The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.

2016 Peoria Park District Community Assessment by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer.

Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Published by Peoria Park District, 2017-02-22 17:10:09

2016 Community Assessment

2016 Peoria Park District Community Assessment by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer.

Peoria Park District
2016 Community Assessment Prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


Page 2
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ........................4
2. Methodology ............................7
3. Broad-Based Assessment ......................10 General Perceptions of the Peoria Park District ...............10 Purchasing Drivers.............................14 Communication Mediums.........................16
4. Perceived Usage of Peoria Park District Parks and Facilities ......18
5. Perceived Usage of Peoria Park District Programs ..............21
6. Peoria Park District Descriptors ........................25
7. Appendix (Survey Copy)


1. Executive Summary
In collaboration with multiple community partners, the 2016 Peoria Park District Community Assessment was completed to highlight the needs and perceptions of Peoria County residents. This study was designed to provide critical information to the Peoria Park District to be used for strategic decision-making purposes. The community assessment examined the perceptions and behaviors of residents regarding use of parks, facilities and programs. Speci cally, the assessment provides a detailed analysis of: (1) general perceptions of the Peoria Park District; (2) purchasing drivers for Peoria Park District activities; (3) effective communication mediums; (4) perceptions of usage and satisfaction of parks and facilities, and: (5) perceptions of usage and satisfaction of programs.
Primary data for this assessment were collected using two techniques. First, an electronic version of the survey was created. The electronic survey could be accessed via both the Internet, as well as use of a QR code so the survey could be completed from a respondent’s smart phone. Second, a paper version of the survey was distributed. A concerted effort was made to obtain suf cient responses from residents representing minority ethnicities. In order to be sensitive to the needs of respondents, surveys stressed assurance of complete anonymity. A total of 1,255 usable responses were received. This exceeded the threshold of a 99% con dence interval with a margin of error of approximately (+/-) 3.6%.
The following key takeaways were identi ed from the community needs assessment:
GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF THE PEORIA PARK DISTRICT
• 89% of respondents believe that the Peoria Park District is important to the quality of life in the region
• 88% of respondents believe that the Peoria Park District is an important community partner for community health
• 85% of respondents believe it is important to have natural areas in the community for preservation, pollination and wildlife habitat
Page 4 2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer







Safety
Quality of Instructors Times offered Customer Service Appearance
Page 5
• 79% of respondents feel safe when using Peoria Park District indoor facilities, and 51% of respondents feel safe when using outdoor facilities

70% of respondents believe that Peoria Park District facilities are well maintained
PURCHASING DRIVERS FOR PEORIA PARK DISTRICT ACTIVITIES
The top ve purchasing drivers identi ed in the assessment are:
COMMUNICATION MEDIUMS
The ve
most common ways people hear about Peoria Park District activities are:
• • • • •
Internet (PPD Website) Word-of-Mouth
Social Media
Program Guide
Email
PERCEIVED USAGE AND SATISFACTION OF PEORIA PARK DISTRICT PARKS AND FACILITIES
Eight Peoria Park District parks/facilities were in the Top Tier as having the most perceived
usage. In
• • • • • • • •
order, they are:

Peoria RiverFront Grand View Drive Peoria Zoo
Glen Oak Park RiverPlex
Forest Park Nature Center Bradley Park
Detweiller Park
perceived usage data for parks/facilities were relatively consistent with actual
In general,
usage data. However, there were some misperceptions. Speci cally, golf courses, the Owens Center and Trewyn Park received lower perceived usage ratings relative to actual


usage data. Conversely, Grand View Drive had higher perceived usage relative to actual usage data. Disconnects between perceived/actual usage may be due, in part, to issues involving brand identity, brand confusion and reputation.
Satisfaction ratings for parks/facilities that were identi ed in the Top Tier had an average satisfaction rating of 4.07 on a scale where 1 = “not satis ed” and 5 = “very satis ed.” This indicates that survey respondents were generally satis ed with Peoria Park District parks and facilities.
PERCEIVED USAGE AND SATISFCATION OF PEORIA PARK DISTRICT PROGRAMS
Five Peoria Park District Activities/Programs were identi ed in the Top Tier as having the most usage. In order, they are:





Running/Walking
Special Events at the RiverFront Hiking
Nature Walks
RiverPlex
In general, perceived usage data for programs were relatively consistent with actual usage data (when available). However, there were some misperceptions. Speci cally, soccer and baseball programs received lower perceived usage ratings relative to actual usage data. Disconnects between perceived/actual usage may be due, in part, to issues involving brand identity, brand confusion, competing programs offered by the private sector and reputation.
Satisfaction ratings for activities/programs that were identi ed in the Top Tier had an average satisfaction rating of 4.14 on a scale where 1 = “not satis ed” and 5 = “very satis ed.” This indicates that survey respondents were generally satis ed with Peoria Park District programs.
Page 6
2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


2. Methodology
2.1 Survey Instrument Design
Initially, numerous publicly available park-district assessments were assessed to identify common themes and approaches to collecting community data. By leveraging best practices from these surveys, a collaborative team from the Peoria Park District was involved in survey design/approval through several fact- nding sessions. Speci cally, for the community assessment, ve speci c sets of items were included:
General Perceptions – to assess the importance of the Peoria Park District to the community. Survey items included assessments of topics such as the importance of the Peoria Park District to quality of life, as well as questions assessing overall perceptions of Peoria Park District facilities.
Purchasing Drivers – to assess the importance of various aspects of Peoria Park District facilities and programs. Survey items included assessments of topics such as price, safety, quality and accessibility. In all, there were 10 choices provided for survey respondents.
Communication Mediums – to assess the effectiveness of various communication mediums in trying to market the Peoria Park District to the community. Survey items included assessments of mediums such as word-of-mouth, Internet, social media and the Program Guide. In all, there were 11 choices provided for survey respondents.
Usage and Satisfaction of Facilities – to assess the frequency to which residents use parks and facilities, as well as satisfaction of parks and facilities. In all, there were 36 choices provided for survey respondents.
Usage and Satisfaction of Programs – to assess the frequency to which residents use programs, as well as satisfaction of programs. In all, there were 37 choices provided for survey respondents.
Page 7


Finally, demographic information was collected to assess background information necessary to segment markets in terms of the ve categories discussed above.
A copy of the nal survey is included at the end of this assessment.
2.2. Sample Size
In order to identify our potential population, we rst measured the Peoria County population. According to U.S. Census data, the population in Peoria County is 185,221 residents.
We assumed a normal approximation to the hypergeometric distribution given the sample size.
n = (Nz2pq)/(E2 (N-1) + z2 pq
n = the required sample size
N = the population size
pq = population proportions (set at .05)
z = the value that speci ed the con dence interval (use 95% CI) E =desired accuracy of sample proportions (set at +/- .05)
For the total Peoria-County region, the minimum sample size of 384 respondents was needed to achieve a 95% con dence interval with a 5% margin of error. The data collection effort for this assessment yielded a total of 1,255 usable responses. This exceeded the threshold of a 99% con dence interval with a margin of error of approximately 3.6%.
Data collection resulted in a sample where certain ethnicities were underrepresented. Speci cally, approximately 13% of sample respondents identi ed with Black ethnicity (census data indicate that 18.3% of residents are of Black ethnicity) and approximately 3% of sample respondents identi ed with Latino/a ethnicity (census data indicate that 4.6% of residents are of Latino/a ethnicity).
To provide a representative pro le when assessing the aggregated population for
the Peoria-County region, a portion of the general population was combined with
data from speci c ethnicities, as well as the underserved population and gender. This produced a representative sample of the Peoria-County population that re ects current U.S. Census demographic conditions. A random-number generator was used to select- out speci c cases. Subsequently, in order to arrive at a representative sample of Peoria County, the total usable sample was reduced to 1,007 respondents for analyzing the aggregate population. This still exceeded the threshold of a 99% con dence interval and 5% margin of error.
2.3. Data Collection
To collect data in this study, two techniques were used. First, an electronic version of the survey was created. The electronic survey could be accessed via both the Internet,
Page 8
2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


as well as a QR code so the survey could be completed from a respondent’s smart phone. Second, a paper version of the survey was distributed. In order to be sensitive to the needs of respondents, surveys stressed assurance of complete anonymity.
A concerted effort was made to obtain responses from Black and Latino/a residents. Surveys were distributed to key community partners in neighborhoods that represented these two ethnicities. The survey timeline was also extended to try to create a strati ed random sample to provide suf cient minority representation for Peoria County. Note that versions of both the online survey and paper survey were translated into Spanish.
2.4. Data Integrity
Comprehensive analyses were performed to verify the integrity of the data for this research. Without proper validation of the raw data, any interpretation of results could be inaccurate and misleading if used for decision making. Therefore, several tests were performed to ensure that the data were valid. These tests were performed before any analyses were undertaken. Data were checked for coding accuracy, using descriptive frequency statistics to verify that all data items were correct. This was followed by analyses of means and standard deviations.
2.5. Analytic Techniques
To ensure statistical validity, we used several different analytic techniques. Speci cally, frequencies and descriptive statistics were used for identifying patterns in residents’ ratings of various perceptions and behaviors. Additionally, appropriate statistical techniques were used for identi cation of existing relationships between perceptions, behaviors and demographic data. Speci cally, we used Pearson correlations, x2 tests and tetrachoric correlations when appropriate, given characteristics of the speci c data being analyzed. Note that utilization of these analyses represents a more in-depth assessment than existing park district assessments used in other communities.
Page 9


3. Broad-Based Assessment
Broad-based items on the survey are used to assess General Perceptions of the Peoria Park District as a community partner (Section 3.1), Purchasing Drivers of respondents (Section 3.2), and Communication Mediums most prevalent for respondents (Section 3.3).
3.1 General Perceptions of the Peoria Park District
The rst set of questions asked respondents to share overall perceptions of the Peoria Park District in terms of importance to the community, general maintenance and safety. Survey items included assessment of topics such as importance of the Peoria Park District to quality of life, as well as questions assessing overall perceptions of Peoria Park District facilities. Each question was rated using a Likert-type scale, where 1 = “strongly disagree” and 5 = “strongly agree.”
Table 3.1. General Perceptions of the Peoria Park District
Page 10
General Perceptions
Mean Score
Standard Deviation
PPD is Important to Quality of Life
4.56
0.99
PPD Importance to Community Health
4.51
0.97
It is Important to Have Natural Areas
4.42
1.02
I feel safe using PPD Indoor Facilities
4.12
0.97
PPD Facilities are Well-Maintained
3.85
1.03
I feel safe using PPD Outdoor Facilities
3.74
1.06
3.1.1 Perceptions of the Peoria Park District as a community partner.
Three questions were asked regarding respondents’ perceptions of the importance of the Peoria Park District to the community: importance in terms of quality of life, community
2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


As seen in Figure 3.1, 89% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that the Peoria Park District is important to the quality of life in the community.
This indicates that the community perceives the Peoria Park District as an important partner in the community in terms of quality of life.
Using correlational analyses, the importance of the Peoria Park District to quality of life tends to be rated higher as people get older and also tends to be rated higher by White people (mean score of 4.7) compared to Black people (mean score = 4.2).
Figure 3.2. The Peoria Park District is Important to Community Health (%)
Page 11
health and importance to have natural areas.
All three aspects were rated very high. Speci cally, the Peoria Park District’s importance to the community in terms of quality of life had a mean score of 4.56, importance to health had a mean score of 4.51 and importance of natural areas had a mean score of 4.42, indicating that overall, respondents perceived the Peoria Park District very positively in terms of importance to the community.
Figure 3.1. The Peoria Park District is Important to Quality of Life (%)


As seen in Figure 3.2, 88% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that the Peoria Park District is important to community health. This indicates that the community perceives the Peoria Park District as an important partner in impacting the health of the community.
Using correlational analyses, the importance of the Peoria Park District to community health tends to be rated higher as people get older and also tends to be rated higher by White people (mean score of 4.7) compared to Black people (mean score = 4.1).
Figure 3.3. It is Important to Have Natural Areas (%)
As seen in Figure 3.3, 85% of respondents either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that it is important to have natural areas in the community. This indicates that the community perceives that natural areas are important “for preservation, pollination and wildlife habitat.”
Using correlational analyses, the importance of having natural areas tends to be rated higher by White people (mean score of 4.5) compared to Black people (mean score = 4.1).
3.1.2 How Facilities are Maintained
One question was asked regarding respondents’ perceptions of how well overall Peoria Park District facilities are maintained. This aspect was rated moderately high with a mean score of 3.85.
Page 12
2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


Figure 3.4. Peoria Park District Facilities are Well Maintained (%)
As seen in Figure 3.4, 70% of respondents either agree or strongly agree that Peoria Park District facilities are well maintained. This indicates that the majority of Peoria- area residents feel that Peoria Park District Facilities are well maintained.
Using correlational analyses, the perceptions of how well Peoria Park District facilities are maintained tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 4.00) compared to men (mean score = 3.65).
3.1.3 Perceived Safety
Two questions were asked regarding respondents’ perceptions of safety when using Peoria Park District Facilities. While feeling safe when using indoor facilities was relatively high with a mean score of 4.12, feeling safe when using outdoor facilities was signi cantly lower with a mean score of 3.74.
Figure 3.5. Peoria Park District Indoor Facilities are Safe (%)
Page 13


As seen in Figure 3.5, 79% of respondents either agree or strongly agree that they feel safe when using Peoria Park District indoor facilities. This indicates that the majority of Peoria-area residents feel safe when using Peoria Park District indoor facilities.
Figure 3.6. Peoria Park District Outdoor Facilities are Safe (%)
Page 14
As seen in Figure 3.6, only 51% of respondents either agree or strongly agree that they feel safe when using Peoria Park District outdoor facilities. This indicates that only half of Peoria-area residents feel safe when using Peoria Park District outdoor facilities. There were no signi cant correlations between demographics and perceived safety.
3.2 Purchasing Drivers
The second set of questions was designed to assess the importance of various purchasing drivers when deciding whether or not to select Peoria Park District activities. Survey items included assessments of topics such price, safety, quality
and accessibility. In all, there were 10 choices provided to survey respondents. Each question was rated using a Likert-type scale, where 1= “low importance” and 5 = “high importance.”
2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


Table 3.2. Purchasing Drivers for Peoria Park District Programs/Facilities
Page 15
Purchasing Drivers
Mean Score
Standard Deviation
Safety
4.44
0.82
Quality of instructors
4.21
0.91
Times offered
4.20
0.97
Customer service
4.18
0.93
Appearance of facility
4.17
0.87
Fees charged
3.92
1.11
Ease of registration
3.85
1.06
Accessibility
3.77
1.17
Travel time
3.68
1.09
Recommended by a friend
3.36
1.21
As seen in Table 3.2, safety was rated as the rst-tier driver in terms of whether a resident would choose a Peoria Park District activity, with a mean score of 4.44. Quality of instructors, times offered, customer service, and appearance of facility were rated as second-tier factors with mean scores ranging from 4.21 to 4.17. Fees charged, ease
of registration, accessibility and travel time were rated as third-tier factors. Finally, recommendation by a friend was the least important. Note however, that all mean scores were above 3.00, indicating all factors may in uence a resident’s purchasing decision.
Demographic Factors Related to purchasing drivers. Several demographic characteristics show signi cant relationships with purchasing drivers. The following relationships were found using correlational analyses:
Safety tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 4.58) compared to men (mean score = 4.27).
Quality of instructors has no signi cant correlations.
Times offered tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 4.37) compared to men (mean score = 4.00). Times offered is also rated higher by families with more children.
Customer service has no signi cant correlations.
Appearance tends to be rated higher by Black people (mean score = 4.38). and tends
to be rated lower by White people (mean score = 4.09)
Fees charged tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 4.00) compared to men (mean score = 3.75).


Ease of registration tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 3.90) compared to men (mean score = 3.71). Additionally, Black people tend to have a higher rating (mean score = 4.03) compared to White people (mean score = 3.73).
Accessibility tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 3.87) compared to men (mean score = 3.58). Additionally, Black people tend to have a higher rating (mean score = 4.01) compared to White people (mean score = 3.55).
Travel time tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 3.80) compared to men (mean score = 3.45).
Recommended by a friend tends to be rated higher by Black people (mean score = 3.71) compared to White people (mean score = 3.65).
3.3 Communication Mediums
The third set of questions was designed to assess how residents hear about Peoria
Park District activities. Survey items included mediums such as word-of-mouth, Internet, social media and the Program Guide. In all, there were 11 choices provided for survey respondents. Each question was rated using a Likert-type scale, where 1 = “never use” and 5 = “frequently use.”
Table 3.3. Communication Mediums for Peoria Park District Programs/Facilities
As seen in Table 3.3, the Internet was rated as the top-tier communication medium in terms of how residents hear about Peoria Park District activities, with a mean score of 4.10. Word- of-mouth, social media, the Program Guide, and Email were rated as second-tier factors with mean scores ranging from 3.79 to 3.48. Note that Pandora was not rated as high as other communication mediums, with a mean score of 2.19.
Page 16
Communication Mediums
Mean Score
Standard Deviation
Internet (PPD Website)
4.1
1.16
Word-of-mouth
3.79
1.04
Social Media
3.69
1.46
Program Guides
3.58
1.26
Email
3.48
1.37
Direct mail
3.12
1.31
TV
3.11
1.28
Local Radio
3.04
1.25
Newspaper (print)
2.71
1.44
Newspaper (online)
2.45
1.33
Pandora
2.19
1.39
2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


Demographic Factors Related to Communication Mediums. Several demographic characteristics show signi cant relationships with communication mediums.
The following relationships were found using correlational analyses:
Internet (PPD Website) tends be rated lower as people get older. Internet tends to be rated higher by people with higher incomes and by families with more children.
Word of Mouth tends be rated higher by women (mean score = 4.02) compared to men (mean score = 3.67).
Social media tends to be rated lower as people get older. Social media tends to be rated higher by families with more children. Additionally, Black people tend to rate social media higher (mean score = 4.06) compared to White people (mean score = 3.52).
Program Guides tends to be rated higher as people get older and higher by women (mean score = 3.68) compared to men (mean score = 3.34).
Email tends to be rated higher by families with more children and increases as total income increases.
Direct mail tends to be rated higher as people get older. Additionally, direct mail tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 3.22) compared to men (mean score = 2.92).
T.V. tends to be rated higher by Black people and those with lower incomes. Local radio has no signi cant correlations.
Newspaper (print) tends to be rated higher as people get older.
Newspaper (online) tends to be rated lower as people get older.
Pandora tends to be rated lower as people get older and lower as total income increases. Black people and Latino people tend to rate Pandora higher. Note that the ndings relating to increased usage by Black and Latino people are consistent with ndings from a 2013 study by Quantcast.com.
Page 17


Page 18
4. Perceived Usage and Satisfaction of Peoria Park District Parks and Facilities
The following section was designed to assess whether perceived usage of PPD parks and facilities was consistent with actual usage data. Additionally, satisfaction of parks and facilities was assessed. In all, there were 36 choices provided for survey respondents. Note that satisfaction of facilities was only rated if a respondent rst indicated usage. Each question was rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale for both frequency of usage and overall satisfaction. Speci cally, for usage, respondents were asked how frequently each facility was used, where 1 = “never use” and 5 = “frequently use.” For satisfaction, respondents were asked how satis ed they were when a facility was used, where 1 = “not satis ed” and 5 = “very satis ed.”
Table 4.1. Peoria Park District Facility Perceived Usage and Satisfaction
Peoria Park District Facilities
Frequency of Use
Satisfaction with Facility
Mean Score
Standard Deviation
Mean Score
Standard Deviation
First Tier Facility Usage
Peoria RiverFront
3.47
1.32
3.99
0.95
Grand View Drive
2.94
1.43
4.3
0.86
Peoria Zoo
2.94
1.38
4.06
1.00
Glen Oak Park
2.92
1.39
3.81
1.07
RiverPlex
2.74
1.59
4.14
0.95
Forest Park Nature Center
2.72
1.46
4.27
0.88
Bradley Park
2.65
1.38
3.94
0.90
Detweiller Park
2.61
1.32
4.02
0.94
2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


Page 19
Facility Usage and Satisfaction continued
Frequency of Use
Satisfaction with Facility
Mean Score
Standard Deviation
Mean Score
Standard Deviation
Second Tier Facility Usage
Luthy Botanical Garden
2.18
1.28
4.05
0.95
Peoria PlayHouse Children’s Museum
2.10
1.43
4.18
1.02
Franciscan Recreation Center
2.06
1.35
3.88
1.03
Bicycle Safety Town
1.96
1.26
4.07
0.97
Glen Oak Amphitheater
1.96
1.20
3.76
1.06
Golf Courses
1.88
1.39
3.46
1.12
Owens Center
1.81
1.25
3.51
1.19
Lakeview Recreation Center
1.79
1.22
3.57
1.13
Donovan Park
1.71
1.18
3.55
1.16
Third Tier Facility Usage
Camp Wokanda
1.61
1.08
3.93
1.01
Lakeview Family Aquatic Center
1.6
1.08
3.43
1.20
Noble Center
1.58
1.06
3.77
1.07
Charter Oak Park
1.56
1.02
3.60
1.05
Sommer Park North
1.55
1.10
3.77
1.06
Northtrail Park
1.53
1.17
3.65
1.17
Sommer Park South
1.53
0.99
3.79
1.07
Stadium Park
1.48
1.04
3.44
1.15
Proctor Recreation Center
1.44
1.04
3.6
1.18
Fourth Tier Facility Usage
Gwynn Family Aquatic Center
1.32
0.92
3.63
1.30
Columbia Park
1.29
0.86
3.26
1.22
John Gwynn Jr. Park
1.29
0.86
3.39
1.27
Bielfeldt Park
1.28
0.75
3.53
1.12
Logan Park/Recreation Center
1.25
0.84
3.44
1.24
Martin Luther King Jr. Park
1.23
0.76
3.38
1.20
Tawny Oaks/Singing Woods
1.22
0.76
3.54
1.21
Trewyn Park
1.2
0.71
3.32
1.25
Becker Park
1.15
0.60
3.29
1.17
Heart of Illinois Special Recreation Association
1.13
0.57
3.41
1.24
Tiers were identi ed based on statistically signi cant differences in means scores for each group. Eight facilities were rated statistically higher than other facilities in terms of perceived usage. These include the Peoria River Front (3.47), Grandview Drive (2.94), the Peoria Zoo


Page 20
(2.94), Glen Oak Park (2.92), the RiverPlex (2.74), Forest Park Nature Center (2.72), Bradley Park (2.65) and Detweiller Park (2.61).
In general, perceived usage data for parks and facilities were relatively consistent with actual usage data. However, there were some misperceptions between perceived usage and actual usage. First, note that the Riverfront was rated signi cantly higher than other facilities in the rst tier. This may be a result of misperceptions, where respondents perceived any visits to the Riverfront, regardless of the venue, as a Peoria Park District facility, even when events were not part of the Peoria Park District.
Additionally, golf courses, the Owens Center and Trewyn Park received lower perceived usage ratings relative to actual usage data. Conversely, Grand View Drive had higher perceived usage relative to actual usage data. Disconnects between perceived/actual usage may be due, in part, to issues involving brand identity, brand confusion and reputation.
Finally, note that some parks and facilities received lower usage ratings given geographic locations speci c to a particular neighborhood.
In terms of satisfaction ratings, facilities that have a higher rating of perceived usage tend to have higher satisfaction ratings. For the rst-tier facilities, satisfaction ratings average 4.07, indicating that respondents are satis ed with the facilities. Conversely, those facilities that rate in the fourth tier of usage have an average satisfaction rating of 3.41.
Demographic Factors Related to Perceived Top-Tier Usage. Several demographic characteristics show signi cant relationships with perceived usage. The following relationships were found using correlational analyses:
Peoria RiverFront has no signi cant correlations.
Grandview Drive tends be rated higher as people get older and by families with fewer children. Additionally, White people (mean score = 3.09) tend to rate Grandview Drive higher compared to Black people (mean score = 1.99).
Peoria Zoo tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 4.15) compared to men (mean score = 3.90). Additionally, the Peoria Zoo tends to be rated higher by families with more children and by those that are younger.
Glen Oak Park tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 3.08) compared to men (mean score = 2.71). Additionally, Black people tend to rate Glen Oak Park higher (mean score = 3.33) compared to White people (mean score = 2.84).
RiverPlex tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 2.99) compared to men (mean score = 2.52). Additionally, the RiverPlex tends to be rated higher by those that are younger. Finally, Black people tend to rate the RiverPlex higher (mean score = 3.38) compared to White people (mean score = 2.64).
2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


Page 21 Forest Park Nature Center tends to be rated higher by White people (mean score = 2.83)
compared to Black people (mean score = 1.73).
Bradley Park tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 2.78) compared to men (mean score = 2.53). Additionally, Bradley Park tends to be rated higher by those that are younger, those with lower incomes and families with more children. Finally, Black people (mean score = 3.39) tend to rate Bradley Park higher compared to White people (mean score = 2.52).
Detweiller Park tends to be rated lower by Black people.
Note that additional correlational analyses show that a respondent’s belief that the Peoria Park District is important to quality of life has virtually no relationship with perceived usage rating for most facilities. However, belief that Peoria Park District facilities are well maintained and safe are signi cantly related to most facilities.
5. Perceived Usage and Satisfaction of Peoria Park District Programs
The following section was designed to assess whether perceived usage of PPD programs was consistent with actual usage data. Additionally, satisfaction of programs was assessed. In all, there were 37 choices provided for survey respondents. Note that satisfaction of programs was only rated if a respondent rst indicated usage. Each question was rated using a 5-point Likert-type scale for both frequency of usage and overall satisfaction. Speci cally, for usage, respondents were asked how frequently each program was used, where 1 = “never use” and 5 = “frequently use.” For satisfaction, respondents were asked how satis ed they were when a program was used, where 1 = “not satis ed” and 5 = “very satis ed.”


Table 5.1. Peoria Park District Program Perceived Usage and Satisfaction
Page 22
Peoria Park District Program
Frequency of Use
Satisfaction with Program
Mean Score
Standard Deviation
Mean Score
Standard Deviation
First Tier Program Usage
Running/Walking
2.94
1.64
4.18
0.91
Special Events-Riverfront
2.82
1.47
4.06
0.95
Hiking
2.60
1.58
4.13
0.97
Nature Walks
2.51
1.51
4.19
0.90
Second Tier Program Usage
Concerts
2.19
1.40
3.99
0.90
Swimming
2.11
1.49
3.90
1.13
Fitness Classes
2.08
1.52
4.07
0.97
Bicycling/Safety
1.99
1.38
3.92
1.04
Special Events-Non-Riverfront
1.99
1.34
3.94
1.00
Third Tier Program Usage
Holiday programming
1.74
1.22
3.94
1.00
Ice Skating
1.74
1.25
3.81
1.14
Theater Productions
1.74
1.29
4.13
1.03
Personal/Sports Training
1.69
1.29
3.95
1.09
Fourth Tier Program Usage
Music/Dance Classes
1.55
1.17
3.83
1.19
Baseball
1.53
1.10
3.42
1.20
Basketball
1.52
1.15
3.77
1.05
Art Programs
1.51
0.99
3.76
1.06
Soccer
1.50
1.11
3.76
1.06
Yoga
1.49
1.07
3.75
1.13
Summer Camps
1.49
1.07
3.75
1.13
Historic Re-enactments
1.47
0.99
3.77
1.09
Fishing
1.45
1.03
3.48
1.20
Camping
1.43
1.01
3.66
1.21
Pickleball
1.43
1.16
3.17
1.37
Seniors 50+Programs
1.43
1.02
3.46
1.21
ELITE/Youth Outreach
1.42
1.12
3.87
1.30
Hockey
1.42
1.06
3.48
1.22
Disc Golf
1.38
0.94
3.72
1.09
Vagabond Tours
1.37
0.96
3.78
1.14
Craft Classes
1.37
0.84
3.70
1.03
2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


Page 23
Peoria Park District Programs continued
Frequency of Use
Satisfaction with Program
Mean Score
Standard Deviation
Mean Score
Standard Deviation
Fifth Tier Program Usage
Tennis
1.26
0.87
3.60
1.15
Scout Programming
1.24
0.78
3.39
1.26
Sand Volleyball
1.22
0.78
3.58
1.23
Footgolf
1.20
0.69
3.45
1.18
Volleyball
1.20
0.75
3.43
1.25
Cheerleading
1.16
0.66
3.38
1.22
Teams Course
1.11
0.56
3.33
1.24
Tiers were identi ed based on statistically signi cant differences in means scores for each group. At the highest tier, programs include running/walking (2.94), special events on the RiverFront (2.82), hiking, (2.60) and nature walks (2.51). The second tier of highly used programs includes concerts (2.19), swimming (2.11), tness classes (2.08), bicycling/safety (1.99) and special events not on the Riverfront (1.99).
In general, perceived usage data for parks/facilities were relatively consistent with actual usage data. However, there were some misperceptions. Speci cally, soccer and baseball programs received lower perceived usage ratings relative to actual usage data. Additionally, baseball and basketball were rated higher than soccer, even though actual usage data show that participation in soccer is higher than both baseball and basketball. This phenomenon may be the result of other service providers driving up participation numbers in basketball and baseball, despite the fact that they are not af liated with the Peoria Park District. Conversely, many Peoria Park District baseball teams play on elds owned by Peoria Public School District 150, thus potentially distorting respondents’ perceptions of what entity is responsible for the programming.
Note that some programs may have received lower usage ratings given they served niche markets.
In terms of satisfaction ratings, programs that have a higher rating of usage tend to have higher satisfaction ratings. For the rst-tier programs, satisfaction ratings average 4.14, indicating that respondents are satis ed with the programs. Conversely, those programs that are rated in fth tier of usage have an average satisfaction rating of 3.45.
Demographic Factors Related to Top-Tier Usage. Several demographic characteristics show signi cant relationships with usage. The following relationships were found using correlational analyses:


Page 24 Running/walking tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 3.13) compared to
men (mean score = 2.67).
Special events on the RiverFront has no signi cant correlations
Hiking tends to be rated lower by Black people. Nature walks tends to be rated lower by Black people.
Concerts tends to be rated lower by White people and also rated lower by families with more children.
Swimming tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 2.39) compared to men (mean score = 1.78). Additionally, swimming tends to be rated higher by those
that are younger, and families with more children. Finally, swimming is rated higher by Black people (mean score = 2.86) compared to White people (mean score = 1.96).
Fitness classes tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 2.46) compared to men (mean score = 1.68). Additionally, Black people (mean score = 2.74) tend to rate tness classes higher compared to White people (mean score = 2.01). This may be due, in part, to similar correlations found in ratings of the RiverPlex.
Bicycling/Safety tends to be rated higher by those that are younger, families with more children and Latino people.
Special Events not on the Riverfront tends to be rated higher by women (mean score = 2.14) compared to men (mean score = 1.79), by those that are younger, by families with more children, and by those with lower incomes. Additionally, Black people (mean score = 2.40) tend to rate special events not on the RiverFront higher when compared with White people (mean score = 1.87).
Note that additional correlational analyses show that a respondent’s belief that the Peoria Park District is important to quality of life has virtually no relationship with usage ratings for most programs. However, belief that Peoria Park District facilities are well maintained and safe are signi cantly related to most programs. This is similar to the relationships between general perceptions and Peoria Park District facilities.
2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


Page 25
6. Peoria Park District Descriptors
An open-ended question was used on the survey to ask respondents to describe the Peoria Park District in one word. The 25 most common answers were:


Page 26 Appendix A. Survey Tool
2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


Page 27


Page 28 2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


Page 29


Page 30 2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


Page 31


Page 32
2016 Peoria Park District Community Survey prepared by Dr. Laurence Weinzimmer


Click to View FlipBook Version
Previous Book
NDC Prospectus
Next Book
Shipfrombrazil.com_Custom Sportswear Catalog