|
ALUMNI SURVEY SUMMARY 1996, 2001,
2006
In 1996 the survey of alumni of community leadership programs was designed to gauge
knowledge of and interest in improving knowledge of the region, assessment of
the most important regional issues and interest in a variety of opportunities to
increase regional knowledge. The 1996 mail survey response rate was nearly
50%. The 2001 initiative was a web-based survey which experienced a 10%
response rate. The 2006 survey was web-based and was also printed in the 2006
Regional Report. It had a 3% response rate. Comparisons of the results are as follows:
Scale of 1 - 5 with 1 being low
|
Regional Knowledge |
1996 |
2001 |
2006 |
|
Knowledge of the region outside their area of residence |
3.20 |
3.23 |
3.29 |
|
Interest in improving NEO knowledge |
4.09 |
4.14 |
4.47 |
|
Critical issues for the region: |
1996 |
2001 |
2006 |
|
Education |
4.59 |
4.73 |
4.72 |
|
Economy |
4.45 |
4.55 |
4.64 |
|
Health Care |
4.16 |
4.32 |
4.56 |
|
Regional Competitiveness |
3.83 |
3.92 |
4.21 |
|
Public Safety |
3.95 |
4.01 |
4.14 |
|
Environment |
3.94 |
4.08 |
4.11 |
|
Infrastructure |
3.90 |
4.09 |
4.03 |
|
Global Competitiveness |
3.59 |
3.67 |
3.99 |
|
Population Shifts |
3.45 |
3.61 |
3.83 |
|
Transportation |
3.60 |
3.83 |
3.83 |
|
Tourism |
3.59 |
3.50 |
3.77 |
|
Entertainment |
3.18 |
3.24 |
3.58 |
|
Social Concerns |
3.87 |
4.02 |
3.55 |
|
Media |
3.18 |
3.31 |
3.48 |
|
Interest in possible activities: |
1996 |
2001 |
2006 |
|
Speakers on issues of regional interest |
3.79 |
3.89 |
3.80 |
|
Regional conference on issues of mutual concern |
3.96 |
4.03 |
3.73 |
|
Leadership skills programs for alumni |
3.55 |
3.68 |
3.73 |
| Regional Day for current class |
N/A |
N/A |
3.63 |
|
A Northeast Ohio Regional Leadership Program |
3.39 |
3.51 |
3.61 |
|
Regional information in alumni publications |
3.49 |
3.41 |
3.49 |
|
Projects for alumni on regional issues |
3.20 |
3.36 |
3.48 |
|
Informational programs with neighboring alumni |
3.49 |
3.43 |
3.42 |
|
Teleconferencing on issues of regional interest |
2.91 |
2.98 |
3.02 |
|
Social programs with neighboring alumni |
2.97 |
2.99 |
2.95 |
Longitudinal survey results indicate a continued and slightly stronger interest
in improving regional knowledge, that education, the economy and health care remain the top
three regional issues. In 2006 there was a significant increase in the
importance of regional competitiveness and a significant decrease in the
importance of social concerns. In the area of activities, speakers
on regional issues and regional conferences on issues of mutual concern remain
the top two activities though the level of interest is lower than in 2001.
Interest increased in leadership skills programs, a NEO Regional
Leadership Program, regional information in alumni publications, and projects
for alumni on regional issues. Social programs with neighboring programs
remained the activity with least interest.
Tabulation - November, 2002
PROGRAM IMPACT
SURVEY INITIATIVE
There were 210 responses to the
survey on the impact of community leadership programs (CLP's) on the region
representing 18 of the 20 programs in northeast Ohio. A summary of
completed results is included in the fall 2002 issue of the Regional Focus
newsletter.
| Akron |
13 |
| Ashland |
7 |
| Ashtabula Co. |
18 |
| Bridge Builders |
6 |
| Cleveland |
21 |
| Columbiana Co. |
0 |
| Euclid |
7 |
| Geauga |
9 |
| Huron Co. |
2 |
| Lake Co. |
15 |
| LEADSandusky |
10 |
| Lorain Co. |
13 |
| Mahoning Valley |
22 |
| Medina Co. |
18 |
| Portage Co. |
17 |
| SHAKER |
5 |
| Stark Co. |
13 |
| Stow/Munroe Falls |
0 |
| Unlimited (Richland) |
13 |
| Wooster |
1 |
| TOTAL |
210 |
YEARS SINCE GRADUATION
| <5 years |
>5 <10 years |
>10 years |
| 56% |
21% |
23% |
LEVEL OF ACTIVITY WITH CLP SINCE
GRADUATION
| None |
Minimal |
Moderate |
Significant |
| 9% |
31% |
38% |
22% |
IF LITTLE OR NONE, WHY?
| Busy with work |
Busy with community |
Busy with family |
Lack of resources or
Activities of no
interest |
Other- recent grad,
no activities offered, relocated |
| 34% |
24% |
20% |
4% each |
14% |
BENEFITS OF CONTINUED PROGRAM
ACTIVITY
| Benefit |
Rank |
| Relationships/contacts/access to info |
1 |
| Knowledge of issues/assets |
2 |
| Involvement in community activities |
3 |
| Helping the program/paying the program back |
4 |
| Training opportunities |
5 |
DID YOUR PROGRAM HELP YOU TO BE A
MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY LEADER
| Definitely yes |
Yes |
Neutral |
No |
| 53% |
40% |
6% |
1% |
PROGRAM RESULTS YOU EXPERIENCED
| More knowledgeable about community needs |
91% |
| More knowledgeable about community assets |
90% |
| Better connected to leaders in other fields |
85% |
| Better access to community information |
72% |
| Renewed enthusiasm for my community |
65% |
| More involved in community activities |
51% |
| Accepted more leadership in community |
41% |
| Attracted others to help my community work |
33% |
| Altered my priorities for giving time/money |
30% |
HOURS PER MONTH OF COMMUNITY SERVICE
| <10 |
10-20 |
20-40 |
>40 |
| 35% |
44% |
14% |
7% |
WHAT SHOULD CLP'S DO TO INCREASE
THEIR COMMUNITY EFFECTIVENESS?
| RESPONSE |
# |
| Increase visibility & identification; promote
CLP purpose; track & promote graduate effectiveness, involvement, impact |
27 |
| More diversity in issue perspectives and class
participants, e.g. labor/minority/emerging/grass roots/elected officials,
etc. |
21 |
| Collaborate/communicate/partner to build on
strengths & address weaknesses in community/region and avoid duplication |
19 |
| Convene meetings to educate public; develop
consensus; address important & tough issues (race/crime/utilities, safety
service, regionalism) |
19 |
| Alumni program that promotes continuous
communication and increased community involvement & leadership by grads |
18 |
| Publicize specific community needs/ways CLP
grads can help; board placement; match need & interest |
18 |
| Consider relevant class/alumni projects as an
energetic focus |
12 |
| Don't know/not sure they need to do more/doing
fine now |
8 |
| Involve alumni in maintaining high caliber
program participants, presenters and cutting-edge curriculum |
7 |
| Help develop & implement community
vision/strategic agenda |
6 |
| Encourage & support youth leadership programs |
4 |
| Offer affordable refresher courses/programs on
changing needs, goals, leaders |
4 |
| More leadership skills - media relations, policy
influence |
4 |
| Establish permanent funding source for program;
fundraising is time/energy consuming |
3 |
| Foster community networks based on trust not
status |
2 |
| Smaller taskforce focused sessions for large
programs |
1 |
DO YOU AGREE THAT EDUCATION AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REMAIN THE MOST CRITICAL ISSUES FACING THE REGION?
| YES |
NO |
| 87% |
13%
most had additions: political cleanup, waterfront development, citizen
apathy, aging population, health & human services, green space,
diversity, planning, visioning, regionalism |
WHAT ROLE(S) SHOULD CLP'S PLAY IN
ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES?
| Consensus Building |
| Community Education |
| Partnership
Promotion |
| Work to implement a
common vision |
| Establish a
strategic agenda |
GENDER
AGE
| <35 |
36-55 |
>55 |
| 10% |
65% |
25% |
HIGHEST EDUCATION LEVEL
| Some
high school |
High
school grad |
AD/
trade school |
Bachelor's |
Graduate
degree |
| 0.5% |
10% |
5% |
39% |
45% |
OCCUPATION SECTOR
| Public |
Private |
Non-profit |
Retired |
Volunteer |
| 29% |
38% |
27% |
3% |
2.5% |
EMAIL ADDRESS
76% provided their email address
|