City of Santa Clarita releases Public Opinion Survey results

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

Who knew the City of Santa Clarita had commissioned a public opinion survey of life in the Santa Clarita Valley?

I sure didn’t, but they just released the results of it and it’s a goldmine of data!

The poll was conducted via telephone and 408 residents of the City of Santa Clarita were interviewed. The poll was conducted from January 12th through January 24th with a 4.9% margin of error. It was conducted by a company called Meyer Marketing Intelligence, a Newhall based company, and the questions concerned a whole range of issues.

34% of the respodnents lived in Canyon Country, 26% in Valencia, 24% in Saugus and 15% in Newhall. The surveys ays this “closely mirrored the actual distribution of the population.”

I’m still reading through the 114 page report released today, but here’s some snippets I’ve pulled out:

Commuting & Employment:

52% of respondents work outside of Santa Clarita
And over half (53%) of those who work outside the City travel commute up to 30 miles to get to work. 27% travel 31-40 miles.
47% work in the “services industry” and 37% are in healthcare. The remainder are in education and entertainment
Only 25% are satisfied or extremely satisfied with the availability of local jobs. Those who were dissatisfied with local job prospects said they could not find jobs locally (34%)
As far as “Green Living” programs, residents said bike lanes were the second most important amenity to have behind recycling programs

Business and Shopping:

54% of respondents don’t shop outside the City of Santa Clarita. The 46% who do cite a variety of reasons for not ThinkingSCV, including “wider selection of stores, product selection, close to work, and convenience.”
The most frequently requested new stores/restaurants among the respondents were Cheesecake Factory (18%), Norstrom’s (13%) and Morton’s steakhouse
Respondents have modified their buying habits due to the economy. 69% shop less at stores and 66% eat out less
53% said their most recent vehicle purchase was in the SCV

Media:

47% get their local news through TV. Only 25% get news from The Signal. 26% from the Daily News and 15% from the Los Angeles times
40% get their local news on the Internet

People:

Santa Clarita is getting older. 52% of the respondents were between the ages of 35 & 54 years of age. In 2006, the last time a survey was run, 20% of respondents were ages 18-34. This time, only 7.8% of respondents were aged 18-34

A poll like this was last conducted in 2006.

The City’s email announcing the results of the poll says it reflects “high levels of resident satisfaction on big picture issues handled by the City. These issues included crime and public safety, graffiti removal, local air quality, cultural arts programs and events, open space addition, and traffic on major local roadways.”

The email points out that the top issues facing the city according to the respondents include “crime prevention and response, water quality/supply, air quality, traffic congestion and drug use by young people.”

City Council candidates (well the non-incumbents at least) and critics of City hall are sure to point out that this big survey (with the accompanying headlines about “high levels of resident satisfaction”) is being released just five weeks before the City Council election on April 13, 2010.

I’ve posted the entire survey below. Read through it and post your observations. I’ve barely scratched the surface (the last several pages have direct quotes from respondents).

2010 Public Opinion Survey Report_FINAL Feb 17 2010

Comments (22)

Timothy MyersMarch 3, 2010 at 11:51 am

On polling science: While this is actually a scientific poll the high margin of error and relatively low number of interviewees indicates it was done as cheaply as possible, so one wonders the usefulness of the data mined.

JeffMarch 3, 2010 at 11:54 am

I noticed that too, only 408 people interviewed. But in national polls, usually only 1000+ people are interveiwed. The statisticians then somehow extrapolate that to represent the 150+ million of us who vote. So couldn’t one argue that 408 people is representative of the population of the City? Indeed, 408 people is a big chunk of the typical few thousands who vote in a Council election, is it not? I’m just wondering if the population goes down, can you scale the number of respondents down as well?

mikeMarch 3, 2010 at 12:07 pm

I’m no statistician, but there’s reasons for that. At some point, the population size matters less. It isn’t proportional. 408 is really too small a sample to feel comfortable with. For example, to achieve the same margin or error at the same confidence level for the entire US, you would include only about one more person in the survey.

JeffMarch 3, 2010 at 12:15 pm

Well, I still think it’s valuable data. I’m not ready to discard it wholesale. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt since none of us are statisticians. I didn’t know they ran one of these in 2006. I’ll look through my archives and see if it was mentioned here. One really interesting note: in 2006, only 20% of respondents got local news from internet. Now it’s 40%.

mikeMarch 3, 2010 at 12:24 pm

But what I said is true. The sample size necessary to achieve a given level of accuracy is nearly identical with a population of 177,000 or 377,000,000. Polling always comes with a grain of salt, this one is just a bit larger than most. That said, this is much more reliable than anything else we have to go on locally, so this is a really interesting read.

IHeartSCVMarch 3, 2010 at 12:51 pm

I think the City took the right-ish approach here. When paying for a survey, you can only maximize one thing–say, precision or extent. You’re paying for the survey company’s time, and the company can use that time to ask a lot of questions to a few people (which happened here) or a few questions to a lot of people. I think getting a general idea about a lot of things like transportation, jobs, and media-use habits is more interesting than knowing very precisely the answer to just a couple of questions. Things will just be a mess when, as J-to-the-Wilson predicts, CC candidates use these statistics as “proof” of their assertions rather than as rough estimates.

Spineflower2March 3, 2010 at 1:10 pm

“54% of respondents don’t shop outside the City of Santa Clarita. The 46% who do cite a variety of reasons for not ThinkingSC V …” So you are saying that the purpose of Think SC V is to shop in the City ? I thought it was for the whole v alley? Another City lie laid bare…

Spineflower2March 3, 2010 at 1:12 pm

Gee, I don’t see illegal immigration on that list of “big picture issues handled by the City.” So why is it being made such an issue in this election?

Spineflower2March 3, 2010 at 1:13 pm

It’s not one of the “top issues facing the city”, either.

Spineflower2March 3, 2010 at 1:14 pm

And I second the idea that a pro-City poll getting released right before an election is pure incumbent poilitics. An YOU paid for it through your taxes!

CCMarch 3, 2010 at 1:58 pm

…I have a vague memory of answering a similar poll…hmmmm

JeffMarch 3, 2010 at 2:00 pm

In January CC? Lemme guess, you said we need a NASCAR track and more eligible single men?

Meyer Marketing IntelligenceMarch 3, 2010 at 2:13 pm

There are many interesting comments being posted regarding the City of Santa Clarita’s 2010 Public Opinion survey. Let me to explain why only 408 residents were surveyed and why this sample size is representative of residents within the City of Santa Clarita. In order to determine the appropriate number of interviews to be conducted, researchers determine the confidence level they want to obtain. The majority use a 95% confidence level, which the City’s survey uses. This means, researchers can be 95% certain of the results obtained and that they are representative of the larger population — in this case, residents of the City. Next, researchers consider the population size. With a population size of 177,150 as of Jan. 1, 2009 (according to California Department of Finance) and a 95% certainty or confidence level of the results, a total of 383 would need to be conducted in order to have a +/- 5% error rate. In this study, with a population of 177,150 along with a 95% confidence level and 408 surveys conducted, the error rate is dropped to +/- 4.85. While there is a mathematical formula used to calculate the necessary number of interviews, a linear relationship does not exist. Consequently, researchers typically use a 95% confidence level with a 5% error rate.

CCMarch 3, 2010 at 2:20 pm

Yeah Jeff, but that’s my answer to every poll.

ValMarch 3, 2010 at 3:18 pm

This is so disgusting! Once again, the city is using our tax dollars to campaign for the incumbents! This comes out just before the absentee ballots are about to be mailed to voters? I am so disgusted I can’t even describe my disgust with this city. Obviously, this was the brainchild of the stinky duo, Ken Pulskamp and Gail Ortiz.

Spineflower2March 3, 2010 at 4:40 pm

I do not fault MMI’s methodology. I was a math major, and just took a refresher course in statisics for my 6-sigma certification. I didn’t check their math, but the description is correct, and as is typical, a suprisingly small number of samples is needed for the 95% confidence level. The key is not the number of replies, but the reandomness of the polling. For example, phone polling can be biased since many younger people use cell phones exclusively. Also, the time of day or evening the calls are made can influence the results by excluding or favoring classes of people. That is more important than the numbers. What I DO fault is the City’s timing and use of public funds for clearly partisan political reasons!

AnnetteMarch 3, 2010 at 6:59 pm

Oh wait Val! Remember the Cross Valley Connector will be ready for a incumbent campaign debut just in time for the election too! Ralph Ralph, Barf Barf, Upchuck Upchuck, well you get the picture.

Sarah PoofMarch 3, 2010 at 8:10 pm

They’ve been so busy with buying lame surveys, cutting ribbons, and being sued on roadways! It’s no wonder they had to delay OVOV and 300% sewer fee increases until after the election! And the paper has been busy too! Reporting on “criminal” mail pieces that don’t exist and filling pages with hot air from Weste and her campaign manager all on one page. It’s no wonder they failed to do the hard math on crime stats and left out Gauney’s endorsement from the CRA. The fact that both Boydston and Gauney received more votes than the incumbents was a huge news story and a real slash through the gut of the local Republican Party. But everyone is so busy as they serve our public. Trust but verify. Right.

JakeMarch 4, 2010 at 9:59 am

Jeff, If you’re still wondering, you can probably fire off a quick email to Joe Gerda, the legendary (among students) stats teacher at COC. He’s a great person and would likely be happy to answer any of the questions raised via the polling method/results.

Berta González-HarperMarch 4, 2010 at 11:15 am

Spineflower2 says: March 3, 2010 at 1:12 pm Gee, I don’t see illegal immigration on that list of “big picture issues handled by the City.” So why is it being made such an issue in this election? Spineflower2 says: March 3, 2010 at 1:13 pm It’s not one of the “top issues facing the city”, either. Must be another “bot” posting under your pseudonym. Apology accepted @$$ h###.

mikeMarch 4, 2010 at 11:39 am

Berta, to split hairs, SPF2 was commenting that the issue does not come up in polling as a priority of the citizens of Santa Clarita, which should be telling. It explains the near-absence of local participants at the rally, too.

Phil HofMarch 5, 2010 at 10:06 am

Berta, please mind Jeff’s instruction to not engage in name-calling. Your use of punctuation symbols does not hide your true words as you intended us to read. You aren’t reading my words, or at least not comprehending them. I was citing the fact that the POLL did not reveal this as a local issue. I never said, much less “went on and on” about, what MY views are. No apology forthcoming, none required from me. But perhaps you might consider apologizing for your language AFTER Jeff’s admonition, and for your factually incorrect reading of my actual post. And for wishing me and my family harm from having released criminals next door to me. Certainly posting a wish for physical danger to me is a more serious offense than name-calling.

Timothy MyersMarch 3, 2010 at 11:51 am
On polling science: While this is actually a scientific poll the high margin of error and relatively low number of interviewees indicates it was done as cheaply as possible, so one wonders the usefulness of the data mined.
JeffMarch 3, 2010 at 11:54 am
I noticed that too, only 408 people interviewed. But in national polls, usually only 1000+ people are interveiwed. The statisticians then somehow extrapolate that to represent the 150+ million of us who vote. So couldn’t one argue that 408 people is representative of the population of the City? Indeed, 408 people is a big chunk of the typical few thousands who vote in a Council election, is it not? I’m just wondering if the population goes down, can you scale the number of respondents down as well?
mikeMarch 3, 2010 at 12:07 pm
I’m no statistician, but there’s reasons for that. At some point, the population size matters less. It isn’t proportional. 408 is really too small a sample to feel comfortable with. For example, to achieve the same margin or error at the same confidence level for the entire US, you would include only about one more person in the survey.
JeffMarch 3, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Well, I still think it’s valuable data. I’m not ready to discard it wholesale. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt since none of us are statisticians. I didn’t know they ran one of these in 2006. I’ll look through my archives and see if it was mentioned here. One really interesting note: in 2006, only 20% of respondents got local news from internet. Now it’s 40%.
mikeMarch 3, 2010 at 12:24 pm
But what I said is true. The sample size necessary to achieve a given level of accuracy is nearly identical with a population of 177,000 or 377,000,000. Polling always comes with a grain of salt, this one is just a bit larger than most. That said, this is much more reliable than anything else we have to go on locally, so this is a really interesting read.
IHeartSCVMarch 3, 2010 at 12:51 pm
I think the City took the right-ish approach here. When paying for a survey, you can only maximize one thing–say, precision or extent. You’re paying for the survey company’s time, and the company can use that time to ask a lot of questions to a few people (which happened here) or a few questions to a lot of people. I think getting a general idea about a lot of things like transportation, jobs, and media-use habits is more interesting than knowing very precisely the answer to just a couple of questions. Things will just be a mess when, as J-to-the-Wilson predicts, CC candidates use these statistics as “proof” of their assertions rather than as rough estimates.
Spineflower2March 3, 2010 at 1:10 pm
“54% of respondents don’t shop outside the City of Santa Clarita. The 46% who do cite a variety of reasons for not ThinkingSC V …” So you are saying that the purpose of Think SC V is to shop in the City ? I thought it was for the whole v alley? Another City lie laid bare…
Spineflower2March 3, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Gee, I don’t see illegal immigration on that list of “big picture issues handled by the City.” So why is it being made such an issue in this election?
Spineflower2March 3, 2010 at 1:13 pm
It’s not one of the “top issues facing the city”, either.
Spineflower2March 3, 2010 at 1:14 pm
And I second the idea that a pro-City poll getting released right before an election is pure incumbent poilitics. An YOU paid for it through your taxes!
CCMarch 3, 2010 at 1:58 pm
…I have a vague memory of answering a similar poll…hmmmm
JeffMarch 3, 2010 at 2:00 pm
In January CC? Lemme guess, you said we need a NASCAR track and more eligible single men?
Meyer Marketing IntelligenceMarch 3, 2010 at 2:13 pm
There are many interesting comments being posted regarding the City of Santa Clarita’s 2010 Public Opinion survey. Let me to explain why only 408 residents were surveyed and why this sample size is representative of residents within the City of Santa Clarita. In order to determine the appropriate number of interviews to be conducted, researchers determine the confidence level they want to obtain. The majority use a 95% confidence level, which the City’s survey uses. This means, researchers can be 95% certain of the results obtained and that they are representative of the larger population — in this case, residents of the City. Next, researchers consider the population size. With a population size of 177,150 as of Jan. 1, 2009 (according to California Department of Finance) and a 95% certainty or confidence level of the results, a total of 383 would need to be conducted in order to have a +/- 5% error rate. In this study, with a population of 177,150 along with a 95% confidence level and 408 surveys conducted, the error rate is dropped to +/- 4.85. While there is a mathematical formula used to calculate the necessary number of interviews, a linear relationship does not exist. Consequently, researchers typically use a 95% confidence level with a 5% error rate.
CCMarch 3, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Yeah Jeff, but that’s my answer to every poll.
ValMarch 3, 2010 at 3:18 pm
This is so disgusting! Once again, the city is using our tax dollars to campaign for the incumbents! This comes out just before the absentee ballots are about to be mailed to voters? I am so disgusted I can’t even describe my disgust with this city. Obviously, this was the brainchild of the stinky duo, Ken Pulskamp and Gail Ortiz.
Spineflower2March 3, 2010 at 4:40 pm
I do not fault MMI’s methodology. I was a math major, and just took a refresher course in statisics for my 6-sigma certification. I didn’t check their math, but the description is correct, and as is typical, a suprisingly small number of samples is needed for the 95% confidence level. The key is not the number of replies, but the reandomness of the polling. For example, phone polling can be biased since many younger people use cell phones exclusively. Also, the time of day or evening the calls are made can influence the results by excluding or favoring classes of people. That is more important than the numbers. What I DO fault is the City’s timing and use of public funds for clearly partisan political reasons!
AnnetteMarch 3, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Oh wait Val! Remember the Cross Valley Connector will be ready for a incumbent campaign debut just in time for the election too! Ralph Ralph, Barf Barf, Upchuck Upchuck, well you get the picture.
Sarah PoofMarch 3, 2010 at 8:10 pm
They’ve been so busy with buying lame surveys, cutting ribbons, and being sued on roadways! It’s no wonder they had to delay OVOV and 300% sewer fee increases until after the election! And the paper has been busy too! Reporting on “criminal” mail pieces that don’t exist and filling pages with hot air from Weste and her campaign manager all on one page. It’s no wonder they failed to do the hard math on crime stats and left out Gauney’s endorsement from the CRA. The fact that both Boydston and Gauney received more votes than the incumbents was a huge news story and a real slash through the gut of the local Republican Party. But everyone is so busy as they serve our public. Trust but verify. Right.
JakeMarch 4, 2010 at 9:59 am
Jeff, If you’re still wondering, you can probably fire off a quick email to Joe Gerda, the legendary (among students) stats teacher at COC. He’s a great person and would likely be happy to answer any of the questions raised via the polling method/results.
Berta González-HarperMarch 4, 2010 at 11:15 am
Spineflower2 says: March 3, 2010 at 1:12 pm Gee, I don’t see illegal immigration on that list of “big picture issues handled by the City.” So why is it being made such an issue in this election? Spineflower2 says: March 3, 2010 at 1:13 pm It’s not one of the “top issues facing the city”, either. Must be another “bot” posting under your pseudonym. Apology accepted @$$ h###.
mikeMarch 4, 2010 at 11:39 am
Berta, to split hairs, SPF2 was commenting that the issue does not come up in polling as a priority of the citizens of Santa Clarita, which should be telling. It explains the near-absence of local participants at the rally, too.
Phil HofMarch 5, 2010 at 10:06 am
Berta, please mind Jeff’s instruction to not engage in name-calling. Your use of punctuation symbols does not hide your true words as you intended us to read. You aren’t reading my words, or at least not comprehending them. I was citing the fact that the POLL did not reveal this as a local issue. I never said, much less “went on and on” about, what MY views are. No apology forthcoming, none required from me. But perhaps you might consider apologizing for your language AFTER Jeff’s admonition, and for your factually incorrect reading of my actual post. And for wishing me and my family harm from having released criminals next door to me. Certainly posting a wish for physical danger to me is a more serious offense than name-calling.