and analyzing the length of stay of visitors;
3) determine the popularity index of various facilities and activities
within the peak hours; and 4) determine which types of facilities have
reached or are approaching the saturation use rate.
Survey Methodology
The City Park Usage Survey was divided into two segments. Boise's
largest parks Ann Morrison and Julia Davis comprised one segment of the
study, while the second segment consisted of nine smaller neighborhood
parks. Methodology for the first segment of the study consisted of gate
counts as well as park activity counts. Four days were designated for each
month (July and August). Days selected for the study were: two weekdays,
one Saturday and one Sunday. Figure 2 is the work schedule used for Ann
Morrison Park in July. The time schedules in Figure 2, developed by the
City Parks Department, were held constant for both parks during the July
and August surveys.
Gate counts provided a relatively simple mechanism for ascertaining
the number of automobiles entering the park through different gates at pre­selected
times during the day. For example, Table 6A indicates that on
July 21, 1976 (between the hours of 7:30a.m. and 9:00a.m.) 261 auto­mobiles
entered Ann Morrison through the Americana Boulevard entrance,
while an additional 121 automobiles entered the park through the Capitol
Boulevard entrance. The 382 automobiles entering the park had a total of
413 occupants
* Due to staffing limitations, the study was limited to July & August only.
-16-
FIGURE 2
ANN MORRISON SURVEY - WORK SCHEDULE
First Shifts
Wednesday and Thursday- July 21, 22
7:30 - 9:00 a.m.
9:00 - 9:45
9:45 - 11:30
ll : 30 - 12 : 00
12:00- 1:00
Saturday - July 24
7:30 - 9:00 a.m.
9:00 - 9:45
9:45 - ll :15
ll : 15 - 12 : 00
12:00- 1:00
l: 00 - 2:00
2:00 - 2:30
Sunday - July 25
ll :00 a.m. - 12:00
12:00 - 1:00 p.m.
1:30- 3:00
3:00 - 4:00
Second Shift
Gate Count
Park Count
Gate Count
Break
Park Count
Gate Count
Park Count
Gate Count
Break
Park Count
Gate Count
Park Count
Gate Count
Park Count
Gate Count
Park Count
Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday
4:30 p.m. - 6:00
6:00 - 7:00
7:00 - 8:00
8:00 - 9:00
9:00 - l 0:00
10:00 - ll :00
-17-
Gate Count
Park Count
Gate Count
Break
Park Count
Gate Count
Date Q_il,)' Time
7/21/76 Wed. 7:30-9:00 a.m.
9:45-11:30 a.m.
4:30-6:00 p.m.
7:00-8:00 p.m.
10:00-11:00 p.m.
Totals
7/22/76 Thur. 7:30-9:00 a.m.
9:45-11:00 a.m.
4:30-6:00 p.m.
7:00-8:00 p.m.
10:00-11:00 p.m.
Totals
7/24/76 Sat. 7:30-9:00 a.m.
9:45-11:15 a.m.
II 1:00-2:00 p.m.
4:30-6:00 p.m.
7:00-8:00 p.m.
10:00-11:00 p.m.
Totals
7/25/76 Sun. 11:00-12:00 noon
1:30-3:00 p.m.
4:30-6:00 p.m.
7:00-8:00 p.m.
10:00-11:00 p.m.
Totals
TABLE 6A
ANN MORRISON PARK
CAR COUNT
Americana Gate
Occupants Cars Ave.
261 224 1. 17
343 220 1. 56
528 351 1.5
602 260 2. 32
177 90 1. 97
1911 1145 1.67
271 221 1. 23
433 260 1.67
736 428 1.72
550 273 2.02
182 96 1.9
2172 1278 1.7
124 96 1.29
313 170 1.84
671 320 2.1
713 333 2.14
554 220 2.52
277 140 1. 98
2652 1279 2. 07
452 192 2.35
1170 514 2.28
725 327 2.22
395 180 2.19
160 83 1. 93
2902 1296 2.23
-18-
Ca~itol Gate
Occupants Cars Ave.
152 121 1.26
345 235 1. 47
434 283 1. 53
389 207 1.88
242 147 1. 65
1562 993 1. 57
164 117 1.4
382 250 1. 53
479 269 1. 78
483 238 2.03
306 153 2.0
1814 1027 1.77
165 100 1.65
377 224 1.68
600 300 2.0
806 399 2.02
443 194 2.28
346 172 2.01
2737 1389 1.97
396 200 1. 98
738 360 2.05
830 410 2.02
509 251 2.03
190 94 2.02
2663 1315 2.03
TABLE 6B
TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1976
Activity/
Parking Location )9:00-10:00 a.m.,l2:00-l :00 p.m. I 2:00-2:30 p.m.l 6:00-7:00 p.m.,9:00-l0:00 p.m. I Totals
-C* -P-* S* C P S C P S cps cps c p s
East End 1 12 7 9 3 9 2 11 31 9 14
North of Tennis 4 2 2 2 8 2
South/West of Tennis 5 1 0 8 2 13 1 2
Mall;Bandshell 22 40 1 20 4 27 60
North/West of Zoo 37 37 13 5 2 42 37 1 5
South of Lagoon 2 4 13 27 28 18 46 51 13 74
Art Museum 1 2 6 3 10 2
Band Shell
Big Mike 1 1 2 2 2 1 5 1 3
Boat House 6 13 2 6 13 2
Zoo 11 37 5 5 53 5
1 Playyround 1 3 8 5 3 1 5 19 16 ~
"I ' Historical Museum 5 14 5 14 Fun Spot 20 4 6 3 1 2 6 7 38 6
Rose Gardens 2 2
Tennis Courts l 3 12 8 12 3 2 l 2 10 1 36 36 l
Horse Shoe 4 2 2 6 2
Other:
Walk/Jog/Bike 3 14 5 20 1 2 3 51
Sitting 3 31 4 38
Painting 2 13 l 5
Picnic Shelter 16 14 16 14
Practicing Flags 2 2
Frisbee 2 2
Sleeping l 1
Backpackers 3 3
- ---- -·-·- - -- --- -- --- ----
Totals 35 35 -- ll 9 237 23 -- -- -- 90 60 48 69 49 76 I 313 381 147
C* = Parked Cars
P* = Participants
S* = Spectators
II
F~S!L!TY OR ACTIVITY
>i cni d inc;
C,. ., i 1d rens' Play Ground
Tennis Courts
Shelter (if any)
6a;ebal1/Softball
Footba 11
Swinvning Pools
nther
GRANO TOTALS
FL~URE 3
BOISE CITY PARK DEPARTMENT
PARK USE SURVEY, 1975
__ PARK
TIME ____ DAY OF WEEK __ _
PARKED CARS OR
OTHER VEHICLES PARTICIPANTS
DATE ___ _
SPECTATORS
II 0 r·n1ar>:s (weather, special events, etc.)
---- ····------·--
---------- --- -------------·
Instructions to Tabulator· The purpose of this survey is to attempt to obtain an
approximate visitor attendance count during the active season of the park as a
whole and of specific activities. Random counts at different hours and different
days of the week should enable us to make this projection.
-20-
TABLE 6C
WINSTEAD PARK
DATE TIME DAY PARKED CARS BICYCLES PARTICIPANTS SPECTATORS ACTIVITY WEATHER
7/20/76 8:45a.m. Tues. - 6 12 3 Tennis Courts Cloudy,Cool
10 - Arts and Crofts
5 - - - Parking Lot
1 - Walking
9:05 p.m. - - 10 - Children's Playground Cloudy
23 - 55 - Shelter
29 - 42 63 Softba 11
4 - Bike Riders
7/21/76 8:35 a.rn. Wed. - 2 5 - Tennis Courts Warm
2 - 1 - Shelter
2 - Jogging/\·Jalking
8:45 p.m. - - 2 - Children's Playground Warm,Sunny
8 5 Tennis Courts
22 - 35 - Shelter
19 2 22 29 Softba 11
1 - - 4 - Walking
"' - 6 ~ 7 - Bike Riders
7/22/76 8:50a.m. Thur. 5 - 12 1 Tennis Courts Warrn,Sunny
3 - - - Shelter
9:00 p.m. - - 18 - Picnicking Hot
2 8 - Tennis Courts
30 - 34 - Shelter
32 - 40 38 Softba 11
3 - Frisbee
3 - Bike Riders
18 - Family Baseball
8/24/76 8:00 a.m. Tues. 1 - - - Shelter Sunny, Clear
1 - Skateboarder
7:30 p.m. Tues. 45 - 40 - Picnicking Warm, Sunny
8 - Tennis Courts
25 - Baseball/Softball
30 20 Football
8/25/76 8:10a.m. Wed. - - - - Clear, Windy
8:20 p.m. Wed. 21 - 18 - Picnicking Cloudy, Windy
8/26/76 8:05 a.m. Thur. - - 2 - Joggers Sunny, Coo 1
7:30 p.m. Thur. 26 - - - Picnicking Clear, Sunny
20 - Shelter
25 1 5 Football
Park activity or facilities usage counts were accomplished by walking
through the park at designated times and enumerating the number of persons
utilizing various park facilities. Figure 2 is the form used to gather
this data while Table 6B is an example of the type of data gathered.
Neighborhood park counts were somewhat easier than counts taken at the
two larger city parks. They were accomplished by going to each park at a
specified time and counting the number of persons in the park and the types
of activities they were involved in. The data collection form (Figure 3)
was used for the neighborhood parks as well as the two regional parks.
Table 6C is an example of data gathered for Winstead Park during July and
August. This type of table was generated for all nine neighborhood parks.
Summary
The data gathered by BCUR will be analyzed by the City Parks Depart­ment
in an effort to help answer the following types of questions: l) What
types of facilities have reached or are approaching the saturation use
rate; 2) what types of facilities are in significant demand; 3) what are
the latest growth trends in outdoor recreation areas; 4) should the number
of neighborhood parks be increased; and if so 5) what types of facilities
should be developed in each park.
These are difficult questions to answer. However, data gathered in
the City Park Usage Survey will provide useful insights into the park
planning function. It is anticipated that another, more comprehensive park
survey will be conducted during the summer of 1977. This survey will
consist of the same methodology used for the 1976 survey and in addition
will probably incorporate the use of an in-person interview of park users
to determine which types of facilities city residents prefer in local parks.
-22-
SECTION SEVEN
Community Development Survey
Of the projects undertaken by the BCUR in 1976, one of the most ambi­tious
was the Community Development Survey. A mail-out, census type format,
i.e. all households within the Community Development Project area were
surveyed, was used. In all, over 18,000 households in eleven Boise Census
Tracts were surveyed (see Map 1). The Community Development Survey was
designed to gather data for two city agencies: Community Development and
the Boise Public Library. The primary impetus of the survey was directed
toward evaluation of various Community Development Programs.
Sample Selection and Survey Methodology
A mail-out survey was chosen over other research designs primarily due
to the nature of the questions being asked and the cost involved in such an
extensive survey. Questions in the survey (particularly questions 6 and 7)
do not lend themselves to telephone inquiry and an in-person interview
approach was ruled out due to time and cost constraints.
After the decision to use a mail-out survey was reached, the initial
task undertaken was selection of the sample and the creation of a mailing
list. This task was accomplished through a five step procedure. First,
the Address Coding Guide, developed during the 1970 Census by the United
States Census Bureau, was used to determine which address ranges fell
within the eleven census tracts. This was accomplished by reviewing the
file on each of Boise's streets and determining if any portion of that
street was located inside the target area. Since many streets go through
several census tracts, the second step entailed the establishment of ad­dress
ranges from which the sample would be drawn. This step was accom­plished
through further use of the Address Coding Guide. The third step
involved use of the Boise City Directory* which contains all of the house­hold
addresses within the City. Using the parameters established in Step
2, all households located within the designated address ranges were selected
for the survey sample. The fourth step involved verification and typing of
the final mailing list. The fifth and final step consisted of keypunching
the mailing addresses and developing computer generated mailing labels. In
total, 18,440 mailing labels were generated.
Community Development, with assistance from BCUR, was primarily respon­sible
for questionnaire development and pretest. The questionnaire consists
of three major sections (see Appendix D for Tabulations of Responses). The
first five questions were aimed at gathering data for the Boise Public
Library. These questions were included in the Community Development Survey
in order to satisfy information needs of the Public Library in a cost­effective
manner.
The second major section of the questionnaire includes questions 6 and
7. These questons were designed to:
* 1976 Boise City Directory, R.L. Polk Publishing Company.
-23-
L-- -;~~:1:!2J
-" ........
MAP 1
Community Development Project Area
Designated Project
Area
24
23
22
(~\
-1·
:l
,.
~
-24-
"'JC>Q""
a) gauge public awareness of the various Community Development
programs;
b) determine the number of persons who have used any of the services
provided by Community Development programs;
c) ascertain how the respondents became aware of existing Community
Development programs; and
d) respondents were requested to rank-order a list of possible city
and neighborhood improvements.
This section of the questionnaire is crucial to Community Development
because it provides a citizen input mechanism to evaluate existing programs
as well as establish priority lists for existing and proposed programs.
The final section of the questionnaire (Questions 8-15) were demo­graphic
questions. These questions are designed to determine the demo­graphic
characteristics of the population group being served by Community
Development programs. Selection of the eleven census tracts that make up
Community Development's project area were originally made on the basis of
income data provided by the 1970 census. During the past six years, Boise
has grown rapidly and the demographic characteristics of the eleven tracts
have changed. These questions are designed to gauge the extent and type of
demographic change occurring within the Community Development Project Area.
Survey respondents were divided into two groups: persons eligible for
Community Development Programs, and persons ineligible for Community
Development programs. Eligibility is determined by the following sliding
income scale:
Family Size 80% of Median
1 $ 7, 342
2 $ 9,398
3 $ 10,573
4 $ 11,747
5 $ 12,452
6 $ 13,215
7 $ 13,920
8 $ 14,684
For example, a household with 8 members making less than $14,684 is eligible
for Community Development Programs. This scale is based on 80 percent of
the median income ($14,684) for a family of four in the Boise SMSA. One
thousand, five hundred and eighty (38.2%) of the respondents were eligible,
while 2,554 (61.8%) were ineligible.
-25-
Sample Characteristics
In 1970, it was estimated that there were 17,615 households in the
eleven census tracts which constitute the Community Development Project
Area. For the 1976 Community Development Survey, 18,440 households were
selected for the survey sample. This represents an increase of 825 house­holds
(+ 4.68%) in the Community Development Project Area since 1970 (see
Table 7A).
Of the 18,440 questionnaires that were mailed, 4,134 (22%) were com­pleted
and returned to the Boise Center for Urban Research. Response rate
by census tract varied from a low of 4.4 percent in census tract 16 to a
high of 16.4 percent in census tract 6 (Table 7B). A detailed description
of survey respondents is not presented in this report. However, Tables 7C
through Table 7H provide some demographic characteristics of respondents
from each of the eleven project area census tracts.
TABLE 7A
Number of Households 1970 vs. 1976
Census Tract 1970* 1976 % Change
l l ,645 l , 784 8.45
4 l , 371 l , 539 12.23
5 2,063 2,173 5.33
6 2,502 2,577 3.00
7 l, 313 l, 684 28.26
8 l , 161 l ,489 28.25
9 l , 597 l, 722 7.83
10 l , 955 1, 639 -16.16
14 l '596 1,470 - 7. 89
16 l , 100 839 -23.73
17 l , 315 __l_,_ 524 15.89
Total 17,615 18,440 4.68
* Taken from 1970 Census Bureau Data.
-26-
II
II TABLE 7B
Number of Questionnaires Mailed
II and Completed by Census Tract
• Census # Questionnaires # Questionnaires Return
Tract Ma i 1 ed Mailed Rate (%) --
II 1 1, 784 318 7.7
4 1, 539 321 7.8
5 2,173 513 12.4
6 2,577 677 16.4 • 7 1,684 439 10.6
8 1 ,489 345 8.3
9 1,722 356 8.6 • 10 1,639 420 10.2
14 1,470 267 6.4
16 839 181 4.4
17 ___!_, 524 297 7.2 • Total 18,440 4,134 100.0 • TABLE 7C
Length of Residence by Census Tract
Census No Less Than 7 Months Over
Tract Response 6 Months To 1 Year 1-2 Yrs. 2-3 Yrs. 2-5 Yrs. 5 Yrs.
1 1 24 17 33 32 29 182
4 2 17 9 13 17 24 239
5 5 16 11 22 22 44 393
6 1 39 25 51 40 54 467
7 6 22 18 21 28 35 309
8 3 8 22 30 18 30 234
9 1 17 22 31 39 27 219
10 4 10 12 30 25 29 310
14 0 12 11 15 19 22 188
16 1 4 3 10 7 9 147
17 2 20 4 19 17 27 208
Total 26 189 154 275 264 330 2896
Percent 0.6% 4. 6?; 3.7% 6.n 6.4% 8.0% 70 0 1 ~~
-27-
---~~~-·~------------ ~~~~=- ""
TABLE 7D
Sex of Respondent By Census Tract
Census No
Tract Response Male Female Total (Percen:U
--- ---
1 8 128 182 318 ( 7. 7:n
4 21 150 150 321 ( 7.8:0
5 16 256 241 513 (12.4%)
6 26 299 352 677 (16.4%)
7 19 200 220 439 (10.6%)
3 9 170 166 345 ( 8.3%)
9 14 171 171 356 ( 8.6%)
10 16 205 199 420 (10.2%)
14 13 98 156 267 ( 6. 5jn
16 4 97 80 181 ( 4.4%)
17 14 123 160 297 ( 7.2%)
Total 160 1 ,897 2,077 4,134 ( 1 00%)
Percent (3.9%) (45. 95') (50.2%)
-28-
•••••••••••••••••••
TABLE 7E
~ge of Respondent By Census Tract
Census No Under
Tract Response -2-0 - 20-24 25-29 30-34 --- 35-39 40-44 45-49 -50--54 -55--59 60-64 -65--69 Over 70
1 7 10 82 66 25 13 11 9 6 7 13 20 49 4 6 6 48 48 35 16 13 18 26 25 26 25 29 5 10 4 52 77 64 38 30 28 39 33 42 38 58 6 11 9 93 151 96 35 17 25 35 51 33 38 83 7 10 4 45 68 65 32 21 25 36 41 33 25 34 8 5 4 61 55 44 33 28 20 15 22 20 15 23
I 9 3 7 110 74 32 18 16 14 16 12 18 16 20 N 10 13 7 50 63 42 28 20 21 27 40 40 27 42 <.0
I 14 2 5 41 51 27 19 13 12 25 20 13 13 26 16 3 1 14 35 11 16 21 18 13 14 10 19 11 17 4 5 51 60 38 22 19 13 19 19 20 9 18
Total 74 62 647 748 479 270 209 203 257 284 268 240 393
Percent (1 .8)') (1.5'/,) (15.7%) (18.1%) (11.6%) {6.5%) (5.1%) (4.9%) (6.2%) (6.9%) (6.5%) (5.8%) (9.5%)
l ~ -~-- -------~~====------------
TABLE 7F
Ethnic Background By Census Tract
Census No Mexican American
Tract Response Black White Oriental American Indian Other
1 7 2 300 3 1 1 4
4 10 0 298 1 2 1 9
5 7 0 497 2 0 0 7
6 9 1 645 4 1 2 15
7 9 1 420 2 0 1 6
8 4 1 331 0 0 3 6
9 5 2 330 2 3 6 8
10 9 2 398 1 2 2 6
14 3 2 255 1 1 1 4
16 2 3 174 0 0 0 2
17 8 1 281 1 3 1 2
TOTAL 73 15 3,929 17 13 18 69
Percent ( 1 . 8%) (0.4%) (95.0%) (0.4%) (0.3%) (0.4%) ( 1 . 7%)
-30-
TABLE 7G
Number of Persons Per Household By Census Tract
Census No
Tract Response 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
--- ----
1 8 178 83 25 10 7 4 1 1 0 0 1 0
4 9 83 128 47 35 11 7 1 0 0 0 0 0
5 9 103 191 83 75 34 13 2 3 1 0 0 0
6 6 210 249 101 66 26 13 5 1 0 0 0 0
7 6 110 163 66 50 30 5 B 1 0 0 0 0
8 4 71 119 56 51 34 8 1 1 0 0 0 0
9 1 102 139 55 35 12 6 5 0 0 0 0 1
10 9 68 180 70 54 25 6 7 0 0 0 0 0
:4 5 84 94 35 27 15 2 3 1 1 0 0 0
16 1 20 70 33 29 14 10 3 0 0 1 0 0
17 3 _]}_ ~ ___j2_ ~ __12 _§_ _o _1 _Q _o 0 0
Tota·l 61 1108 1521 619 467 225 82 36 9 2 1
Percent 1.5 26.8 36.8 15.0 11.3 5.4 2.0 0.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0. 1 0. 1
-31-
TABLE 7H
Income by Census Tract
Census No Under $1 • 000- $2.000- $3,000- $4,000- $5,000- $6,000- $7,000- $8,000- $9,000·
Tract Response $999 $1 • 999 $2,999 $3,999 H_,999 $5.999 $6,999 $7,999 $8,999 $9,999
1 26 10 11 22 19 16 21 24 13 19 8
4 28 3 7 10 7 17 11 17 13 17 12
5 26 4 13 9 18 20 14 18 27 22 28
6 23 4 14 20 26 43 35 50 40 30 29
7 16 2 3 7 11 7 12 15 15 12 16
8 16 4 4 13 16 14 11 20 21 14 13
I 9 15 5 1 0 10 29 21 20 23 23 22 21
w 10 26 2 3 16 18 7 8 14 16 11 23 N
I 14 12 1 10 8 4 20 10 11 14 15 16
16 2 2 2 2 2 8 5 3 4 8 7
17 16 2 7 7 14 12 11 ~ 16 20 15
Total 206 39 84 124 164 185 158 211 202 190 188
Percent 5.0% 0. g;; 2. O'X 3.0% 4.0% 4.5% 3.8% 5. 1 ~b 4.9% 4. 6'£ 4. 5'/,
TABLE lH
(Continued)
Census $10,000- $11,000- $12,000- $13,000- $14,000- $15,000- $16,000- $20,000- $25,000- $30,000- Over
Tract il_O .__9_~- _?_1_1_, 999 $12,999 $13,999 $14,999 $15,999 $19,999 $24,999 $29,999 $49,999 $50,000
----·------
1 21 13 14 11 12 6 17 ~1 4 7 3
4 23 14 21 15 14 14 37 24 7 9 1
5 30 17 26 21 20 21 49 68 34 19 9
6 46 35 35 25 33 30 47 58 26 29 9
7 35 21 20 19 24 25 54 43 29 38 15
8 17 16 1 0 10 20 25 35 31 13 16 6
9 24 10 18 17 15 13 21 27 6 4 2
10 25 16 19 11 17 29 57 36 25 24 17
14 16 13 14 13 13 12 29 22 5 8 1
1 16 1 0 7 11 12 11 10 24 24 17 9 1
w 17 20 1 s 18 13 14 14 34 20 4 7 2 w
1
Tota 1 267 177 206 167 193 199 404 364 170 170 66
Percent 6.5% 4. 3~~ 5. OS~ 4. o~; 4.7% 4.8% 9 .8:.', 8.8~. 4.1% 4.1% 1 y;
Summary
The Community Development Survey was conducted primarily to: a) gather
demographic information; b) determine program usage; and c) determine
program needs. Community Development will utilize the survey's demographic
data to insure that service programs are being directed toward the proper
persons, i.e. low to moderate income and minority groups. It is expected
that demographic data gathered in the survey will enable Community Develop­ment
to better meet this objective.
The second major goal of the survey was to gather data on program
usage. This goal was accomplished by listing the various Community Develop­ment
Programs and then asking respondents if they are aware of the programs,
if they have used the programs in the past, and how did they learn of the
programs.
The final goal of the survey dealt with needs assessments. Respon­dents
were requested to rank-order a list of possible city and neighborhood
improvements. This ranking will be extensively used by Community Develop­ment
personnel in the creation of the Community Development Three Year
Plan. During that three year period, approximately $8 million will be
spent on various city and neighborhood programs.
-34-
SECT! ON EIGHT
Miscellaneous Surveys
During 1976, the Boise Center for Urban Research was involved in
varying degrees with eleven surveys. Those surveys requiring a great deal
of BCUR involvement have been documented in Sections Four through Seven
of this report. Section Eight will be concerned with several surveys in
which BCUR's involvement was somewhat more limited in scope. These surveys
include: 1) Statewide Library Survey; 2) Girl Scout Camp Survey; 3) Com­munity
Development Youth Services Survey; and 4} Ada Council of Governments
Transportation Study. Three other surveys (Alcohol Rehabilitation Center
Study, Information and Referral Survey, and a Spending Priorities Survey)
have been delayed and are not documented in this report.
The balance of Section Eight will be devoted to describing and docu­menting
the Statewide Library Survey, the Girl Scout Camp Survey, the
Community Youth Development Services Survey, and the ACOG Transportation
Study.
St?tewide Library Survey
The Statewide Library Survey was conducted primarily by the Boise
Public Library with technical assistance provided by the Boise Center for
Urban Research. Ten libraries throughout the State of Idaho participated
in the survey (Table BA).
Boise Public Library and BCUR jointly developed and pretested the
survey instrument to be used in the study. Following completion of these
initial tasks, quentionnaires were mailed to participating libraries. Each
library was charged with the responsibility of administering the question­naire.
This function entailed selection of every tenth person entering the
library and requesting that person to complete the questionnaire prior to
leaving the library. Smaller libraries, such as Portenuf, were forced to
select every fifth person because of their relatively small clientele. In
this manner, 3,429 surveys were completed and returned to the Boise Center
for Urban Research for analysis.
BCUR personnel coded and keypunched survey data on IBM cards. Anal­ysis
of the data, i.e. frequency counts and correlations, were accomplished
through the use of Biomed (BMD) Statistical Packages. Following the com­pletion
of these tasks, data summaries were sent to each participating
library. Appendix Cis the frequency count summary for the Boise Public
Library. Similar reports were generated for each participating library.
r;i r_l__?cou_!:__C_amp Surveys
The Boise Center for Urban Research became involved with the Girl Scout
Camp Surveys upon the request of the Ada Planning Agency. The Boise Girl
Scout Council conducted two surveys: 1) survey of 1975 camping programs and
services; and 2} a survey of local girl scout troups. The first survey
-35-
TABLE SA
Number of Surveys Completed by Public Library
Library
Boise
Caldwell
Coeur d' Alene
Idaho Fa 11 s
Lewiston
Moscow
Nampa
Portenuf
Sandpoint
Twin Falls
Total
-36-
# of Surveys Completed
502
405
473
526
276
400
208
64
217
358
3429
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
dealt with programs and services offered by 44 commercial camps throughout
the northwest. The second survey was administered to local girl scout
members. The surveys were designed to inventory camps and their facilities
as well as determine which types of camp activities were most enjoyed by
girl scouts.
Completed surveys were sent to BCUR in early June, 1976. BCUR per­sonnel
coded the surveys, keypunched the data on IBM cards, and analyzed
the data utilizing Biomed (BMD) Statistical Programs. When these tasks
were completed, survey results were returned to the Boise Girl Scout Coun­cil
for their use and dissimenation.
Community Youth Development (C20DAC)
The Community Youth Development Survey resulted in the publication of
the Youth Alternatives Directory (Appendix E). The directory was developed
to serve as a reference book for all youth related programs and resources
located throughout Ada County. It is distributed to various social service
agencies throughout the county and is made available to the public at no
charge.
BCUR personnel in co-operation with Stanton Tate, C20DAC Director,
spent several weeks in June and July collecting information concerning the
availability of youth programs and resources. This task was accomplished
through telephone surveys as well as in-person interviews of individuals
and agencies throughout the county which provide youth-oriented services.
These agencies ranged from local church groups to the Bogus Basin Ski Area.
Once all available data was gathered and compiled, BCUR personnel
assembled the directory and prepared it for printing. One thousand copies
of the C20DAC Youth Alternatives Directory were printed at the Boise State
University Print Shop and distributed to Ada County social services agen­cies
and to the public.
Ada Planning Agency's Elderly and Handicapped Survey
During the summer of 1976, the Transportation Department of the Ada
Planning Agency collected data from clients of agencies serving the elderly
and handicapped in Ada County. These service agencies included: a) Ada
County Association for Retarded Citizens; b) Sunset Nursing Home; c) Idaho
Epilepsy Association; d) Vocational Rehabilitation; and e) Health and
Welfare.
The purpose of the survey was to identify the transportation needs of
residents in Ada County. This was accomplished with construction of an
origin and destination table. In addition, types of trips made by the
respondents, i.e. shopping, recreational, etc., were ascertained. Ada
Planning Agency will incorporate the survey data into the planning of bus
services aimed at improving transportation for the county's elderly and
handicapped citizens.
-37-
r
I
!,
I,,'
!
The Boise Center for Urban Research assisted Ada Planning Agency
personnel with coding and keypunching of survey data. Analysis of the data
i.e., frequency counts and correlations were accomplished through the use
of statistical programs provided by the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS). Upon completion of these tasks, data was released to the
Ada Planning Agency for its use and dissemenation. Appendix F contains the
frequency count summary for the Elderly and Handicapped Survey.
Summary
While the surveys described in Section Eight do not represent major
BCUR projects, they are indicative of the direction in which the Citizen
Survey function of BCUR is proceeding. That is, BCUR is prepared to con­duct
specific problem-oriented surveys as well as offer technical assist­ance
to those city departments and agencies who have conducted or who are
in the process of conducting their own surveys.
The highly satisfactory and complementary remarks of agencies assisted
by BCUR thus far indicates that this approach is both desirable and appro­priate.
-38-
APPENDIX A
Tabulation of Responses to the Boise Center for
Urban Research's Energy and Solid Waste Telephone Survey
~39~
IJv~e: 1 i f1 'I_
I.
4.
"
E.
C;o you ova1 C·•· zu·t: jOl.l rent1n~ the home in \-Jh-~cfl you l1ve'?
2 . 0.5 ) No Response
32S (80.8%) Own
69 (17.2%) Rent
6 (_l. 5%) Other
402 100. 0~~ Totill
What would you est1mate the value of your home to be? (Excludir•g land
or lot)
1 04 (26.0,) No Response 16 (4.0%) 51-60,000
21 ( 5. Z:S) 0-10,000 6 (1.5\;J 61-70,000
43 (10.7\) ll-20,000 3 (0.7%) 71-80,000
Sl (21.6',~ 21-30,000 2 (0.5%) 81-90,000
~,_~ (18. 7\;) 31-40,000 l (0.2%) 91-100,000
43 ( 1 o. n) 41-50,000 l (0.2%) 101 ,000 +
402 100.0% Total
What type of residence do you live in?
( 0. 2' ) No Response
39 ( 9. H) Apartment or Duplex
J35 (83.4() Single Family Home
5 ( 1.2:~) Condominium
22 ( 5. 5%) Mobile Home
402 100.0% Tota 1
H(>W many years old would you estimate your residence to be?
13 I, J~ . LOtON ) No Response 41 (10.2%) 10-11
18 ( 4.5%) 0-1 21 ( 5.2%) 12-13
32 ( 8.0%) 2-3 29 ( 7.2%) 14-15
42 (10.4'0 4~~ 33 ( 8.2%) 16-20
35 ( 8.7%) 6-7 109 ( 27.2%) 20 +
29 ( 7.2%) 8-9 402 100.0% Total
If you could choose d new place to live, what kind of residence would
i r he?
4 ( l . O;;) ~o Response 10 ( 2.5%)
17 ' 4 2'i) Apartment 307 (76.5%) \ • ,1 s ( 1. 2%) Duplex 46 (11.4%)
13 ( 3. 2:0 Condominium 402 100.0%
Ooes your residence have double pane windows?
30 : 7,5j~)
163 (40.5'~)
209 (52.0\t)
402 100.0%
No Response
Yes
No
Total
Mobile Home
Single Family Home
Other
Total
6A. Do you use storm windows or plastic sheeting on your windows during
the winter?
256 (63. 7%)
71 (17.6%)
12 (18.n;J
402 100.0%
No Response
Plastic Sheeting
Storm Windows
Total
-40-
/.
What 1S the rrinc~Jl.~ means •1sed in heatin<J your residence?
7 t 1. nn No Response 3 (0.7%) Wood Stove
1 ( 0.2%) Fireplace 7 ( 1.7%) Coal Furnace
244 (61.0%) Gas, Forced Air 2 (0.5%) Wall Heater
2 ( 0.5%) Hot Water 5 ( 1.2%) Electric Ceil1r:g C3.ble
72 (17.9%) Oil Furnace 6 ( 1 . 5%) Electric Baseboal·d Heater
50 (12.4~.) Electric, Forced Air 402 100.0% Total
3 ( 0.7%) Heat Pump
8. I wi 11 1 i st four home convenience features. Do you have any of these?''
Solid Waste
5 ( 1.2%)
145 (36.1%)
139 (34,6%)
122 (30.3%) m 1oo.o%
Garbage Compactor
Garbage Disposal
Central Air Conditioning
Window Air Conditioning
Total
9. Do you make use of a garbage collection service?
3 ( 0.7%)
343 (85.4%)
.2£. ( 13. 9%)
402 100.0%
No Response
Yes
No
Total
10. How do you dispose of your garbage?
345 (85.5%)
38 ( 9.5%)
6 ( 1.5%)
5 ( 1.5%)
~ ( 2.0%)
402 100.0%
No Response
Haul it to the Dump
Dispose of it on My Property
Others Haul it to the Dump for Me
Other
Total
11. Garbage collection in my community is:
68 ( 16. 9%)
74 (18.4%)
199 ( 49. 6%)
50 (12.4%)
_ll. _U_,_?!l
402 100.0%
No Response
Very Efficient
Efficient
Inefficient
Very Inefficient
Total
:2. If garbage collection were mandatory, would you prefer to pay for this
service by:
12 ( 3.05;)
322 (80.1%)
35 ( 8. 7'/,)
_Jl ( 8. 2%)
402 100.0%
No Response
Separate Invoice
Property Tax Bill
Other
Total
* Percentages do not equal 100 because in many instances respondents had more
than one of the listed conveniences, thus their response was counted more
than once.
-41-
1 ~~oul'-l you L~ w1 l i1v; t.o seprt· Jte 1 :!r:/c-latit.· !·Jat.:::·,,ial ~ fo't example,
ql>Ss, aluminiun:, O:' pa~e• Tr'u11: sctr other household ga1·bage for
sepa•·ate pick·up if tl1e cost remained the same?
13 ( 3. 2%)
320 (79.6~.)
_22. l_l7. 2%)
402 100.0%
No Response
Yes
No
Total
,t;nel'il.Y.
'''· ~Jher.c do you get most of your information about energy conservation?
50 (12.4~',) No Response 20 (5.0%) Conversation with
130 (32.4':6) Newspapers Friends or Relatives
33 ( 8.2%) News Magazines 6 _( l . 5%) Comments by Govern-
123 (30.6;) Radio & T.V. ment, Religous,
5 ( 1.2%) Books Scientific, Educa-
35 ( 8. n) Other tional, Leaders, Etc.
402 100.0% Tot a 1
l s. Do you believe garbage collection should be mandatory?
2 ( 0. 5~0 No Response
223 (55.5%) Yes
150 (37.3%) No
27 ( 6.7%) Other
402 100.0% Total
16. Would you rate your knowledge of the energy conservation issue in
comparison to most other people you know as:
3 ( 0. 7%)
46 (11.4%)
2ll (52.6%)
111 (27.6%)
__ 11_ L 7. 7%)
402 100.0%
No Response
Probably Somewhat Less Informed
About the Same
Probably Somewhat More Informed
Not Sure Where I Would Rate
Total
11. Do you feel that the overall quality of Idaho's physical environment
is being reduced in order to maintain or improve our standard of living?
3 ! o.n)
207 (51. 5'>1)
129 (32. H)
__21 (15. 7%)
402 l 00.0%
No Response
Yes
No
Not Sure
Total
lo, Which of these two statements comes closest to the way you feel:
163 (40.5%)
25 ( 6.2%)
187 (46.6%)
J}_ ~!)
402 100.0%
No Response
First Priority Must Be Placed Upon Improving
the Standard of Living
First Priority Must be Placed Upon Energy
Conservation and Environmental Quality
Neither Statement
Total
-42-
ir' How impol·tar,t h ths issue c ene1·~y conservi:tion to you?
A very serious )Jrob len~ Really not a problem
N,) Response 2 3 4 5 6 I
8 (2.0%) 158(16.9) 91(22.6) 45(11.2) 93(23.1) 47(11.7) 26(6.5) 24(6.0)
20. Do you feel that your resider1ce is adequately insulated?
1 ( 0 2'( \ o 1~ j No Response
266 (66.2%) Yes
123 (30.6%) No
12 ( 3.0%) Don't Know
402 100.0% Total
20a. In what way is it inadequate?*
21. Have you added insulation to the walls or ceiling of your residence
within the last two years?
28 ( 7.0%)
8o ( 19. g:n
281 (69.9%)
_.1l ( 3.2%)
402 100.0%
No Response
Yes
No
Don't Know
Total
22. Have you considered modifying your present heating system?
26 ( 6. 5%)
101 (25.1%)
275 (68.4%)
402 100.0%
No Response
Yes
No
Total
23. What kind of information would you require to make a decision to modify
your present heating system?
2
,,
~.
267 (66.4%)
47 (11. 7%)
9 ( 2. 2:n
.]3_ (19. 7%)
402 1 00. 0%
No Response
Information About the Cost
Technical Information
Both
Total
Do you think the county should require new residential units to have
double windows and maximum insulation?
24
220
158
402
( 6. o:; l
(54.7%)
(39.3%)
TOO:O%
No Response
Yes
No
Total
25. What is your pt·esent employment status?
4 ( 1.0%)
250 (62.2%)
53 (13.2:{)
No Response
Employed
Retired
74 (18.4%)
11 ( 2.7%)
_JQ ( 2.5%)
402 100.0%
Housewife
Unemployed
Student
Total
*For unabridged listing of stated inadequacies, see Attachment A at the end
of this report.
~43-
26-
'l 7 <' .
20u .
~9.
30.
,L
What medni of transpo1·tatiun do yo~ normally cse t2 go to and from work?
12 , ('0 ,, ) I ~J • I ._,
8 ( Z.C,)
256 (63.7%)
~;o Re!:.por~sc
Bus
Drive
10 (2.5%)
4 (1.01:)
_3 (0.7%)
402 100.0%
Bike
Walk
Other
Total
About hoH ''"•lY •·1ilrs from work (or school) do you live?
n~ (33.£ ) No Res~onse
31 I', 7 . o/ "' ) G-1
32 (20.4\) i-3
54 {13.4~;) 4-5
34 ( ssn fi-7
27 ( 6.7%) 8-9
1/ (4.25') 10·:1
5 (1.2%) il-12
3 (0.7%) 13-14
7 ( 1 . n) 1s- 16
(Q.2j6) 17-18
____]_ (l.h) 19 +
402 100.0% Total
Are you in a caroool?
103 (25.6%) No Response
32 ( 3.0?:) Yes
267 . .!.66.4%) No
·\02 l 00.0% Total
Have you ever been in a carpool?
121 (30. 1%) No Response
59 (14. 7%) Yes
222 (55.2%) No
402 l 00. 0~1, Total
\ole would like to know more about why people don't use carpools-- could
you te 11 us the main reason why ~ don't use a carpoo 1?
159 (39.61;) No Response
G6 (16.4%.) Do Not Know Who Commutes From the At·ea
Where I Live
101 (25.1%) Too Inconvenient
14 ( 3. 5::) To Unreliable
62 (15.4X) Other
402 100.07: Total
Du pu live inside the city limits?
c ( 0.5;s) No Response <
117 (78.9X) Yes
78 ( 19.40 No
5 ( 1 . 2:1) Not Sure
T52 l 00. 0% Tot a 1
H0w mctny people of all ages live i~ your ~ome:
5 ( 1.2;)
58 {14.4~1,)
115 (28.77:)
78 (19.4';)
88 (21. %)
No Response
One
Two
Three
FOUl'
-44-
32 (B.•J::,)
15 (3.7%)
7 (1.7%)
2 (0.5%)
_ _1_ _i.Q_,_ 5%)
402 100.0%
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Nine
Total
33. How long have you lived in Ada County?
4 ( 1. 0%) No Response
17 ( 4.2%) Less Than A Year
90 (22.4%) 2-5 Years
75 (18. 7%) 6-10 Years
41 ( 1 0. 2%) 11-15 Years
54 (13.4%) 16-20 Years
121 (30. 1 %) 21 Years or More
402 100.0% Total
34. Our domestic water system is currently operated as a privately owned
utility by Boise Water Corporation. Their lease will expire next year.
Should Boise renew their franchise, or should the City assume owner­ship
and operate the water system asia publicly owned utility?
37 ( 9.2%) No Response
135 (33.6%) Renew Franchise
126 (31.3%) Assume Ownership
104 (25.9%) Unsure
402 100.0% Total
Sex
160 (39.8%) Male
242 (60.2%) Female
402 100.0% Total
Community
351 (87.4%) Boise
23 ( 5.7%) Meridian
8 ( 2.0%) Garden City
5 ( 1 . 2%) Eagle
5 ( 1. 2%) Star
10 ( 2.5%) Kuna
402 100.0% Total
-45-
ATTACHMEN1 A
Unab~idged Listing of Insulation Inctdequacies
(Question 20a, Energy and Solid Waste Survey)
Overall Inadequate Insulation
Over a 11 inadequacy
ImpropEr Insulation in Windows & Doors
Roofing
Walls, Double Door Windows
Double Windows
t~ore Insulation
Not Sealed Off Properly
Old House
Over a 11
Not Enough Insulation in Walls
Ceiling, Windows
Thin Ceiling, Insulated Large Windows
Need Double Panes
Walls
Walls
Ceiling, Doors, Windows
Insulation
Very Little if Any Insulation
Ceiling Insulation, No Double Windows
More Attic & Wall Insulation
Insulation, Windows
Ceiling, Attic, Under Insulated Walls
Windows
Ceiling
Windows
Ceiling, Doors
Windows
Storm Windows, Insulation
Wa 11 s, Cei 1 i ny
Windows, Doors
More by Vo 1 ume
Walls
>iindows, Attic
Bad Windows
Doors, Windows, Ceiling, Walls
Need More Insulation
Walls, Ceiling
Windows
Ceiling Insulation
Walls and Ceiling
Wassl, Windows, Ceiling
Insulation and Cracks 1n
Ceiling
No Insulation
Loss of Heat in Winter
-46-
Around i'i ndows
Ovet·a 11 Inadequacy
Insulation
None in Roof
Needs Insulation in Roofs & Walls
No Insulation
More Insulation Needed
No Wall Insulation
Ceiling No Good
Overa 11
Needs Ceiling and Walls
Roof too Thinly Insulated
Basement
Windows
Windows and Doors
Walls
None at all
No Insulation
No Insulation
01 d Home
Not Insulated Well, Too Old
Walls
Windows
Ceiling
Wa 11 s, Doors
Doors, Windows
Insulated
Insulation, Older Home
Overall
Ceilings
Ceilings
Wa 11 s, Cei 1 i ng
Wa 11 s, Windows
Ceiling
Not Enough Insulation
No Insulation in Attic
More Insulation
Circulation
No Insulatio11, Old Home
Walls
Needs Roof Insulation, More Wall
Insulation, Completion of
Thermopane Windows
Needs Better Insulation
Could Be Better Insulated
Ceiling Not Done
Around Doors and Windows
just a Mobile Home
Roof Seals Around Doors & Walls
Storm Windows
Ceiling Walls
Overall
Walls
Roof
Insulation
Windows
Flat Roof
Walls, Ceiling
Ceiling Too Thin, No Double Windows
Ceiling Need Some
-47-
Ceiling in a Flat Top
Move in Attic
Overall
Ceiling, Doors, Walls
Ceiling, Walls
Walls
Old
Insulation
Windows, Baseboard, Heat Not
Efficient
Could Add a Little More
Insulation
Walls Need More
,I,TTACHMENT B
Table l
1970 Census of Population and fiousing
~ ~i:.;, # of u of s; of Total I of llnits 'c or Unn:o
- ' o!OUS i r~~ ts Total Units Population Population Owned RentEd
; -~ .:; ~- . ---- --
2247 7.2 4118 4.5 20.8 )2.6
1211 3.9 3903 4.3 68.5 28.6
J 971 3. l 3467 3.8 80.0 18.4
157 4 5. l 4161 4.5 65.9 28.5
.J 2264 7.3 6576 7. l 28.4 28.4
2689 8.5 6454 7.0 55.4 4n.4
7 1408 4.6 4156 4.5 58. l 37.7
" 1465 4.7 4445 4.8 ·--- 6.3
,.
t_; 1598 5. l 4536 4.9 51 . 2 5.8
d) 1990 6.4 5517 6.0 67.8 6. l
II Garden City --- -- --- --- ---
1? 2385 7.4 7896 8.6 80.0 4.5
.. , 176 LO 649 1.0 71.0 50.0
' ·'
14 1275 4. l 4026 4.4 69.0 8.5
.o 1418 4.6 4229 4.6 74.8 7.4
1 (: 1146 3.7 3752 4. l 79.0 9.7
'· 1205 3.9 3505 3.8 67.1 7.5
''
!R 1059 3.4 3569 3.9 81.4 11.8
l q 1221 3.9 4629 5.0 71.0 li.4
~0 67) 2. l 2178 2.4 87.0 17.6
21 246 1.0 784 l . 0 80.9 31.7
_'::: 127 l . 0 489 1.0 90.0 9.8
21 1689 S.4 5602 6. l 82.5 5.9
/t 815 2.6 3076 3.4 87.7 18.4
--
TG :.~L 30,856 1 or;. o 91 • 717 100.0
-48-
Census
-Tr-ac-L-
2
3
4
5
6
~
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i_j
24
101AL
# Of
Rt>turns
4
18
8
11
19
28
14
17
12
24
TABLE 2
Geographic Location and Demographic Characteristics
of Respondents by Census Tract
% of Total # of Home % of Home # of
Returns Owners Owners -Re-nte-rs
1.1 2 1. 0 2
5.3 17 6. 1 1
2.4 8 2.8 0
3.2 10 3.6 1
5.6 15 5.3 4
8.2 23 8.2 5
4.1 12 4.2 2
5.0 12 4.2 5
3.5 7 2.5 5
7. 1 18 6.4 6
Garden City
26 7.6 21 7.5 5
2 1.0 1 1.0 1
12 3.5 10 3.6 2
13 3.8 11 3.9 2
14 4.1 12 4.3 2
12 3.5 8 2.8 4
11 3.2 10 3.6 1
12 3.5 11 3.7 1
7 2. 1 4 1.4 3
10 2.9 9 3.2 1
23 6.8 23 8.2 0
27 7.9 22 7.6 5
16 4.7 14 9.0 2 --
340 100.0 280 100.0 60
. -49-
% of
Renters
3.3
1.6
0
1.5
6.8
8.4
3.3
8.4
8.4
10.0
8.4
1.6
3.3
3.3
3.3
6.8
1.6
1.6
5.0
1.6
0
8.4
3.3
100.0
Census
Trac_L
,,
" 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
10-;-AL
Apartment
of Dupl<>x
1
1
0
0
2
4
2
3
3
5
TABLE 3
Type of Survey Respondent Housing
By Census Tract
Single Family
Dwelling Condominium
3 0
18 0
8 0
10 0
17 0
22 0
11 1
14 1
9 0
18 1
Garden City
2 24 0
2 0 1
3 9 0
1 11 0
1 12 0
2 9 0
1 10 0
0 11 1
1 5 0
0 -1 :J 0
0 23 0
1 2S 0
2 15 0
37 397 5
-50-
Mobile Home
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
10
TABLE 4
f,ge of Residence By Census Tract
Years Old
CensrJs
Tract 0-l 2-3 4-5 6-7 R-9 l 0- ll 12-1_3_ 14-15 -16--20 20+
1 0 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
2 2 l 2 3 2 0 l l 3 4
3 0 0 0 0 l 3 l 1 l l
4 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
5 0 0 2 2 0 l l l 0 12
6 2 l 3 2 l 2 0 1 1 15
7 0 1 1 l 1 2 3 2 0 2
'
8 0 2 3 0 2 6 0 0 0 4
9 l 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 3
10 1 0 2 2 l 2 4 2 1 8
11 Garden City
12 0 0 l 1 0 4 1 5 7 6
13 0 l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 1 l 1 0 1 0 0 2 l 4
15 0 2 l l 2 0 0 l 2 4
16 0 0 2 0 1 l 5 3 2 0
17 0 0 1 0 1 l 1 0 3 4
18 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 1 2
19 1 0 1 3 2 1 1 0 1 2
?0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 2 0
21 0 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 1 2
C:2 4 8 1 2 2 3 0 1 0 2
23 1 2 3 7 3 3 2 1 3 2
Z4 1 5 2 1 2 1 l 0 2 2
TOTAL 16 25 33 29 26 35 21 25 33 92
-51- II
>,
Q)
>
'- :>
V')
"Q')
u
·~ >
'- Q)
V')
"" Ol
<:
>< ·~
~ <:
Cl 0
z: N
w
I
0.. -o
N
0.. <: ""I
<( "' Ol c:
·~ c:
<=
"' a.
"u'
0
-'
Local Planning Services
1. Did you know that the Boise City Local Planning and Zoning Office was the place
to take your need request, or did some other agency have to redirect you?
64 (79%) Yes 17 ( 21%) No
2. Was your first business contact with the Boise City Local Planning and Zoning
Office made by:
27 33.3%
42 51.9%
11 13.6%
1 1 . 2%)
Telephone (Skip to Question 3)
Office Visit (Skip to Question 4)
Other (Skip to Question 5)
No Response
3. If by phone, did you have any difficulty in getting through to the appropriate
staff person to serve you?
18 (22.2%) Yes 9 ( 11. 1%) No 54 (66.7%) No Response
4. If by office visit, did you have any difficulty in getting through to the
appropriate staff person to serve you?
14 (17.3%) Yes 30 (37%) No 37 (45.7%) No Response
5. When going to the Planning Office, how would you rate the time it took to get
your question answered?
28 34.6%)
19 23.5%)
30 37%)
4 4.9%)
Had To Wait Too Long
Moderate Wait
Time Was Within Acceptable Limits
No Response
6. Once you reached the right person, how would you rate that person's courtesy
in helping you with your need?
7.
8.
Excellent
Good
11
10
Fair
Poor
How would you rate the staff person's understanding of the nature of your need?
14 17.3% Excellent 24 Fair
20 24.7% Good 21 Poor
1 1.2% No Response
How would you rate the staff person's knowledge of local planning rules and
regulations?
Excellent 25 Fair
Good 15 Poor
No Response
9a. How would you rate the consistency of answers, explanations or judgements of
the staff person who served you?
6 7.4%
28 34.6%
1 1. 2%
Exce 11 ent
Good
No Response
22
24
-53-
Fair
Poor
9b. Were these answers, explanations or judgments later overruled or changed by
a second person on the staff?
35 (43.2%) Yes 39 (48.1%) No 7 (8.6%) No Response
lOa. Did you have occasion to need telephone call-backs concerning your request for
staff services?
54 66.7%)
26 32.1%
1 l • 2%
Yes (Skip to Question lOb)
No (Skip to Question lla)
No Response
lOb. Were you satisfied with this part of the service?
33 (40. 7%) Yes 26 {32.1%) No 22 (27.2%) No Response
lla. Did you have to take time off work in order to make the necessary contact with
Boise City Local Planning and Zoning Office?
43 53.1%
36 44.4%
2 2. 5%
Yes (Skip to Question llb)
No (Skip to Question llc)
No Response
llb. Would having the Planning Office open on Saturday have made it easier for you
to have made contact?
20 (24.7%) Yes 43 (53. 1%) No 18 (22.2%) No Response
llc. For future applications, would have the Planning Office open on Saturday help
you in getting your questions answered at a more convenient time?
18 22.2%)
43 53.1%)
3 3.7%)
17 21%)
Would use Saturday
Would not use Saturday
No Opinion
No Response
12. During the past year, have you filed an application for any of the following?
15 Comprehensive Plan Change
36 Rezone
55 Conditional Use
TO Sign Permit
37 Variance
T9 Planned Unit Development Permit
25 Subdivision Platt Approval
13. Were you pleased with the final disposition of your contact with the Boise City
Local Planning and Zoning Office?
Yes 23
No Response 4
-54-
No
Application Still
Being Processed
For Non-Applicant Clients (Person Appearing at Public Hearing)
1. Do you often attend public hearings on zoning matters?
22 (34. 9%) Yes 41 (65.1%) No
2. Do you feel that public hearing notices provide enough information for people
to really know what is being proposed and why?
26 (41.3%) Yes 37 (58.7%) No
3. Would a public hearing sign on property help notify yourself and your neighbors?
38 (60.3%) Yes 24 (38. 1%) No 1 (1.6%) No Response
4. How do you rate the amount of information you received from the Boise City
Local Planning and Zoning Office during the rezone matter?
Very Sufficient
Not Sufficient
Sufficient
No Response
5. How would you rate the sufficiency of time to study zoning proposals after
receiving notice of a public hearing on zoning matters?
Very Sufficient
Not Sufficient
28 ~44.4%)
5 7.9%)
Sufficient
No Response
6a. Did you have to take time off work in order to make the necessary contact
with Boise City Local Planning and Zoning Office?
20 (31. 7%) Yes 42 (66.7%) No 1 (1.6%) No Response
6b. Would have the Planning Office open on Saturday have made it easier for you
to have made contact?
18 (28.6%) Yes 44 (66.7%) No 3 (4.8%) No Response
6c. In the event of further public hearings, would having the Planning Office
open on Saturday help you in getting your questions answered at a more con­venient
time?
Would use Saturday
Would not use Saturday
~ No Opinion
I..l!~~J No Response
7. How well were you able to understand how the zoning decision was reached?
23
n
5
Very Well
Poor
No Response
14 Fairly Well
1o Did not Understand
8. Were you satisfied with the final decision on this zoning matter?
32 (50.8%) Yes 16 (25.4%) No 15 (23.8%) No Response
-55-
-.".C_', >,
.0._ , "><'-
:::l
VI Vl
"V'I >,
c <-
u c0 .<".'
>< VI .D
~ <l!·~
Cl
z: "' _J I
UJ 4- u <D
"- o·~ "- ~ "I' ..: V> .a
c :::l
00..
·.._~, Q)
"' V>
~·~
:::l 0
.DCCI
f"-'
1. Do you have a borrower's card at this library?
Answer
No Reply
Yes
No
Count
2
422
78
2. How often do you use this library?
Answer
No reply
At least once a week
Once a month
Once every 3 months
Once every 6 months
Once a year or less
Percentage
.4
84.1
15.5
Count
21
169
226
48
13
25
Percentage
4.2
33.7
45.0
9.6
2.6
5.0
3. How much time do you usually spend in this library?
Answer
No reply
Less than ~ hour
Between Y, hour - 1 hour
One to two hours
More than 2 hours
Count
13
63
291
115
20
4. How far is this library from your home?
Answer Count
No reply 12
Less than 1 mile 31
One to 3 miles 250
Five to 10 miles 169
Over 10 miles 40
Percentage
2.6
12.5
58.0
22.9
4.0
Percentage
2.4
6.2
49.8
33.7
8.0
5. Please check period of day you would prefer to use the library:
6.
Answer Count Percentage
No reply
8:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon
12:00 noon- 6:00p.m.
Evening
Weekends
134
61
127
133
47
What other libraries have you used in the last year?
Answer
Another public library
Schoo 1 1 i bra ry
College of university library
Church 1 i brary
Other (historical, genealogical,
business, etc.)
-57-
Have Used
Count
1 21
104
226
65
73
"
24. 1
20.7
45.0
12.9
14.5
26.7
12.2
25.3
26.5
9.4
No Reply
Count %
381
398
276
437
429
75.9
79.3
55.0
87.1
85.5
7. Which of the following ENCOURAGE you the use this library? Please rank l-3 in
order of importance with l being the most encouraging factor.
No Re[lly: First Second Third
~-~ Count 'I Count Count % Count N
Oi5tance from home 375 74.7 41 8.2 44 8.8 42 8.4
Convenient transportation
available 461 91.8 17 3.4 10 2.0 14 2.8
Available material &
service 98 19.5 333 66.3 46 9.2 25 5.0
Service hours 301 60.0 45 9.0 100 19.9 56 ll. 2
Parking 375 74.7 30 6.0 40 8.0 57 11.4
Library staff 359 71.5 22 4.4 58 ll. 6 63 12. 5
Atmosphere in building 289 57.6 51 10.2 73 14.5 89 17. 7
Someone to go with 479 95.4 6 l . 2 4 0.8 13 2.6
8. Which of the following DISCOURAGE you from using this library? Please rank l-3
in order of important with l being most important discouraging factor.
No Reeli: First Second Third
Answer Count 0/ Count 'i Count " Co~;; "
,, /o
Distance from home 331 65.9 118 23.5 33 6.6 20 4.0
Transportation not easily
available 417 83. l 28 5.6 32 6.4 25 5.0
Available materials &
service 459 91.4 25 5.0 ll 2.2 7 1.4
Service hours 395 78.7 51 10.2 34 6.8 22 4.4
Parking 409 81.5 55 11.0 25 5.0 13 2.6
Library staff 480 95.6 5 l.O 7 1.4 10 2.0
Atmosphere in building 488 97.2 3 0.6 4 0.8 7 1.4
No one to go with 440 87.6 16 3.2 22 4.4 24 4.8
9. If you have school age children, how do they use this library?
Have Used No Re[lli:
Answer Count "/o Count
,,
/o
Not at all 26 5.2 476 94.8
Film showings 47 9.4 455 90.6
Story telling 51 10.2 451 89.8
Browsing 69 13.7 433 86.3
Checking out books 186 37. l 316 62.9
Reference (school assignments) 61 12.2 441 87.8
Studying 20 4.0 481 95.8
Other 20 4.0 482 96.0
10. Which of the following library materials or services have you used within the
past six months?
Have Used No Reely:
Answer Count " Count ,,
u '
Books 452 90.0 50 10.0
Newspapers 140 27.9 362 72. l
Magazines 216 43.0 286 57.0
Pictures, prints, or framed art 46 9.2 456 90.8
Paperbacks 96 19. l 406 80.9
Records, cassettes, films, 146 29. l 356 70.9
Large print books 23 4.6 479 95.4
Federal, state, & local documents 49 9.8 453 90.2
Maps 42 8.4 460 91.6
Reference service 179 35.7 323 64.3
Interlibrary loan service 38 7.6 464 92.4
Books by mail
-58-
7 1.4 495 98.6
11. In using this library are you:
Answer
No reply
Satisfied
Generally satisfied
Generally dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
12. Reasons for any dissatisfaction:
A-n-sw-e-r
Book(s) wanted was checked out
Material wanted not available
in this library
Couldn't locate wanted material
Material found was too elementary
Material found was too advanced
Material out of date
Parking space unsuitable
Too crowded
Too noisy
Confusing arrangement of building
and/or materials
Library staff not willing to help
or were unfriendly
Library staff too slow
Library staff did not know enough
to help
Inconvenient hours
Lack of adequate study hours
Other
Count
8
317
166
7
4
Dissatisfied
Because
Count O,,f
97 19.3
100 19.9
43 8.6
18 3.6
1 0.2
43 8.6
36 7.2
3 0.6
20 4.0
16 3.2
13 2.6
7 1.4
7 1.4
39 7.8
9 1.8
24 4.8
Percentage
1.6
63.1
33.1
1.4
0.8
No Re~ lj'
Count %
405 80.7
402 80.1
459 91.4
484 96.4
501 99.8
459 91.4
466 92.8
499 99.4
482 96.0
486 96.8
489 97.4
495 98.6
495 98.6
463 92.2
493 98.2
478 95.2
13. Did you come to this library to find material of information for:
Information For No Re~ly
Answer Count %
Personal interest 408 81.3
Job 136 27. 1
School 86 17. 1
Club, organization, or church 29 5.8
Another person 30 6.0
Other 31 6.2
14. Where were you before coming to this library today?
Answer
No reply
Home
School
Work
Church
Shopping
Meeting
Recreation
Personal business appointment
-59-
Count
18
293
10
79
2
53
6
22
19
Count
94
366
416
473
472
471
Percentage
3.6
58.4
2.0
15.7
0.4
10.6
1.2
4.4
3.8
%
18.7
72.9
82.9
94.2
94.0
93.8
15. Why did you Come to the library today?
Answer
I Came To
Count ,,
"
Return Books 217
Browse 139
Select books 273
Read personal materials 18
Visit with friends 9
Use reference material 78
Select or use records, tapes,
pictures 36
Read magazines 57
Read newspapers 44
Use copy machine 23
Study 16
Get information about communit organ-izations,
agencies, or events 16
Other 52
43.2
27.7
54.4
3.6
1.8
15.5
7.2
11.4
8.8
4.6
3.2
3.2
10.4
No Reply
Count ;:,
285
363
229
484
493
424
466
445
458
479
486
486
450
56.8
72.3
45.6
96.4
98.2
84.5
92.8
88.6
91.2
95.4
96.8
96.8
89.6
16. What did you actually do at the library today? Check all that apply.
Answer
Used reference books
Used card catalog
Browsed
Asked librarian for help
Check out book(s)
Listened to or checked out
recordings
Looked at exhibits
Studied
Used copy machine
Read magazines
Read newspapers
Other
I Actually
Count :;
83
150
242
101
259
27
57
26
29
80
46
62
16.5
29.9
48.2
20. 1
51.6
5.4
11.4
5.2
5.8
15.9
9.2
12.4
No Reply
Count %
419
352
260
401
243
475
445
476
473
422
456
440
83.5
70.1
51.8
79.9
48.4
94.6
88.6
94.8
94.2
84.1
90.8
87.6
17. If you did not find what you wanted, please check waht you did or will do.
Answer
No reply
Asked a librarian
Put book or material on reserve
Asked library to borrow material
frnm another library
Will go to another library
Too late to do anything else
Nothing, not that important
Don't know what to do
Will come back later
Other
-60-
Count Percentage
18. Have you ever asked a librarian for help?
Answer Count Percentage
No reply 9 1.8
Yes 468 93.2
No 24 4.8
19. I would like to see more:
Note: Explanation of the count and percentage answers for each type of material
listed is as follows: count 1 shows the person checked the general category only;
count 2 indicates the person checked the general category plus a subject area -
i.e. 75 people indicated a need for more novels in the collection, 55 or the 75
specified a subject area.
No Reply 1 2
Answer Count " Count ~f Count % /o
Novels 427 85.1 20 4.0 55 11.0
Oo-i t-yourself 454 90.1 14 2.8 34 6.8
Nonfiction 432 86. 1 10 2.0 59 11.8
Records 453 90.2 7 1.4 42 8.4
Cassettes 481 95.8 9 1.8 12 2.4
Films 492 98.0 4 0.8 6 1. 2
Reference 477 95.0 5 1.0 20 4.0
Children's books 482 96.0 15 3.0 5 1.0
Best Se 11 ers 441 87.8 50 10.0 11 2.2
20. Questionnaires always omit areas of concern. Please make any additional comments
concerning this library, its services, or its plans.
See attached summary of comments.
21. Sex
22. Age
Answer
No reply
Male
Female
-An-sw-er
No reply
Under 18
19-25
26-39
40-50
51-65
Over 65
Count
29
190
283
Count
23
31
87
218
59
61
22
Percentage
5.8
37.8
56.4
Percentage
4.6
6.2
17.3
43.4
11.8
12.2
4.4
-61-
23
24.
25.
26.
27.
Employment
Answer Count
No reply 25
Business 92
Government 54
Self emp 1 oyed 36
Professional 80
Homemaker 114
Retired 39
Unemployed 14
Student 48
Racial origin or heritage
Answer Count
No reply 26
White (Caucasian) 453
Black 0
Mexican American 5
Native American 6
Oriental 6
Other 6
Languages spoken in home
Answer -Cou-nt
No reply 24
English 442
Spanish 0
Japanese 0
Other 4
More than one 32
Percentage
5.0
18.3
10.8
7.2
15.9
22.7
7.8
2.8
9.6
Percentage
5.2
90.2
l.O
1.2
1.2
1.2
Percentage
4.8
88.0
4.8
6.4
Number of school age children living with you:
Number No Re~lv
Answer Count C' Count ,,
/o' ,,
None 231 46.0 271 54.0
1-3 191 38.0 311 62.0
4-6 33 6.6 469 93.4
7 and more 3 0.6 499 99.4
Ages of children living with you:
Number No Re~l:t:
Answer Count :~ Count 'I
,·~ ---
0-4 124 24.7 378 75.3
5-9 127 25.3 375 74.7
1 0-13 97 19.3 405 80.7
14-17 75 14.9 427 85. 1
18 and over 29 5.8 473 94.2
-62-
28. Formal education (check one)
Answer Count Percentage
No reply 24 4.8
0-9 years 12 2.4
l 0-12 years 79 15. 7
Some college 179 35.7
Bachelors 135 26.9
Masters or
doctorate· 73 14.5
29. Income level
Answer Count Percentage
No reply 67 13.3
Under $3,5000 44 8.8
$3,500-$5,000 26 5.2
$5,100-$7,500 31 6.2
$7,600-$9,000 45 9.0
$9,000-$12,000 70 13.9
Over $12,000 219 43.6
-63-
Summary of Comments in Response
To Question 20
Open-ended responses to Question 20 have been loosely grouped into the
following nine categories:
Parking
Five comments were to the effect that we needed more parking and one
criticized our entry-exit plan.
Countywide service proposals and non-resident fee protests
Thirteen comments apply with six of them protesting cost (i.e. "Cost
of card $21.00. This is outrageous"). Four think we should serve the
whole County; one feels we should have a new district formed and one sug­gests
what we are now doing with a family nonresident card.
Additional services and more informational aids
Nineteen comments fall into this rather loose category. Three would
like to check out periodicals; four are generally confused about catalogs
and locations; four would like more location and directional visual aids;
two would like brank locations; one wants a brochure; one different map
indexing; one more service for the visually handicapped; one a larger
budget; one a fee-based system; one a "less elementary" collection and one
to be able to check out projectors.
Open longer hours and Sundays
Of the thirteen comments in this category, one feels we should be open
"continuously," two want longer evening hours plus Sundays, six speak of
longer evening hours only and four only say we should be open on Sundays.
(of the last group, there doesn't seem to be any realization that we are
open on Sundays 3/4 of the year. One of this group said we should close on
non-Christian religious holidays unles we open on Sundays.)
inadequate popular materials
All seven comments bemoaned our short supply of currently popular
materials and waiting periods for getting them. (One suggested fines rein­statement
for "the exclusive purpose of buying new books.")
Noise and Quite
Four complained about too much noise and one about the library being
too quiet. Air conditioners were blamed in two comments for noise. The
"too quiet" person thought we have no place to smoke and thought entire
library "shouldn't be like a morgue."
Specific material inadequacies
One patron each sees need for more:
-64-
Idaho newspapers, child development materials, Christian books,
rock and pop music, medical references, shopping center develop­ment
and investment materials, regional materials, foreign
language magazines, Science and English books and magazines,
up-to-date science fiction-skits and monologues-periodicals­reference
material, art related books, humanistic education
books, novels on government and politics, "less-elementary"
science oriented books, neeldepoint and stiching books, larger
collections of specific authors.
Staff related complaints
Of the ten in this category:
1. One patron feels we should have more help checking out at closing
time.
2. One patron feels librarians on 2nd floor could be more helpful.
3. One patron says "library staff seems disturbed when taken from
other areas."
4. One patron says personnel at checkout desk are "impolite and to
(sic) rushed,"
5. One patron feels we are becoming impersonal and would welcome a
smile occasionally.
6. One patron says sometimes the staff converses in "a rather loud
manner."
7. One simply states, "Do not make false accusations!"
8. One who gives as a reason for coming to the library, "meet girls"
states, "The library help should do their work and quit following
people around as if to spy on them."
9. One wants to know how to go about getting an interlibrary loan!
10. One was disappointed because we didn't remove a book from B&G as
she requested.
Compliments
We saved the best (and the largest category) until last. There are 33
comments in this category.
Five say nice things about B&G:
i.e. "Excellent effort with children's services."
Ten specifically say good things about the staff:
i.e. "Have always received courteous treatment" and "staff is so helpful
gracious and courteous that it is a pleasure to come here."
Sixteen are general, including building, materials, and services.
They range from, "I am usually satisfied" and "I think this library is just
fine," to "This library is the best thing that ever happened to Boise," and
"As a relative newcomer to Boise, and one whose wife is a librarian, I have
found this library to be of excellent quality," and "excellent library have
come from another state- with top libraries -yours ranks among top!"
-65-
One comment states, "Your service is good to excellent and seems to
have improved since you installed a computer. I like your book reservation
service.
One stated he was ''passin' through town, got a job here for a couple
of weeks and, the library is the best place for free intertainment and its
cool inside on hot days."
One states, "The library has a good collection of gay reference.
Please keep selection current on Homosexuality in American few realize
how important this is."
-66-
APPENDIX D
Tabulations of Responses to the Boise Center for
Urban Research's Community Development Survey
-67-
1. Do you think the mayor, city council, and other city officials are
concerned about the same problems you are concerned about?
204 ( 4.9%) No Response
1073 (26.0%) Quite a Bit
1786 (43.2%) Some
512 (12.4%) Hardly At All
559 ( 1 3. 5%) Not Sure
4134 100.0%
2. Have you used Boise Public Library within the last six months?
62 1. 5%) No Response
2426 (58.7%) Yes
1646 (39.8%) No
4134 100.0%
3. Which of the following material do you know for certain are available
for you to borrow from the Boise Public Library?
# of Affirmative
Responses
3881
2770
1687
2023
2249
2555
1720
1303
(93. 9%)
(67.0%)
(40.8%)
(48.9%)
(54.4%)
(61.8%)
( 41.6%)
(31.5%)
Books
Phonograph Records
Art Prints, Sculptures, Posters
Paperbacks
Large Print Books
Best Sellers
Cassetts
8mm Films
4. Which of the following services do you know for certain are available
at the Boise Public Library?
# of Affirmative
Responses
3339
2606
1489
2818
226
1457
1283
2028
2594
3444
3493
(80.8%)
(63.0%)
(36.0%)
(68.2%)
( 5. 5%)
(35.2%)
(31.0%)
(49. 1%)
(62.7%)
(83.4%)
(84.5%)
Reference, Question or Research Assistance
Story Time Periods for Children
Books Borrowed from Another Library for You
Bookmobile
Home Service Deliveries
Sunday Afternoon Hours
Movies
Public Meeting Rooms
Copying Equipment
Reading Areas
Newspapers and Magazines
-68-
5. Omitted
6. We would like to ask you three questions about each of the services
which are listed below:
Service
Boise Recycling
Center
Retired Senior
Volunteers
Program
Emergency
Housing Service
1. Do you (or a member cf your family) know that this service exists
in Boise?
2. Have you (or a member of your family) made use of this service
within the past year?
3. If you k.now about a service, how did you 1 earn of its existence?
(t.v., newspaper, radio, friend, agency pamphlets, etc.)
Know About
This Service
289
2764
1081
4134
357
2372
1405
4134
( 7 .0%) l~o Response
(66.9%) Yes
lli.J.!) No
100.0%
( 8.6%) No Response
(57 .4%) Yes
(34.0%) No
100.0%
51g (12.6%) No Response
1604 (38.8%) Yes
2011 (48.6%) No
4134 100.0%
Have Used
This Service
960 (33.2%) l~o Response
591 (14.3%) Yes
2583 (62.5%) flo
4134 100.0%
1193 (28. 9%) l~o Response
201 ( 4.9%) Yes
2740 ~66.3%) No
4134 00.0%
1428 (34.5%) No Response
63 ( 1.5%) Yes
2643 (63.9%) No
4134 100.0%
-69-
How Did You Learn
Of This Program
1764 (42.7%) No Response
322 ( 7.8%) T.V.
809 (19.6%) Newspaper
118 ( 2.9%) Radio
383 ( 9.3%) Friend/Neighbor
32 ( 0.8%) Relative
66 ( 1.6%) Gov't Service Agency
32 ( 0.8%) Pamphlets/Signs
25 ( 0.6%) Social Groups
583 (14.1%) Other, More Than One
4134 100.0% Response
2170 (52.5%) No Response
246 ( 6.0%) T.V.
694 (16.8%) Newspaper
77 ( 1.9%) Radio
186 ( 4.5%) Friend/Neighbor
31 ( 0.7%) Relative
160 ( 3.9%) Gov't Service Agency
67 ( 1.6%) Pamphlets/Signs
21 ( 0.5%) Social Groups
482 jll.7%) Other, More Than One
4134 OO.Oi Response
2739 (66.3%) No Response
118 ( 2.9%) T.V.
518 (12.5%) Newspaper
33 ( 0.8%) Radio
135 ( 3.3%) Friend/Neighbor
5 ( 0.1%) Relative
108 ( 2.6%) Gov't Service Agency
100 ( 2.4%) Pamphlets/Signs
58 { 1.4%) Social Groups
320 ( 7.7%) Other, More Than One
4134 100.0% Response
Alcholic 389 ( 9,4%) l~o Response 1197 (29.0%) flo Response 2074 (50.2%) No Response
Rehabl1 itation 2645 (64.0%) Yes 66 ( 1.6%) Yes 215 ( 5.2%) T.V.
Center 1100 (26.6%) No 2871 (69.4%) No 784 (19.0%) Newspaper
4134 100.0% 4134 100.0% 64 ( 1.5%) Radio
276 ( 6.7%) Friend/Neighbor
12 ( 0.3%) Relative
105 ( 2.5%) Gov•t Service Agency
55 { 1.3%) Pamphlets/Signs
19 ( 0.5%) Social Groups
530 (12.8%) Other, More Than One
4134 100.0% Response
Infonnation 559 (13.5%) i~o Response 1467 (35.5%) No Response 2864 (69.3%) No Response
& Referra 1 1578 (38.2%) YES 430 (10.4%) Yes 89 ( 2.2%) T.V.
1 gg7 j48.3%) r~o 2237 (54.1%) flo 295 ( 7.1%) Newspaper
4134 oo.o% 4134 100.0% 33 ( 0.8%) Radio
186 ( 4.5%) Friend/Neighbor
5 ( 0.1%) Relative
146 { 3.5%) Gov•t Service Agency
86 ( 2.1%) Pamphlets/Signs
21 ( 0.5%) Social Groups
409 ( g_g%) Other, More Than One
4134 1 oo.o'l Response
Special Job 511 (12.4%) No Response 1305 (31.6%) No Response 2568 (62.1%) No Response
Counseling & 2083 (50.4%) Yes 469 (11.3%) Yes 48 ( 1.2%) T.V.
Aptitude Tests 1540 (37.3%) No 2360 (57.1%} No 225 ( 5.4%) Newspaper
DOE 4134 100.0% 4134 100.0% 36 ( o.g%) Radio
334 ( 8.1%) Friend/Neighbor
40 ( 1.0%) Relative
307 ( 7.4%} Gov•t Service Agency
43 ( 1.0%) Pamphlets/Signs
8 ( 0.2%} Social Groups
525 (12.7%) Other, More Than One
4134 100.0% Response
Health Center 402 ( 9.7%) No Response 1287 (31.1%) No Response 2620 (63.4%} No Response
2042 (49.4%) Yes 352 ( 8.5%) Yes g8 ( 2.4%} T.V.
1690 (40.9%} No 2495 (60.4%) No 409 ( 9.9t) Newspaper
4134 100.0% 4134 1 oo.o:l 39 ( 0.9%) Radio
353 ( 8.5%) Friend/Neighbor
23 ( 0.6%) Relative
109 ( 2.6t) Gov•t Service Agency
36 ( 0.9%) Pamphlets/cigns
9 ( 0,2%) Social Groups
438 (10.6%) Other, More Than One
4134 100.0% Response
-70-
River Street 436 (10.5%) No Response 1320 (31.9 ')No Response 2485 (60.1;) No Response
Center 2058 (49.87() Yes 150 ( 3.6'') Yes 174 ( 4.2?:) T.V.
1640 ll9.?:S) No 2664 (64.4?1
) No 632 (15.3~) Newspaper
4134 100.0% 4134 100.0% 56 ( 1 . 4 ;; ) Ra d i o
160 ( 3.9%) Friend/Neighbor
8 ( 0.2%) Relative
73 ( 1.8~) Gov't or Service
Agency
28 ( 0.7~) Pamphlets/Signs
18 ( 0.4%) Social Groups
500 ( 12. 1 ~0 Other, More Than
4134 1oo.m; One Response
Fort Boise 360 ( 8.7%) No Response 1029 (24.9%) No Response 1793 (43.4~) No Response
Community 2937 (7l.m;) Yes 954 (23.B) Yes 169 ( 4. 1 ;; ) T.v.
Center 837 (20. 2%) No 2151 (52.o;q No 567 (13.7%) Newspaper
4134 100.0% 4134 100.0% 90 ( 2. 2%) Radio
538 (13.0%) Friend/Neighbor
45 ( 1.1%) Relative
139 ( 3.4%) Gov't or Service
Agency
55 ( 1.3%) Pamphlets/Signs
69 ( 1.7%) Social Groups
669 ( 16. z;;) Other, More Than
4134 100.0% One Response
Legal Counseling 442 (1 0. n;) No Response 1166 (28.2%) No Response 2187 (52.9~) No Response
or Assistance 2590 (62. rio) Yes 254 ( 6.1%) Yes 153 ( 3.7);) TV.
from Legal Aid 1102 (26. ?;;) No 2714 (65. n) No 511 (12.4%) Newspaper
4134 100.0% 4134 lOO.m~ 34 ( o.s;;) Radio
407 ( 9.8~) Friend/Neighbor
36 ( 0.9%) Relative
126 ( 3.0%) Gov't or Service
Agency
44 ( 1.1%) Pamphlets/Signs
16 ( 0.4%) Social Groups
620 J 15. o;q Other, More Than
4134 100.0% One Response
Rape Crisis 364 ( 8.8:~) No Response 1093 (26.4%) No Response 1603 (39.8%) No Response
Center 3050 (73.8:!,) Yes 70 ( 1. 75;) Yes 532 ( 12. 9:;) T.v.
720 (17 .4:;) No 2971 (71.%) No 642 (15.5':) Newspaper
4134 100.0% 4134 100.0% 173 ( 4.2%) Radio
148 ( 3.6%) Friend/Neighbor
11 ( 0.3%) Relative
152 ( 3.7%) Gov't or Service
Agency
137 ( 3.3~) Pamphlets/Signs
22 ( 0.5%) Social Groups
714 (17.3j;) Other, r1ore Than
4134 100.0% One Response
-71-
P.eti rement 495 (12.0~) No Response 1455 (35.2~) No Response 3060 (74.0%) No Response
Jobs 1372 (33.2~;) Yes 134 ( 3.2c;) Yes 56 ( l. 4',) T.V.
Program 2267 ('i4.85;) No 2545 ~.:1 No 435 (10.5%) Newspaper
4134 100.0% 4134 1 oo. o:; 20 ( 0. 5:';) Radio
111 ( 2. 7%) Friend/Neighbor
15 ( 0.4S) Relative
66 ( 1.6%) Gov/Ser. Agency
39 ( 0.9%) Pamphlets/Signs
12 ( 0.3%) Social Groups
320 ( 7.7%) Other, More Than
4134 1 oo. m; One Response
~;enior Citizens 423 (10.2;;) No Response 1317 (31.9%) No Response 2507 (60.6%) No Response
ilctivities 2089 (50. 5';) Yes 75 ( 1. 87!,) Yes 146 ( 3 S;) T. V .
~ransportation 1622 (39.2%) No 2742 (66.3i;) No 542 (13.1~) Newspaper
4134 100.0% 4134 100. 0% 55 ( 1.37;) Radio
201 ( 4.9?;) Friend/Neighbor
32 ( 0.8%) Relative
69 ( 1.7%) Gov/Ser. Agency
37 ( 0.9%) Pamphlets/Signs
14 ( 0.3%) Social Groups
~ (12.8%) Other, More Than
4134 100.0% One Response
Visiting 447 (10.87;) No Response 1313 (31.8%) No Response 2459 (59.5%) No Response
Homemakers 2075 (5o.n) Yes 123 ( 3.0%) Yes 181 ( 4.4~;) T.V.
1612 (39.0;;) No 2698 (65. 3:;) No 516 (12.5?;) Newspaper
4134 100.0% 4134 100.0% 19 ( o.s::.) Radio
270 ( 6.5%) Friend/Neighbor
26 ( 0.6%) Relative
141 ( 3.4%) Gov/Ser. Agency
33 ( 0.8%) Pamphlets/Signs
15 ( 0.4%) Social Groups
474 ( 11 S;) Other, More Than
4134 l 00. 0% One Response
Housing 537 (13.07:) No Response 1428 (34.5%) No Response 2679 (64.8\;) No Response
Assistance 1748 (42.3:!,) Yes 132 ( 3. 2:0 Yes 87 ( 2. 1%) T.v.
1849 (44.7'\) No 2574 (62.3:!,) No 518 (12.5%) Newspaper
4134 1 oo. o;; 4134 100.0% 13 ( 0.3%) Radio
284 ( 6.9%) Friend/Neighbor
21 ( 0.5%) Relative
81 ( 2. Q;S) Gov /Ser. Agency
35 ( 0.8~) Pamphlets/Signs
6 ( 0.1%) Social Groups
~ ( 9.9:;) Other, r~ore Than
4134 100.0% One Response
i1ea l for 308 ( 7.5%) No Response 1205 (29.1%) No Response 2289 (55.4~) No Response
Senior 2372 (57.4:;) Yes 156 ( 3.81;) Yes 157 1 3.8:;) T.V.
Citizens 1454 (35.2/,) No 2773 (67.1%) No 569 ( 13. 3;;) Newspaper
4134 100. o;; 4134 100.0% 36 ( 0.9;;) Radio
372 ( 9.0%) Friend/Neighbor
62 ( 1.5%) Relative
96 ( 2.3~) Gov/Ser. Agency
24 ( 0.6%) Pamphlets/Signs
63 ( 1 . 5%) Socia 1 Groups
466 (11.3%) Other, More Than
4134 l 00. 07; One Response
-72-
7. Following is a list of possible city and neighborhood improvements.
Please select those you feel are most needed.
(1) To preserve historic buildings
2042
153
1939
4134
49.4
3.7
46.9
100.0%
(2) To provide day care facilities
3151
366
617
4134
76.2
8.9
15.0
100.0%
(3) To improve existing city parks
2909
463
762
4134
70.4
11.2
18.5
100.0%
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
(4) To provide bicycle routes in the city
1937
464
1733
4134
46.9
11.2
41.9
100.0%
(5) To build neighborhood centers
3346
455
333
4134
80.9
11.0
8. 1
100.0%
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
(6) To make available more low-income housing
2697
295
1142
4134
65.2
7. 1
27.6
100.0%
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
(7) To rehabilitate or remove blighted housing
2279
667
1188
4134
55.1
16. 1
28.8
100.0%
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
(8) To provide medical services at reduced costs
2470
37
1627
4134
59.7
0.9
39.4
100.0%
-73-
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
(9) To build new city parks and playgrounds
3006
478
650
4134
72.7
11.6
15.7
1 00.0%
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
(10) To fence and/or cover city ditches and canals
2183
521
1430
4134
52.8
12.6
34.6
100.0%
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
(11) To provide better care/replacement of city trees
2669
642
823
4134
64.6
15. 5
19.9
1 00.0%
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
(12) To develop a pedestrian zone in the downtown area
3272
61
801
4134
79.1
1.5
19.4
100.0%
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
(13) To develop better street lighting in residential areas
2104
1139
891
4134
50.9
27.6
21.6
100.0%
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
(14) To assist rehabilitation in the downtown area
2505
22
1607
4134
60.6
0.5
38.9
100.0%
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
(15) To offset the costs of city sewer maintenance, repair and installation
3018
511
605
4134
73.0
12.4
14.6
1 00.0%
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
(16) To make street, curb and sidewalk improvements
1896
965
1273
4134
45.9
23.3
30.7
100.0%
-74-
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
(17) To provide city buses with equipment better suited for transporting
the handicapped and elderly
2983
37
1114
4134
72.2
0.9
26.9
1 00. o::
No Response
Your Neighborhood
The City as a Whole
8. How long have you lived in the Boise area?
9.
10.
11.
12.
26
189
154
275
264
330
2896
4134
( 0.6';)
( 4.6o;)
( 3.n)
( 6.7/;)
( 6.4%)
( 8. 0%)
(70.1%)
lOO.O~s
tlo Response
Less than 6 Months
7 Months to 1 Year
Between 1 and 2 Years
Between 2 and 3 Years
Between 3 and 5 Years
Over 5 Years
Do you have a telephone?
29 ( 0.7%)
3957 ( 95. n)
148 ( 3. 6:c:)
4134 100.0%
What is your sex?
160 ( 3.9%)
1897 (45.9%)
2077 (50.2%)
What is your age?
74 ( 1 .8;')
62 ( 1 . 5;; l
647 (15.7:1,)
748 ( 18. n)
479 ( 11. 6;C)
270 ( 6.5 )
209 ( 5.1';)
tlo Response
Yes
No
No Response
Male
Female
No Response 203
Under 20 257
20-24 284
25-29 268
30-34 240
35-39 393
40-44 4134
What is your ethnic background?
73
15
3929
17
13
69
4134
( 1 . 8:;)
( 0.4;;)
(95.0;;}
( 0.4%)
( 0.3%)
( l. r;)
lOO.O:s
No Response
Black
vlh i te
Oriental
American Indian
Other
-75-
( 4. 9 )
( 6. 2 )
( 6.9 )
( 6S)
( 5. 8 )
( 9. 5 )
1 oo. o~;
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
Over 70
13. Including yourself, how many individuals make up your family (Do not
include family members who do not live at home and who are no longer
economically dependent upon you).
61 ( l . 5~6) No Response 36 ( 0. 9: ) Seven
1108 (26. 8::) One 9 ( 0. 2%) Eight
1521 (36.8%) Two 2 ( 0. l ;q Nine
619 ( 1 5. o:o Three l ( 0.17;) Ten
467 ( ll. 3;;) Four 2 ( o. J;;) Eleven
225 ( 5.47;) Five l ( O.l:i) Twelve
82 ( 2.0:;) Six 4134 l 00. o:s
14. Do you have any personal physical handicap which limits your activities
in any way?
88
535
3511
4134
( 2. 1%)
(12. 9%)
(84. 9:0
100.0%
15. (a) Occupation Information:
Job Classification
No Response
Professional, technical
managerial
Clerical and Sales
Service Occupations
Farming, Fishery, Forestry
Processing Occupations
Machines Trades Occupations
Bench Work Occupations
Structural Work Occupations
Miscellaneous Occupations
Student
Housewife
(b) Are you retired?
2395
839
4134
(79. 7%)
(20.3%)
l 00.0%
(c) Is your spouse retired?
3816
318
4134
(92.356)
( 7.7%)
100.0%
No Response
Yes
No
Your
Em~lotment
662 ( 16. 0%)
1224 (29.65;)
748 (18.1:;)
281 ( 6.8%)
29 ( 0.7%)
ll ( 0.3%)
66 ( l. 6%)
23 ( 0.6';)
115 ( 2.8%)
244 ( 5.9%)
234 ( 5.7%)
497 (12.0%)
4134 100.0%
No Response
Yes
No Reponse
Yes
-76-
Your Spouse's
Em[JlOJ:ment
1984 ( 48. 0';)
533 (12.9:,)
388 ( 9. 4;\)
150 ( 3.6%)
11 ( 0.3o;)
5 ( o. n)
45 ( l.l%)
23 ( 0. 6'~ )
80 ( l. %)
123 ( 3. on
172 ( 4. Z:C)
620 ( 1 5. o:q
4134 1 00. 0%
(d) Considering all sources of income for everyone in your family -
before deduction of taxes or anything -what was your total fan;ily
income for 1975?
206 ( 5.0/') No Response 267 ( 6.on $10,000-$10,999
39 ( l. 0';) Under $999 177 ( 4.m;J $11 ,ooo-Sll ,999
84 ( 2. 0%) $1,000-$1,999 206 ( s.on $12,000-$12,999
124 ( 3.07~) $2,000-$2,999 167 ( 4.05;) $13,000-$13,999
164 ( 4.0%) $3,000-$3,999 193 ( 5. 05:) $14,000-$14,999
185 ( 4. 0%) $4,000-$4,999 199 ( 5.mn $15,000-$15,999
158 ( 4.8%) $5,000-$5,999 404 (10.05;) $16,000-$19,999
211 ( 5.05~) $6,000-$6,999 364 ( 9.05;) $20,000-$24,999
202 ( 5.0%) $7,000-$7,999 170 ( 4.0%) $25,000-$29,999
190 ( 5.0%) $8,000-$8,999 170 ( 4. Oo;) $30,000-$50,000
188 ( 5.m,) $9,000-$9,999 66 1_ 2. o:o Over $50,000
4134 1 oo. o;;
(e) Number of respondents by census tract:
Census Number of Percent of
Tract Respondents Tot a 1 Response
1 318 7.7
4 321 7.8
5 513 12.4
6 677 16.4
7 439 10.6
8 345 8.3
9 356 8.6
10 420 10.2
14 267 6.5
16 181 4.4
17 297 7.2
-77-
>,
'-
..0.. ,
u
(!)
--(~!)
0 w "<0'
U1 "-
>< (!)
> (!)
0 ·~~ z: ...., c. I
w <0 E co
"- c <0 ......
"- <.Vl I
<0:: (!)
-1-'<0:;
~- <0::
£.. ..,
::l
0
>-
ABORTION ALTERNATIVE
20i3 No. 26th
Boise, Idaho 83702
Yvonne Echevarria
342-1898
Th"ough their hotline number, they give women encouragement about their
problems and offer to help her with financial problems, medical or legal
assistance, counseling, spiritual aid, employment, housing, or any other
problems sne may have.
ADA COUNTY
Juvenile Court
Dorothy Mousetis - Director
Allan Smith- Judge
Bob Montgomery - Public Defender
Sue Gray - Volunteers in Correction
Human Resources
Rudy Wilson, Director
Juvenile and Mental Division
Roger Burdick, Juvenile & Mental Health Deputy
ADA COUNTY FOR RETARDED CITIZENS
Programs for Trainable Mentally Retarded Citizens
4402 Albion
Boise, Idaho 83705
Toddler, 2-5 Years Old
Child Care, 2-10 Years Old
Gem Haven, School Age
Work Activjty Center
Summer Recreation for the
t~entally Retarded
ADA COU~TY GROUP HOME FOR BOYS
560:~ Lymvood Place
Boise, Idaho 83704
Father Bill Dodgson
4402 Albion
4402 Albion
1801 Univ. Dr.
4402 Albion
4402 Albion
384-8970
384-8970
384-8970
384-8970
384-8715
384-8976
343-5583
343-5583
343-5461
343-5583
343-5583
375-5747
A group resident environment in place of detention or return to the family.
Can accommodate six boys, usually high school age.
-79-
"Q"')
Q_
Q_
co u
"c" '
co
:r:
>,
""' Q)
c >
"' '-
>,V"J
LL ~
'- c
>< QJO
~ 0 "~"' ·+~'
z: w w +"'' I
0.. >,!... 0
0.. uo 00
<I: c Q_ I
QJVl me
<I: "' '- Olf-c
c
c
"' ~
0..
co
<""I:'
1 . Pre,iously answered survey?
Yes 16 -4-. 6-' lie 318 00.9
2. r~ae Group
1 - 14 20 s. r; 'iS-64 46 i j. 1
15-29 84 24.0, 65-74 54 -~ 5. 4-:_-
30-44 52 14.9 75+ 68 l9.C
45-54 24 6. 9\
3. Sex
Male 121 34.6 Female 227 64.9. --- ---
4. Schooling
Grade School 43 12. 3'~ Some College 51
Junior High 24 - 6. g;, Grad. College T8
Some H.S. 51 -14 . -6:~ Adv. Degree 4
Grad. H.S. 80 22. 9'~ Other 75
5. Student?
Yes 77 2 2. o;, No 269 76.9
6. Marital Status
Single 140 40.0%
Married -r5 21.4%
Divorced 43 12.3%
Widowed 89 25.4;,
7 Type of Residence
s·ingle Family
Apartment
Retirement
Home
Health Care
Facility
Other
(>. r-·1ot:i~ity
Stay in Bed
Stay in House
223
48
13
30
33
Need Help Outside
Use Special Aid
Do Not Need Help
or aid, but
have Trouble
63.7
~
-3-. r-;
8.6
9. 4' ---
l 0 2 J • J ·.
19 5:4'
70 20. o:
58 -T6-.-T
62 17. 7':
Move About Freely 124 35. 4C' ---
-81-
14.6
-sT -- 1 . 1 '
21 . 9
9. Ability to Cart'Y on Major Activities
Unable 60
Limitations 107
Limitations but .. "29
No Limitations -9
l 7. 1
30. 6i:
8. 3S',
2. 6~·;
10. Inability is result of:
Temporary
Chronic
13 3. 7:
188 53.?;;
11. How long 'chronic' condition?
6 Month - 1 Year
1 Year - 5 Years
5 Yrs. - 10 Yrs.
1 0 Yrs. - 20 Yrs.
20 Yrs. - Life
5 l. 4%
34 9. n
34 9. 7~1,
52 14.9%
73 20.9~(
12. Physical Limitations
Visual Impairment 57
Hearing Impairment 31
Speech Impairment 54
Heart Condition 45
Hypertension 31
Shortness or Breath 37
16. 3cs
8 0 9~~
15.4%
12. 9:1,
8.9%
l 0. 6%
13. Type of Aid Used
14.
Seeing-Eye Dog
Cane
Hearing Aid
Wheelchair
Walker
2
24
TO
52
2T
. 6~~
6. 9?~
2. 9c(
14.9%
6. O'b
Performance (yes, no, with difficulty)
Walk, Move One Block
Walk, Move Three Blocks
Up, Down Stairs
Up, Down Curb
Up, Down Incline
Sit, Get Up
Wait Standing 15 Minutes
Push Open Door
Grasp Hand Rails
Cross Intersection on Time
Move In Crowds
Decipher Bus Schedule
-82-
230
178
183
229
215
253
177
231
278
181
182
195
Tire Easily
Arthritic
Fracture
Paralysis
Other
75 21.4,
45 ~
6 1.r
TO 2.9'
54 15.4%
Crutches 19 5. 4'~
Braces -g 2. 6''
Artifical Limb ~
Human Assistant 99
65. r 57 16. 3'',
50. 9s 94 26.9%
52. 3); 88 25. l%
65. 4'; 50 14. 35:
61.4;; 56 l6.m;
72. 35; 40 11. 4~0
50. 6': 99 28.3%
66. D's 46 13. 1%
79. 4~! 22 6.3%
51. r 86 29.6%
52. 0~( 73 20.9%
55.75, 9T 26.0%
-TT
28. 3'
10 2. 9'~
29 ~
40 n. 4',
31 8.9~;
4T ll . 7c~
16 -~
35 10. m;
32 9. l 5;
TO 2. 9c(
44 12. 6:;
53 l5.L
20 -5. -7:;
15. Trips
* Shoppi nr1 226 C4.6
No. of T~l'les:
l 104 29.7
3 25 'Tf''
5 7 --2. o~~
7 2 -. 6C
10 --, - .3', --
Mode of Transportatior
Cal' 94 26. 9'.
bus
.., i i 3T
Walk 4T IT.r
r Schoo 1 82 -23.-4
No. of Times:
l 3 . 9\
3 '3 -. 9'
5 -, ~
~ode of Transportation
*
Car
Bus
Walk
23 6.6
21 '6.0f
5 1.4';
Recreational 11 0
No. of Times:
48 13.7
" TO 2.9 .)
5 8 'T.T
7 4 -r:-r-
-31 -. 4-
Mode of Transportation
Car 60 l 7 l - '.'
GJ s 5 -1-.~-
'A a H 8 2.Y
* l·led i ca 1 215 -61. -5
r~o. of Times:
123 35. 1'
.) -6 ~
5 -1 -~-
c 4 -~ 12. 3;'
4 -s TT
n -.r 1-:--;
( --=; --:3- C) '
Friend 58 16.6'
Other T6 ""2\T
c: ~ 1 . 4.
4 58 16. 6'
6 3-~--
Friend 7 2.0
Other T3 -5.T
2
4
E
•• u
Friend
Other
2
4
-83-
ZJ
3
"2
I
1 3 -1
:.; 7
. g-
.0
---~-.,-
l 7
3
. ,)
3.1
•.
• J
~'
L.~
Mode of Transportation
Car 86 24. 6;. Friend 61 l7. 4":
Bus TI 3. 75~ Other 22 6:3'7
Walk 26 7. 4%
* Church 159 -45.- 45.
rJo. of Times:
102 29. n; 2 18 5. l
3 "18 s. n:: 4 2 ~
5 -1 . 3;~
Mode of Transportation
Car 69 19. 7i~ Friend 35 6. O'c
Bus 5 l . 4;; Other 6 1.7
Wa 1 k 21 6. 0%
* Visit 127 36. 3s;
No. of Times:
l 60 17. n 2 14 4. 0~~
3 T2 3.4;; 4 3 --:-9""
5 4 l.ll; 6 2 . 6~~
7 6 1.7%
Mode of Transportation
Car 69 19.7% Friend 23 6. 65
Bus 3 .9~~ Other 5 1 . 4',
Walk -T9 -5-.4?;
* l<ork 69 19.7;;
No. of Times:
2 4 1 . 1 ;; 3 6 1. r
5 5T 14. 6;; 6 2 ~
Mode of Transportation
Car 25 7. l ); Friend 7 2. o;;
Bus T7 4. 9% Other 7 2.m
Walk 8 2. 3%
* Other 40 11 . 45:
No. of Times:
l 15 4.3;; 2 2 . 6;;
3 3 . 9~~ 5 TO 2 0 g;;;
7 -1 .3%
-84-
~ G. 0'-lb
Mode of Tr0nspor~ation
Car
Bus
Walk
Sea tus
<:n:p l oyed
16 4 . 6:~
8- 2.3'-
l ~
:wt E,nployed, Not
Looking
Not Er1ployed,
Looking
Retired
Homemaker
73 22. 3-,
96 27.4.
51 14.6
84 24.0.,
Friend
Other
22 6":3%
17. Source of Income
Salary, Wages
Employer's Disability
Veterans' Disability
Soc. Sec. Disability
Welfare
Other Disability
Nondi sabil ity
76 21.7:;
TO 2.%
T2 3.4;
164 46.8~~
-84 24.o:;
34 9. 7:~
4 7 13. 4:;
18. Monthly Income
Under $2 50
$251-$400
5401-$650
$651-$850
$851 +
200 57 .1'! ro 2o.oc;
26 7.4% w 2.9%
-6 1.7""
19. Weekly Expenditures for Transportation
Less than $1.00
$1.00-$2.50
$2.50-55.00
$5.00-$10.00
Sl D. 00-$15.00
$1 5+
20. Tra•1sportation Needs
* Shopping l 51
No. of Times:
34 24. o·,
52 14.9';
60 17.]•;
56 T6:0':"
TI 9.4;
26 7 .4c,
43. 2'
3 2. 3
~ 1 . 1 :-~
l 82 23.4' 2 37 10.6
3 T2 ~
5 2 .6:;
7 2 ------:-6%
-85-
4 --z -~;
6 -1 .3
Mode of Transportation
Car
Bus
Walk
* Medica 1
85 24.3;;
43 12.3%
TO 2. 9%
99 28.3;G
No. of Times
1 61 17.4%
3 2 --:6%
Mode of Transportation
Car
Bus
Wa 1 k
* Work
54 15.4%
27 7. 7%
2- -.-6%
44 12.6%
No. of Times
1 1 . 3%
5 -30 -8.- 6%
Mode of Transportation
Car
Bus
Wa 1 k
* School
17 4. 9%
20 5. 7%
--, -.3-%
32 9. 15G
No. of Times
1 1 . 3%
3 5- -1.4-%
* Visiting 115 32.9%
No. of Times
1 60 1 7. 1%
3 14 4.0%
t1ode of Transportation
Car
Bus
Wa 1 k
64 18.3%
3-5 -10.0-%
5 1.4%
-86-
Friend 2 .6%
Other 4 1.1%
2 6 l. 7%
Friend
Other
3 . 9%
6 1. 7%
3 4 l.]?;
Friend 1 .3%
Other 1 .3%
2 3 • 9%
5 TI 3. 7%
2 22 6. 37:
4 6 1. 7::,
Friend 2 . 671,
Other 1 . 3%
* Church 106 30.3%
No. of Times
l 74 21.1%
3 6 1.n
6 -1 .3%
Mode of Transportation
Car
Bus
Walk
52 14.9%
32 9. l;~
6 l.l:b
* Recreation 98 30.0%
No. of Times
l 40 ll. 4%
3 T8 5.1%
5 3 --:9%
l 0 -1 --------:-:3%
Mode of Transportation
Car
Bus
Walk
* Other
43 12.3%
37 10.6%
2 .6%
26 7. 4%
No. of Times
l 11 3.1%
5 -2 -.6-%
Mode of Transportation
Car
Bus
12 3. 4%
TO 2. 9%
-87-
2 16 4. 3;;
4 -1 . 3%
7 -1 .3%
Friend 5 1.4~;
Other 2 .6%
2 21 6.0%
4 -1 ~
7 3 .9%
Friend 3 . 9%
Other T . 3%
3 2 . 6:~
Walk l .3%
Friend 2 .6%