Emmett/Gem County Community Review Report Summary

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Several additional sets of analyses were conducted to investigate possible differences in perceptions of community features as a function of differences in survey respondent characteristics. First, a set of analyses were conducted to assess whether young people, adults, and seniors in the greater Emmett area differed in their perceptions of quality of the 66 community features. This set of analyses seemed useful to evaluate whether the quality of community features was perceived differently by members of different age groups. Also, a set of analyses probed for quality perception differences between commuters and noncommuters. Another set of analyses investigated possible differences in quality perceptions between those greater Emmett-area residents who had lived in their community for periods of time longer and shorter than the respondent median. These two sets of analyses seemed particularly important given resident concerns raised during the Idaho Community Review process; several of the prominent concerns voiced regarded fears that the greater Emmett area was becoming a “bedroom community” whose residents may be more emotionally attached to other locations in the Treasure Valley than to Emmett, and that new residents in the greater Emmett area may not value the same things that longtime residents do. Finally, a set of analyses evaluated whether the perceived quality of community features differed between those respondents who reported living in Emmett and those who reported living in other areas of Gem County. As seen in Table 2, numerous statistically significant mean differences in quality ratings of the community features were found as a function of age category (youth, adults, and seniors); differences as a function of age category emerged on 36 of the 66 community features. Although there was some variation in the pattern of the differences across all community features, one pattern that seemed to emerge across many items was that adults aged 19-59 gave lower quality ratings to many community features than did seniors. The mean quality ratings for adults were lower (to a statistically significant degree) than those of seniors for many variables, including those for water supply and quality, recreation for adults and teenagers, and access to various types of medical care. Another fairly common pattern was for youth to give higher quality ratings than adults to a number of community features; the mean quality ratings for youth were higher (to a statistically significant degree) than adults to community features such as: community involvement, variety and quality of goods in stores, and the availability and quality of local jobs. The perception of the quality of some community features was also found to differ as a function of commuter status, as seen in Table 3. Statistically significant mean differences in quality ratings between commuters and non-commuters were found on 24 of the 66 community features (approximately 36% of the items). Interestingly, the differences in quality perceptions tended to center around conceptually-similar community features, and showed one real commonality—on all 24 community features where a statistically significant difference in mean quality ratings was found, commuters gave lower quality ratings than did non-commuters. This was true regarding ratings of recreational and learning opportunities, access to various types of medical care, community involvement, and the availability and quality of local jobs, among others. To assess possible differences in perceptions of community feature quality between longerand shorter-term residents, the length of community residence for all survey respondents was measured. Survey respondents who reported living in their Emmett or Gem County community for longer than the median reported length of 13.50 years were classified as 76
“longer-term residents” and respondents who reported living in their community for shorter than 13.50 years were classified as “shorter-term residents.” As seen in Table 4, some statistically significant mean differences (on 10 of the 66 community features) in quality ratings were found between these two groups. In every case, longer-term residents reported a perception of greater quality than shorter-term residents. This was true regarding ratings of community services such as fire protection, water quality, and sewage collection and disposal, as well as access to various types of medical care. The final set of analyses investigated possible differences in the perceived quality of community features between residents of Emmett and other residents of Gem County. As seen in Table 5, statistically significant mean differences were found on only two of the 66 community features. Respondents who reported being residents of Emmett, compared to respondents living in other areas of Gem County, gave higher quality ratings to ambulance service and the availability of emergency care. 77
Page 1 and 2:
Emmett/Gem County Community Review
Page 3 and 4:
Preface............................
Page 5 and 6:
News Articles .....................
Page 7 and 8:
Part Three, Community Surveys & Int
Page 9 and 10:
through increased collaboration and
Page 11 and 12:
Steering Committee Name Title Organ
Page 13 and 14:
unique design suggestions are compl
Page 15 and 16:
made it possible for more rapid exp
Page 17 and 18:
Executive Summary The Emmett/Gem Co
Page 19 and 20:
opportunities. The civic life team
Page 21 and 22:
Strategic Thoughts & Themes Valley
Page 23 and 24:
city officials and other organizati
Page 25 and 26: • Core Governing Values • Work
Page 27 and 28: community discussion to achieve thi
Page 29 and 30: developed and re-invigorate the sen
Page 31 and 32: anch out and empower groups who mig
Page 33 and 34: The link directs the user to a map
Page 35 and 36: o Developing a mindset of downtown
Page 37 and 38: Infrastructure Overall and in compa
Page 39 and 40: spend $12,022 per mile for total di
Page 41 and 42: communities in the region. The Land
Page 43 and 44: voice connectivity to Boise or othe
Page 45 and 46: “over the hill”) claimed they w
Page 47 and 48: Resources (4) Redevelop/re-use idle
Page 49 and 50: police and fire service, schools, t
Page 51 and 52: • Have programs been initiated to
Page 53 and 54: Comprehensive plan policies related
Page 55 and 56: (9) Other/Miscellaneous. The follow
Page 57 and 58: General community comments and conc
Page 59 and 60: Civic Life and Community Involvemen
Page 61 and 62: The Cherry Festival The Cherry Fest
Page 63 and 64: • The historic Frontier Theatre i
Page 65 and 66: • Conduct research on how other d
Page 67 and 68: understand this might be a challeng
Page 69 and 70: least, underestimated in terms of t
Page 71 and 72: Program (RSVP), or a mentoring prog
Page 73 and 74: Asset-Based Community Development I
Page 75: eported being African-American/Blac
Page 79 and 80: Item Table 1: Overall Mean Quality
Page 81 and 82: Rank Table 1a: Ranked Overall Mean
Page 83 and 84: Table 2: Mean Quality Ratings of Co
Page 89 and 90: Item Table 5: Mean Quality Ratings
Page 91 and 92: Table 7: Short-Term Challenges Faci
Page 93 and 94: Emmett Development, Retention, & Qu
Page 95 and 96: 14) Cost of Public Services: Arts &
Page 97 and 98: Appendix Advice, Assistance, & Avai
Page 99 and 100: 99 • National Civilian Community
Page 101 and 102: COMMUNITY MATRIX DIVERSIFICATION ST
Page 103 and 104: engineering or sales, but not all t
Page 105 and 106: Community Review Visiting Team Memb
Page 107 and 108: Administrator and has served in tha
Page 109 and 110: projects, and fundraising. Delta ha
Page 111 and 112: News Articles Community Assessment
Page 113 and 114: Brian Dale, of the US Dept. of Hous
Page 115 and 116: GEDA to Hold Joint Community Meetin
Page 117 and 118: Community Review Agenda May 20, 200
show all

Emmett/Gem County Community Review Report Summary

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?