On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report

Transcription

1 On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report Prepared by The Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement (IPCE) The University of Illinois at Chicago for Blue Grass Community Foundation and The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation

2 Table of Contents Introduction... 3 Research Methodology... 3 The Conversations... 4 Who Responded?... 4 Demographics... 5 Civic Attitudes and Activities... 6 How Did the Conversations Go?... 9 Conversation Dynamics... 9 Issues Discussed Solutions Generated Social Media How Did Conversations Impact Respondents? Conversation Outcomes and Future Action Analysis Subgroup Comparisons Age Length of Residence Geography Problems-to-Causes Disparity Conclusion Appendices Appendix A: On the Table Lexington Survey Appendix B: Summary Visualization of Survey Responses Appendix C: Blue Grass Community Foundation s On the Table Lexington Outreach Strategy Appendix D: Lexington s Appeal Codebook Defined Appendix E: Issues Codebook Defined Appendix F: Social Media Analysis Appendix G: Visualization of Problems-to-Causes Disparity On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 2

3 On March 15, 2017, Lexingtonians came together in conversation to talk about issues big and small that impact Lexington and the quality of life in and around the city. This conversation-oriented initiative known as On the Table Lexington was an opportunity for friends, neighbors, colleagues, and even people who were meeting for the first time to gather around a shared meal and have a real dialogue about what is important to them with the intention of fueling real change. Blue Grass Community Foundation (BGCF) organized On the Table Lexington with support from The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Knight Foundation is bringing On the Table to 10 cities across the country in 2017: Lexington, KY (March 15); Philadelphia, PA (May 23); Long Beach, CA (September 23); Gary, IN (September 26); Akron, OH (October 3); Detroit, MI (October 4); Miami, FL (October 17); Charlotte, NC (October 25); Columbus, GA (November 7); and San Jose, CA (November 15). This On the Table replication project draws from the initiative that originated in Chicago in 2014 as part of The Chicago Community Trust s Centennial celebration. Since its inception and expansion into other cities, On the Table has been an occasion for residents of a city or region to convene and discuss local opportunities and challenges while focusing on strategies to make their communities safer, stronger, and more dynamic. All 10 cities have designated one day in 2017 to convene residents in mealtime conversations for discussions on how to make their city a better place to live and work. Following the conversations, participants will have the opportunity to take a survey about their On the Table experience. This survey features 28 questions that are standard across all 10 cities, plus up to five additional questions custom to each city. Cities will receive a report summarizing and analyzing survey data and will also receive a link to a data exploration tool. Community foundations can use insights from the data to inform strategic planning, and local decision-makers, organizations, and residents can use the data to collaborate around improving the quality of life in their cities. A national report incorporating data from all 10 cities and exploring correlations and comparisons in the full data set will be produced in early This year is BGCF s 50 th anniversary, and it celebrated this milestone by asking community members to come to the table to help further the Foundation s work. This first-of-its-kind civic engagement initiative in Lexington will also serve to inform Imagine Lexington, the city s Comprehensive Plan. With the participation of diverse voices from across Fayette County and beyond, On the Table Lexington was a critical opportunity to enhance Lexington s vision for its future to better reflect the perspectives and ideas of the people who live, work, and play in Lexington. Research Methodology Knight Foundation invited the University of Illinois at Chicago s (UIC) Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement (IPCE) to serve as the research partner for this On the Table initiative. We set out to gain a deeper understanding of the conversations through results gathered from a survey of On the Table Lexington participants. 1 This report presents the results of the survey and incorporates analyses to provide insight into the summary data. The data itself can be accessed and explored through The central questions guiding this research include: Who responded to the survey? How did the conversations go? How did the conversations impact respondents? Additionally, BGCF was interested in learning more specifically about respondents attitudes toward the Lexington community, such as pride 1 See Appendix A for the full survey. On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 3

4 in or for the community, interests around improving the community, level of satisfaction with the community, and barriers to community involvement. These research questions and learning objectives influenced the formatting of the survey, which included a total of 33 questions. We collected survey data using three methods: a public web link to the Qualtrics survey, an ed unique link to the Qualtrics survey, and distributed print surveys, upon request. To accommodate non- English speakers, the survey was translated into Spanish and French. The collection of survey data began the morning of the On the Table Lexington conversations (March 15) when the public web link opened. On the same day and immediately following conversations, print surveys were made available to participants. Following the conversations, 2,248 participants received an invitation to take the survey. 2 Surveys were collected through April 7. The respondent population discussed in this report is a self-selected sample of participants who partially or fully completed the survey. 3 All three survey sources yielded a total of 1,464 responses (1,102 through the ed unique link, 254 through the web link, and 108 through the print survey). 4 Because this group constitutes a non-random sample of total participants, conclusions cannot be scientifically generalized beyond the respondent group. Even with that caveat, however, the data and analysis provide useful insight into the opinions, habits, and backgrounds of a number of engaged Lexington residents. THE CONVERSATIONS Who Responded? Given that the perspectives, ideas, and experiences of over 1,400 respondents inform this report, it is worth exploring what we know about who responded to the survey. This section summarizes data about respondent demographics such as gender, level of educational attainment, race and/or ethnicity, age, geography, length of residence, and homeownership status; it also presents information about respondents civic attitudes and engagement behaviors. Additionally, it incorporates Fayette County comparison data and national comparison data, where available. 5 2 We had contact information ( address) only for those who provided it through the registration process. Registration was not required for participation, and those who did not register were able to access the survey through the public web link shared by BGCF or through print surveys. In total, we sent a survey to 2,248 unique and valid addresses, correcting for duplicates and inaccurate addresses. 3 See Appendix B for a summary report featuring visualizations of responses for all survey questions. 4 In general, response rates are calculated by the number of surveys completed divided by the number of individuals asked to participate in the survey. In this case, some of the surveys came from people with whom we may not have had contact, such as paper or web link surveys that could not be matched with an address in the registrant database. Thus, calculating a response rate would be as follows: ((Total Respondents Resp. w/no matched contact info)/total Registrants)) Response Rate (Total Respondents/ Registrants) This would result in a response rate no less than 54% and no higher than 65%. The calculation of response rate is typically a precise measure in survey research based on knowing the universe of potential respondents who had equal opportunity to complete a survey. We do not know the full universe of On the Table Lexington participants, and for this reason, we caution against drawing conclusions based on this response rate. 5 When comparing On the Table Lexington data to Fayette County resident data, only those respondents who live in Fayette County (and not the full data set) are compared to the representative data. On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 4

5 Without having survey data for everyone who participated in the On the Table Lexington initiative, we are unable to explain differences (if any) 6 between our respondent group and regional and national comparison groups. While we have survey data for respondents, this data should not be assumed to fully reflect participation in the On the Table Lexington initiative. It is important to note that this study did not incorporate a random sample but instead represents a subset of On the Table Lexington participants itself a subset of the Lexington population who self-selected to respond to the survey. We have included BGCF s outreach strategy for broad representation in Appendix C. Demographics The gender of respondents tilted heavily female (68%), as less than one-third (32%) of respondents identified as male (see Figure B.1). Respondents reported high levels of educational attainment (see Figure B.2). Both respondent data and Fayette County data reflect highest degree obtained. Nearly onehalf (44%) of respondents have earned a graduate degree, and 38% have earned a bachelor s degree. When compared to Fayette County at large, there was overrepresentation of respondents living in Fayette County who are in possession of a bachelor s degree or higher. 7 Whereas 18% of all Fayette County residents have a graduate degree, 46% of respondents living in Fayette County have earned the same. Likewise, whereas 24% of all Fayette County residents have a bachelor s degree, 38% of respondents living in Fayette County have earned the same. 8 Eighty-five percent of respondents identified as White, while 7% identified as Black or African American and 3% identified as Hispanic or Latino/a (see Figure B.3). There was overrepresentation of White respondents who live in Fayette County and underrepresentation of Black or African American respondents and Hispanic or Latino/a respondents who live in Fayette County, compared to the county as a whole. Eighty-six percent of the respondent pool living in Fayette County identified as White, which is considerably more than the 76% of all Fayette County residents who identify as White. Furthermore, while 7% of respondents living in Fayette County identified as Black or African American, 14% of all Fayette County residents identify as Black or African American. Likewise, while 3% of respondents living in Fayette County identified as Hispanic or Latino/a, 6% of all Fayette county residents identify as Hispanic or Latino/a. 9 Small percentages of respondents identified themselves as Multiracial (2%), Other (1%), or Asian (1%). 10 The largest age group was made up of respondents aged 60 years and up, with 30% of respondents having reported an age in this range (see Figure B.4). Respondents who make up this oldest age group 6 For example, the respondent group contains 68% female and 32% male. While it is possible that this accurately reflects participant make-up, it is also possible that the participant breakdown was closer to 50/50, but females responded to the survey at disproportionately higher rates. Without having data for all participants, we cannot know if the rate at which certain groups participated was proportional or disproportional. 7 For the education variable, in addition to including only those respondents who live in Fayette County when comparing to representative data, only those 25 years of age or older are included as well (as opposed to the full data set). 8 U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S1501; generated using American FactFinder; < (17 May 2017). 9 U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey 5-year estimates, Voting Age Population by Citizenship and Race (CVAP), published 02/01/2017. < 10 Unlike census data, the On the Table Lexington race variable features an Other response option. Because of this, the On the Table Lexington race percentages are very modestly lower than they would be if the Other was not a featured category. On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 5

6 and live in Fayette County were overrepresented. Whereas 30% of respondents who live in Fayette County were aged 60 years and up, only 21% of all Fayette County residents are aged 60 years and up. Twelve percent of respondents fell within the year-old age range, making the youngest respondent group also the smallest age group. The youngest respondents who live in Fayette County were underrepresented. While 12% of respondents who live in Fayette County were years old, 28% of all Fayette County residents make up this age group. The percentages of respondents in their 30s, 40s, and 50s who live in Fayette County were nearly, if not entirely, representative of county data. 11 Nearly all respondents (92%) indicated that they currently live in Lexington (see Figure B.5). The top zip codes for respondent participation include (20%), (13%), (9%), (8%), and (8%) (see Figure B.6). A large proportion (39%) of respondents were long-term residents who have lived in their local community for 20 or more years. At 24%, newcomers, or those who have lived in their local community for 0-4 years, featured the next greatest number of respondents (see Figure B.8). There was some overrepresentation of long-term resident respondents living in Fayette County compared to the U.S. population. While 39% of respondents have resided in their local community in Fayette County for 20 or more years, 32% of people nationally have done the same. Additionally, there was some very slight underrepresentation of newcomer resident respondents living in Fayette County compared to the county as a whole, where 25% of respondents have resided in their local community in Fayette County for 0-4 years, while 28% of people nationally have done the same. 12 Regarding homeownership status, 76% of respondents indicated that they own their primary residence and 22% indicated that they rent (see Figure B.9). Compared to the county as a whole, respondent homeowners were an overrepresented group while respondent renters were an underrepresented group. 13 Whereas 77% of respondents living in Fayette County reported owning their primary residence, 54% of all Fayette County residents are homeowners. And whereas 22% of respondents living in Fayette County reported renting their primary residence, 46% of all Fayette County residents are renters. 14 While a number of respondents reported a variety of previous interactions between themselves and BGCF, a plurality said they had no relationship to the Foundation (see Figure B.10). Forty-one percent of respondents had not heard of BGCF prior to participating in an On the Table Lexington conversation. However, many respondents had actively participated with BGCF in the past: 36% have attended one of BGCF s events, 13% have received grant funds from the Foundation, 8% are funders, 6% have volunteered with them, and 1% work there. Fifteen percent indicated some other relationship to BGCF, with the top three Other responses being that the respondent heard of them, is a collaborator or partner, or is a Board member. Civic Attitudes and Activities Respondents reported largely positive attitudes toward their local community and their own potential for influencing change. With regard to how much impact respondents think people like themselves can have in making their community a better place to live, 45% indicated that they believe they can have a 11 U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table S0101; generated using American FactFinder; < (17 May 2017). 12 Pew Research Center, December, 2008, American Mobility. Who Moves? Who Stays Put? Where's Home? 13 Just like the race variable, the On the Table Lexington homeownership variable also features an Other response option (unlike in the Census data), which has slight implications for the On the Table Lexington homeownership percentages showing lower than they otherwise would. 14 U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Table DP04; generated using American FactFinder; < (17 May 2017). On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 6

7 big impact and 38% said they believe they can have a moderate impact (see Figure B.11). The percentage of respondents who think they can have a moderate impact on their community is on par with national data, where 37% of people in the United States believe they have this level of efficacy. The 45% of respondents who think they can have a big impact is higher than the national percentage of 32%. Respondents also reported high levels of attachment to their local community (see Figure B.12). Over one-half (56%) reported being very attached, which is much higher than the 19% of people in the U.S. who say they are very attached, and 37% of respondents said they are somewhat attached, which is lower than the 48% of people at the national level. Finally, respondents positively rated the livability of their communities (see Figure B.13). Nearly one-half (48%) of respondents rated their community as an excellent place to live, while only 29% of people in the U.S. do the same. Similarly, nearly one-half (49%) of respondents rated their community as a good place to live, which is only slightly lower than the 55% nationally who rate their community this way. 15 When asked what they find most appealing about Lexington, 44% of respondents said the people and local attitudes (see Figure B.14). 16 Respondents most frequently described the people and the community in Lexington as friendly and welcoming and were likely to attribute positive characteristics to their fellow residents and the community as a whole. According to one respondent, nice, caring, outgoing, generous individuals make up the majority of Lexington. Other respondents said, Our community is fresh, young, old, beautiful, engaging, kind and progressive! and described Lexington as a city of people with big ideas and a proactive community focused on actions. Respondents believe the community truly cares about the residents and are enthusiastic about the sense of community they feel in Lexington. The size of the city is the next most appealing aspect of Lexington, according to 37% of respondents. Respondents frequently mentioned the balance between its big city atmosphere and its small town feel. Many commented on its opportunities and amenities, suggesting that its big enough to meet your needs, [while still] small enough to give that hometown feel. According to one respondent, Lexington is a big small town. [It has] great restaurants, entertainment, art and activities[,] while still maintain[ing] that small town feel and quaintness. Another respondent described Lexington as a small town that has grown up. Some respondents also like that Lexington is a university town, where education and cultural offerings contribute to a liberal atmosphere that welcomes diversity. Just over a quarter of respondents (26%) find the natural features and rural environment surrounding Lexington to be the most appealing aspect of the area. Respondents were likely to comment on the signature rural landscape and the beautiful setting of rolling hills and farms that make up the unique bluegrass landscape. Because of this rural beauty, respondents believe Lexington is not like any other city. Many were appreciative of the easy access to green space that is in close proximity to downtown. I can drive 10 miles in any direction and be in green space, said one respondent. Another respondent expressed his/her gratitude for Lexington s relationship to the surrounding land and commitment to preservation through the urban service boundary. One respondent even posed the question, Without the horse farms, where would our city be? Twenty-two percent of respondents indicated that arts and culture is an appealing aspect of Lexington. Respondents said that there is a vibrant and thriving arts community that is very active in Lexington. 15 Pew Research Center, November, 2016, Civic Engagement Strongly Tied to Local News Habits. 16 More detail on this theme and the other themes that emerged within this variable can be found in Appendix D, which describes the themes that make up the codebook for Lexington s Appeal. On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 7

8 They also appreciate the culture that is fostered and the history and traditions that are so unique and make Lexington one of a kind. When respondents were asked to identify the social issues that are most important to them (see Figure B.15), 42% said education and youth development, 32% said economic issues and poverty, 30% said housing and homelessness, 28% said environment and parks, and 27% said equity and social inclusion. Following this, using the same set of issue areas, respondents were asked to identify the social issues to which they primarily contribute their time, talent, and/or financial resources (see Figure B.16). Thirtyfive percent of respondents indicated they contribute to education and youth development, 31% indicated arts and culture, 27% indicated family, 23% indicated religion and morals, and 20% indicated environment and parks. 17 Respondents also indicated their top priorities for improving Lexington (see Figure B.17). These priorities come from the Lexington-Fayette County 2007 and 2013 Comprehensive Plans. According to 45% of respondents, strengthening infrastructure so that it better serves all modes of transportation is a top priority. Additionally, 43% of respondents want to promote infill and redevelopment in underperforming areas, and 41% of respondents want to encourage diverse business and employment opportunities. Respondents reported high levels of engagement across all measures. One quarter (25%) of respondents said they were very involved in community and neighborhood activities (see Figure B.18), whereas only 11% of people nationally indicated this level of involvement. An even larger number of respondents (46%) said they are somewhat involved, which is still a bit higher than the 39% of people at the national level. 18 In terms of how they engaged with their community over the past year (see Figure B.19), respondents were most likely to donate, with 82% saying that they donated more than $25 to a charitable organization within the past year. And while 83% of respondents living in Fayette County reported donating this past year, only 48% of all Fayette county residents did the same. Similarly, 74% of respondents volunteered in the past year. When compared to Fayette County as a whole, the percentage of respondents who reported volunteering is triple that of the county rate. While 75% of respondents living in Fayette County said they volunteered, only 24% of the county as a whole reported the same. Respondents also reported attending a public meeting about community affairs, with 64% of all respondents indicating this level of engagement. This is much higher than the county comparison group, where only 14% have attended a public meeting this past year, compared to 65% of respondents living in Fayette County. Finally, 38% of respondents have worked with people in their neighborhood to fix or improve something. The 38% of respondents living in Fayette County who have worked with others to fix something is over double that of the 16% of Fayette County residents who do the same. 19 When it comes to voting in local elections, 79% of respondents reported that they always vote (see Figure B.20). 17 We used our issues codebook (see Appendix E) to populate the response options for these two questions highlighting concerns and contributions. 18 Pew Research Center, December, 2008, American Mobility. Who Moves? Who Stays Put? Where's Home? 19 United States Department of Commerce. Bureau of Census, United States Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Corporation for National and Community Service. Current Population Survey, September 2015: Volunteer Supplement. ICPSR36411-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 8

9 While 48% of respondents consider themselves actively involved in the issues they care about most, a number of respondents find themselves prevented from engaging in the community (see Figure B.21). Thirty-seven percent of respondents reported being too busy and not having enough time, and 27% said they are unsure of how to get involved. Only 9% of respondents believe that their efforts will not make a difference, which further indicates that respondents are confident in their own self-efficacy. Respondents reported connecting with others in a variety of places (see Figure B.22). Nearly one-half (49%) said they connect with others at religious institutions, and 43% identified parks as a primary site of connection. One-third of respondents indicated a place other than those provided in the response options, with the top three Other responses including community events and meetings (10.1%), restaurants (9.2%), and community service activities (3.9%). Just under one-third of respondents (32%) indicated they connect with others at schools, and 30% said they connect in public squares. Respondents also reported the frequency with which they get information about their local community from common online and offline sources sources (see Figure B.23). Over two-thirds (67%) of respondents receive information about their local community from word of mouth several times a week to every day, which is over double the percentage of people who rely on word of mouth nationally (31%). Over one-half (56%) of respondents rely on social networking sites several times a week to every day to consume information about their local community, which is five times the percentage at which people nationally use social media sites to get local information (11%). With regards to local radio, 54% of respondents tune in for information about their local community several times a week to every day, while 35% of people nationally listen to the radio for news. Similarly, with regard to local newspapers, 51% of respondents consult a newspaper for information about their community several times a week to every day, while 28% of people nationally do the same. The proportion of respondents and the proportion of the U.S. population who watch local television news several times a week to every day is nearly equivalent, with 50% of respondents and 51% of people nationally watching the news on television. Respondents are gathering information from newsletters or listservs less frequently than the previously mentioned sources, with 31% doing so several times a month; this is nearly three times the percentage of people who rely on a newsletter or listserv nationally (10%). Finally, 51% of respondents never read blogs for information about their local community, which is less than the national percentage of 70%. 20 How Did the Conversations Go? An essential aspect of this research is exploring the conversations themselves. This section groups data on how and why respondents were drawn to the conversations, where the conversations took place, and the relative familiarity or unfamiliarity with the other participants in the conversation. It also uncovers the range of issues respondents raised in conversation, and it describes solutions or next steps that respondents reported were generated from their conversations. Finally, it discusses content shared about On the Table Lexington on social media. Conversation Dynamics Respondents largely heard about On the Table Lexington through an invitation they received (53%). Community or nonprofit organizations also played a role in spreading the word, as 34% of respondents heard about the conversation through these sources. Word of mouth was another important factor, as 32% of respondents learned about the initiative through another person (see Figure B.24). As for why 20 Pew Research Center, November, 2016, Civic Engagement Strongly Tied to Local News Habits. On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 9

10 respondents participated in the conversations, 74% wanted to discuss and address important issues in their community, 51% wanted to learn from and listen to others, and 40% wanted to get more involved in their community (see Figure B.25). Almost all (99%) of the conversations took place in Lexington (see Figure B.26). Within Lexington, the largest proportion of conversations (18%) took place Downtown (see Figure B.27). In terms of who made up the other people at the conversations, 38% of respondents reported that they were mostly people the respondents knew before the conversation; 32% reported that they were mostly people the respondents did not know before the conversation; and 30% said they were an equal mix of both (see Figure B.28). Issues Discussed On the Table is an opportunity for participants to raise and discuss issues that impact the quality of life in and around Lexington. The issues that emerged help identify respondents priorities and concerns and where they would like to see their communities headed. A great majority of respondents (86%) reported raising an issue of concern in their conversation. According to the issue areas we developed, transportation ranked first as the most talked about issue in On the Table Lexington, with 35% reporting having raised it (see Figure B.29). When respondents mentioned transportation, they were primarily discussing traffic congestion; inadequate public transportation and the need to improve service and make it better; a lack of parking downtown; and creating a more pedestrian- and bike-friendly city. Economic issues and poverty was another prominent issue raised by 28% of respondents. Though this theme encompasses a variety of topics, development was top of mind, especially in terms of creating a revitalized downtown. Respondents mentioned the lack of downtown development and the need for more infill and greater density as opposed to sprawl; many were concerned that as development expands, greenspace is lost. Some were concerned about development projects that have abruptly ended, including the Centrepointe project downtown. They also expressed concern over growing income disparity, panhandling downtown, and the need to attract and grow jobs, especially for youth, veterans, and the previously incarcerated. Just over one-quarter of respondents (26%) raised issues related to equity and social inclusion, with many describing a divided, segregated city where there needs to be more connection between, interaction with, and inclusion of diverse populations and cultures. According to a number of respondents, there are racial, income, educational, and housing inequalities in Lexington, and gentrification is increasingly becoming an issue. Respondents also widely discussed youth development within the context of equity and social inclusion, indicating a lack of programming, opportunities, and attractions for this age group. While the theme managing growth is ranked seventh, it is worth highlighting because of its emergence in the open response data for issues raised in conversations. Managing growth is a new theme specific to Lexington that we added to our issues codebook because of the frequency with which respondents raised concerns related to growth. Eighteen percent of respondents mentioned an issue associated with Managing growth, which primarily includes concerns around expanding the Urban Service Boundary and the impact that would have on the rural landscape. Many respondents want to see the Boundary preserved and are interested in promoting infill and density in order to protect greenspace. There is a On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 10

11 sense that over-development is occurring in Lexington, and many are resistant to sprawl and outward growth. Solutions Generated On the Table Lexington is rooted in the idea that dialogue can spur new ideas for action. In addition to the discussion and dissection of issues in conversations, over one-half of respondents (55%) said their conversation/s generated a specific solution. Additionally, just over 700 respondents submitted one or multiple ideas for how to solve specific community problems. While it is not feasible to report on each one, we randomly selected 10 solutions to share for illustrative purposes only. 21 These demonstrate the range respondents put forward from high-level and complex ideas to simple actions that could save a life. Solutions submitted via the On the Table Lexington survey are available for viewing in the data exploration tool ( 22 Just as we did with the issues respondents reported raising in conversation, we coded the substantive solutions that they submitted using our issues codebook. Several of the randomly selected solutions correspond with the top issues that respondents reported discussing. For example, there are a couple solutions addressing issues with transportation. One solution focuses on making transportation more accessible to those in subdivisions outside of New Circle Road. That proposal calls for altering the public transit routes by spreading them out into a series of circles (i.e., beginning with the smallest in the center of the city proper and the largest routes extending beyond New Circle Road INTO subdivisions ). Another solution suggested that new drivers be taught to open their car door with their right hand so that they look over their shoulder before opening the door. A solution emerged related to economic issues and poverty. One respondent indicated that traditionally underserved, poorer neighborhoods should be consulted regarding their needs, rather than those who serve in positions of assistance designating a program they think will help the disadvantaged. Additionally, a few solutions address issues related to equity and social inclusion and find overlap with public safety and the judicial system. One respondent wants to see public officials regularly and forcefully denounce hate crimes and encourage more tolerance and appreciation of diversity. Another wants to create greater opportunity for teenagers living in problem-prone neighborhoods to engage with community by sharing their voice and participating in councils. A third solution seeks to address the problem of violence and drug use among youth by giving them somewhere to go and something to do. For example, youth should have access to community centers offering after-school and weekend activities that will allow them to participate in activities that build on life skills and positive interaction. Other solutions include providing financial support for a history museum in the old courthouse renovation; establishing a creative and artistic community hub in downtown Lexington where people can meet, engage, and socialize; creating newsletters in order to disseminate information regarding activities and events throughout the community; and placing suggestion boxes throughout the city and following through with the suggestions provided. 21 The mention of a specific solution does not indicate an endorsement from IPCE or BGCF. Furthermore, BGCF should not be assumed to take responsibility for a solution mentioned in this report. We randomly selected the 10 ideas referenced above in order to show the types of solutions that respondents proposed. 22 The responses within the data exploration tool have been scrubbed of all identifiers. On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 11

12 Social Media Social media provided an opportunity to deepen engagement efforts with On the Table Lexington and expand participation in the initiative. BGCF launched its social media campaign in January 2017 as a method of promoting On the Table Lexington and creating a virtual space where conversations could begin or continue. The campaign served as a useful tool in capturing live content from conversations as they occurred and providing opportunities for online engagement by those who were not able to participate in physical conversations. We used the social-media-monitoring platform Meltwater Buzz to analyze social media activity and understand the influence of this initiative in the digital realm. 23 We tracked three BGCF-designated hashtags in our analysis: #OnTheTableLex, #ImagineLexington, and #OTTLexYouth. On the Table Lexington featured hundreds of conversations on social media, with 873 total public mentions across the three hashtags; these mentions were amplified, generating 1.31 million total impressions. The hashtag #OnTheTableLex featured the most mentions at 832, followed by #ImagineLexington at 97, and #OTTLexYouth at 31. The month of March saw the highest number of mentions, which not surprisingly, peaked on the day of the On the Table Lexington initiative. Social media captured the enthusiasm surrounding the initiative through an array of posts and picturesharing on various platforms, including Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook; of these, Twitter was the most popular medium used throughout the social media campaign, with 698 total mentions. Additionally, Twitter saw 237 unique influencers. When it comes to breaking down the levels of engagement, 60.6% were original tweets, 26.5% were retweets, and 12.9% tweets. Furthermore, at 73.3%, the majority of these tweets featured links; however, only 6.5% of tweets contained any media. In terms of tweeters platforms, 39% used a mobile device, 25% used a desktop, and 36% are unknown. Social connections went beyond advertising the initiative and spreading the word. Many offered commentary on what social media users were thinking about in the context of On the Table Lexington or what they had discussed in conversations. Some comments from social media users include: These conversations make me want to get involved ; Current topic: offering students real-life support in the school system and the lack of grief counseling in schools ; Met great folks, discussed our great city, and planned to make it even better ; "No matter where you're from, you're welcome here"; "Every community should have modernized recreational opportunities for engaging community ; Improving health outcomes. We need to look towards those communities who are leading the way. How Did Conversations Impact Respondents? Considering the short-term impact On the Table Lexington conversations had on respondents demonstrates the significance and value of these types of civic conversations. This section brings together data regarding the outcomes of the conversations, including new connections forged and an understanding of how to address community issues. Additionally, it reports the likelihood of a respondent taking action following their conversation and the actions that respondents are most likely to take. Conversation Outcomes and Future Action The majority (62%) of respondents reported connecting with others at their conversation by speaking with one or more attendees whom they did not already know before and/or after the conversation. One-quarter (25%) of respondents exchanged contact information with one or more attendees they did 23 See Appendix F for a visual summary of key findings from the social media analysis. On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 12

13 not already know, and 16% of respondents made specific plans to work with one or more attendees. Out of these three methods of connecting with others, 26% of respondents reported taking part in none of them (see Figure B.30). Over one-half (54%) of respondents indicated they have a somewhat-to-much-better understanding of how they, personally, can help address the issues facing their communities (see Figure B.31). At 82%, an even greater number are somewhat-to-very likely to take specific actions or next steps regarding an issue or solution discussed (see Figure B.32). Of the actions or next steps respondents are likely to take, 65% are interested in building relationships and collaborating as well as raising awareness and educating others. Sixty percent intend to get more involved in community and 52% want to volunteer (see Figure B.33). ANALYSIS We conducted a set of analyses that go beyond the original guiding questions of this study. These analyses help deepen understanding of the survey response summary data and are useful in identifying areas of opportunity for further investigation or action. These additional analyses include an exploration of subgroup comparisons for groups such as age, length of residence, and geography, and include disparities between the social issues respondents report are most important to them and the social issues to which they contribute their time, talent, and/or financial resources. Subgroup Comparisons Given the exploratory nature of this research, it is useful to provide an analysis comparing subgroups in order to uncover patterns of similarity or difference that may exist. New or important questions may arise from these subgroup comparisons. The subgroups analyzed here include age, length of residence, and geography compared against other variables. The starkest differences are highlighted in this section. While there is a range of subgroup comparisons that we could have performed, the subgroup comparisons presented below are based on priorities identified by BGCF. Age Within age, respondents are divided into two age groups: the under 40 group (made up of respondents who are years old) and the 40 and up group (made up of respondents who are 40 years old or older). 24 There exists a strong relationship between respondent age and length of residence, as might be expected. Respondents in the younger age group (18-39 years old) are four times more likely to have lived in Lexington for only a few years, as opposed to those who fall within the older age range (40 years old and up). Nearly one-half (48%) of respondents under 40 years old have lived in Lexington from 0-4 years, compared to only 12% of respondents 40 years of age and older. Those in the older age range report a much longer length of residence in Lexington. Compared to the 10% of respondents in the younger age group who have lived in Lexington for 20 or more years, over five times as many respondents in the 40 and older age group (54%) report having lived in Lexington for this length of time. Respondents aged 40 years and older are more attached to their community and tend to more highly rate their community than respondents who are years old. In the 40 years and older group, 60% 24 For the under 40 group, n=462 (34%). For the 40 years old and up group, n=890 (66%). On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 13

14 of respondents are very attached to their local community, compared to 48% for the under 40 age group. Similarly, 53% of respondents in the 40 years and older group rate their communities as an excellent place to live, compared to 37% of respondents under 40. In terms of what they find most appealing about Lexington, respondents in the under 40 age group mentioned entertainment and dining at a notably higher rate than their older counterparts, and respondents 40 years old and up mentioned natural features and the rural environment at a higher rate than their younger counterparts. Nearly one-quarter (24%) of respondents aged years old shared an entertainment or dining option when describing what they find most appealing about Lexington, while only 15% of respondents aged 40 and up did the same. For the 40 and up age group, 29% mentioned a topic related to the natural features and rural environment of Lexington, while 21% of year olds did the same. Respondents priorities for how to improve Lexington differ between age groups as well. The under 40 age group is more likely to prioritize the strategy of encourag[ing] diverse business and employment opportunities, with 50% of respondents in this younger cohort indicating their preference for this strategy and only 36% of respondents in the older cohort doing the same. With regard to what respondents 40 years old and up prioritize, they prefer to support the agriculture industry and protect the rural landscape. Over one-third of respondents (37%) 40 years old and higher listed this as a top priority, compared to 26% of those aged years old. The 40 and older age group is more engaged than the under 40 age group, meaning they have higher rates of engagement on all measures considered. For example, whereas 60% of respondents under 40 years of age claim to always vote in local elections, 90% of those 40 years of age and older claim the same. When considering what prevents greater involvement for both age groups, the under 40 age group is more likely to be too busy and not have enough time, with 48% of respondents in this group reporting this reason compared to 36% of those aged 40 and up. Also, 38% of respondents under 40 years old are more likely to be unsure of how to get involved, while 21% of respondents aged 40 and up report the same. At 53%, respondents in the 40 and older group are more likely to already be involved in the issues they care about compared to 37% of respondents in the under 40 age group. In terms of where respondents in the different age groups prefer to connect, the under 40 age group is more likely to connect with others at parks, and the 40 and up group is more likely to connect with others at religious institutions. Over one-half (56%) of respondents in the younger cohort connect at parks while 36% of respondents who are 40 and over do the same, and 54% of respondents in the older cohort connect at religious institutions while 41% of those years old do the same. Furthermore, when analyzing the other responses submitted by respondents, the under 40 age group is twice as likely as the 40 and up group to mention connecting with others at restaurants, as 47% of other responses provided by year old respondents report this setting compared to 23% of other responses by respondents who are 40 years old and higher. The 40 and older group is much more likely to mention community meetings and events as a site of connection, as 35% of other comments submitted by respondents in the older cohort noted this setting compared to 19% of other responses submitted by the younger cohort. In terms of how respondents in the two age groups get information about their local community, the 40 and over group is much more likely to get news from a newspaper (online and offline), television, and radio, while the under 40 group is more likely to get their news from social media and word of mouth. Respondents 40 and over are three-and-one-half more times as likely to get news from a newspaper On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 14

15 every day, with 45% of the older cohort and only 13% of the younger cohort reporting newspapers as a common source of information. Again, respondents 40 and over are nearly three times as likely to get their news from television every day, with 37% of the older cohort and 13% of the younger cohort reporting television as a common source of information. Finally, 37% of the older cohort and 23% of the younger cohort report radio as a common source of information every day. In terms of social media, 35% of respondents under 40 get their local news from social media every day, compared to 27% of respondents ages 40 and up. Similarly, 34% of respondents under 40 get their news from word of mouth while 25% of respondents ages 40 and up do the same. In general, the 40 and above age group appears to be getting local information more frequently across all media asked about. When it comes to action as a result of the conversations, respondents ages are more likely to take action or next steps through my job than are respondents ages 40 years and up. Nearly one-half (47%) of respondents under 40 plan to take action through their job, compared to 28% of respondents who are 40 years old and older. Length of Residence Within length of residence, two groups are used for comparison: newer residents (made up of respondents who have lived in Lexington 0-4 years) and long-term residents (made up of respondents who have lived in Lexington 20 or more years). It is also important to note that the full respondent group is not included in this analysis of length of residence. Whereas for age and geography the full respondent group is divided into two categories, the two categories used for length of residence (0-4 years and 20 or more years) exclude respondents who fall within the 5-9 years and years groups. Therefore, the total number of respondents in the comparative groups for length of residence will not equal the full respondent group for length of residence when combined. Furthermore, the total number of respondents ( n ) in each of the subgroups within length of residence is smaller than the total number of respondents in the two categories provided within both age and geography. 25 As stated previously, there exists a strong relationship between length of residence and age. Because of this relationship, there is quite a bit of overlap between the results of the comparisons made in the prior section on age and this section on length of residence. Respondents who have lived in Lexington for 20 or more years (long-term residents) are almost three times as likely to fall within the 40 and up age group than are respondents who have lived in Lexington for 0-4 years (newer residents). While 91% of long-term resident respondents are ages 40 and up, only 33% of newer resident respondents fall in that age group. Respondents who are long-term residents are also more likely to be homeowners, with 90% of long-term residents claiming homeownership compared to 50% of newer residents. Furthermore, long-term resident respondents are more attached to their communities and rate their communities more highly than newer resident respondents. Seventy percent of respondents who are long-term residents are very attached to their communities compared to 40% of respondents who are newer residents. Similarly, 53% of long-term resident respondents rate their community as an excellent place to live, while 43% of newer resident respondents rate their community the same. 25 For newer resident respondents, or respondents who have lived in Lexington for 0-4 years, n=340 (24% of the full group and 38% of the newer resident/long-term resident group). For long-term resident respondents, or respondents who have lived in Lexington for 20 or more years, n=545 (39% of the full group and 62% of the new resident/long-term resident group). On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 15

16 When it comes to what respondents find most appealing about Lexington, long-term resident respondents mention natural features and the rural environment at a notably higher rate than newer resident respondents. One-third (33%) of long-term resident respondents cited a topic related to natural features and the rural environment compared to only 22% of newer resident respondents. With regard to the social issues important to respondents, newer resident respondents are more concerned about transportation while long-term resident respondents are more concerned about government. One quarter of respondents who are newer residents indicated transportation as an issue that is important to them compared to 15% of respondents who are long-term residents. Long-term resident respondents are twice as likely to be concerned about government, with 10% of them choosing this theme while only 4% of newer resident respondents did the same. In terms of their priorities for how to improve Lexington, respondents who are newer residents are more likely than long-term resident respondents to prioritize the strategy of encourag[ing] diverse business and employment opportunities, with 49% of newer resident respondents naming this strategy as a priority. In comparison, only 34% of respondents who are long-term residents did the same. Longterm resident respondents are more likely to prioritize the following two strategies: support the agricultural industry and protect the rural landscape and promote infill and redevelopment in underperforming areas. While 37% of long-term resident respondents prefer to support the agricultural industry and protect the rural landscape, only 26% of newer resident respondents want the same. And while 47% of long-term resident respondents wish to promote infill and redevelopment in underperforming areas, 37% of newer resident respondents prefer the same. Long-term resident respondents are more engaged than newer resident respondents, as they have higher rates of engagement on all measures considered. For example, 86% of long-term resident respondents report volunteering in the past year, compared to 75% of newer resident respondents. Similarly, long-term resident respondents are twice as likely to be very involved in community and neighborhood activities where they live, with 33% indicating this high level of involvement and 16% of newer resident respondents indicating the same. With regard to where they connect with others, respondents who are newer residents are more likely to connect at parks, whereas respondents who are long-term residents are more likely to connect at religious institutions. Over one-half (54%) of newer resident respondents connect with others at parks compared to 36% of long-term resident respondents. On the other hand, 54% of long-term resident respondents connect with others at religious institutions compared to 45% of newer resident respondents. Furthermore, in considering the other responses submitted by respondents, newer resident respondents are more than twice as likely to mention connecting with others at restaurants, as 45% of other comments provided by this group mention restaurants compared to 21% of other responses mentioned by long-term resident respondents. However, long-term resident respondents are nearly two-and-one-half times more likely to mention connecting with others at community meetings and events, as 37% of other comments provided by this group mention community meetings and events compared to 15% of other responses mentioned by newer resident respondents. In terms of how respondents get information about their local community, long-term resident respondents are much more likely to get it from newspapers (online and offline), television, and radio. Long-term resident respondents get information from a newspaper every day at nearly four times the rate as newer resident respondents. Fifty percent of long-term resident respondents consult a newspaper every day as opposed to 13% of newer resident respondents. Similarly, the rate at which On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 16

17 long-term resident respondents get their information from television is almost three times that of newer resident respondents. Whereas 42% of long-term resident respondents watch television for news every day, only 15% of newer resident respondents do the same. The difference between long-term and newer resident respondents is less stark but still notable for radio, where 37% of long-term resident respondents listen to the radio every day for local information compared to 23% of newer resident respondents. Generally, the long-term resident respondent group appears to be getting local information more frequently across all media asked about. Respondents who are newer residents are looking to get more involved, yet are not sure how. Newer resident respondents were more likely to participate in On the Table Lexington to get more involved in my community, with 50% of this group citing this motivation for participating compared to 35% of longterm resident respondents. When it comes to taking action or next steps as a result of the conversation, newer resident respondents are more likely to get more involved in community, volunteer, and improve myself through personal development and learning. Over two-thirds (68%) of newer resident respondents plan to get more involved in their community compared to 53% of long-term resident respondents. Just under two-thirds (61%) of newer resident respondents plan to volunteer compared to 47% of long-term resident respondents. Finally, 48% of newer resident respondents plan to improve themselves through personal development and learning compared to 30% of long-term resident respondents. When asked what prevents them from greater involvement, newer resident respondents are much less likely to already be involved in the issues they care about and are much more likely to be unsure of how to get involved. Just 37% of newer resident respondents are already involved in the issues they care about compared to 58% of long-term resident respondents. Newer resident respondents are two-and-one-half times more likely to be unsure of how to get involved, with 43% of this group indicating uncertainty compared to only 17% of long-term resident respondents. Geography Within geography, respondents are divided into two defined locations inside of New Circle Road (also referred to as inner circle) and outside of New Circle Road (also referred to as outer circle). 26 This distribution is based on the location of their zip code. If their zip code overlaps the boundary of New Circle Road and is located both inside and outside of the circle, then neighborhood is used to determine if they are inner or outer circle. 27 When comparing the two geographic groups of inner and outer circle to the range of variables useful for analysis, there are fewer differences overall than with the two previous subgroups. This is evidenced by the average difference between the two geography groups for all questions, which is nearly one-half that of the average group differences for both age and length of residence. 28 However, differences did still emerge for inner and outer circle with regard to issues of concern, which are explored below. In terms of social issues that are most important to respondents, inner circle respondents appear more concerned about arts and culture as well as equity and social inclusion while outer circle respondents are more concerned about family. Nearly one-third (31%) of inner circle respondents identified arts and culture as an important social issue compared to 17% of outer circle respondents. Likewise, 31% of inner circle respondents named equity and social inclusion as an important social issue while 24% of outer 26 For inner circle respondents, n=651 (52%). For outer circle respondents, n=611 (48%). 27 BGCF reviewed and approved the inner circle and outer circle zip code and neighborhood distribution. 28 Within group difference using the average difference for all questions was reinforced using more sophisticated statistical measures including the Chi-squared statistic and Cramer s V. On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 17

18 circle respondents did the same. Respondents in the outer circle are nearly twice as likely to be concerned about family, with 22% of outer circle respondents naming this theme as an important issue compared to 12% of inner circle respondents. When identifying the social issues to which they primarily contribute, inner circle respondents were more likely to say they contribute to arts and culture while outer circle respondents were more likely to say they contribute to family as well as religion and morals. Whereas 38% of inner circle respondents contribute to issues related to arts and culture, 25% of outer circle respondents do the same. On the contrary, while 28% of outer circle respondents contribute to issues related to family, only 19% of inner circle respondents do the same. Finally, whereas 32% of outer circle respondents contribute to issues related to religion and morals, 22% of inner circle respondents do the same. With regard to their priorities for how to improve Lexington, inner circle respondents are more likely to prioritize promot[ing] infill and redevelopment in underperforming areas, with 48% of this group naming this strategy and 40% of outer circle respondents naming the same strategy. Problems-to-Causes Disparity When considering social issues that are most important to respondents (problems) and social issues to which they contribute their time, talent, and financial resources (causes), the data reveal disparities between these two variables (see Appendix G). These disparities can be useful indicators of social issues where greater contributions of time, talent, and financial resources are needed. Transportation features the greatest disparity. Only 13% of respondents who mentioned transportation as an important social issue also mentioned it as a social issue to which they contribute their time, talent, and financial resources. As mentioned previously, transportation was also the most talked about issue in On the Table Lexington conversations and was a top priority for improving Lexington (i.e., strengthening infrastructure so that it better serves all modes of transportation). The frequency with which respondents mentioned transportation is indicative of its significance to respondents and can be highlighted as an opportunity where greater attention is needed. Public safety and the judicial system emerged as the next social issue showing high disparity. Only 23% of respondents who identified public safety and the judicial system as an important social issue also indicated that it was a social issue to which they contribute. The percentage is only slightly greater for housing and homelessness, where 34% of respondents who mentioned it as a social issue of importance also mentioned it as a social issue to which they contribute. Finally, economic issues and poverty as well as government show a disparity; for each issue, 36% of respondents who named it as an important social issue also indicated it was a social issue to which they contribute. Religion and morals features the least amount of disparity with 81% of those indicating it as an important social issue also indicating it as a social issue to which they contribute. CONCLUSION This report was an exploratory study examining the content of On the Table Lexington conversations and information about survey respondents. While results cannot be generalized to the broader Lexington population, this study reveals important insights that are worth highlighting. On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 18

19 First, On the Table Lexington respondents were a highly engaged group across all measures considered, especially when comparing Fayette County respondents to all county residents. The majority of respondents said they are involved in community and neighborhood activities, with significant proportions of respondents reporting having donated and volunteered this past year. Smaller but still noteworthy percentages were seen for respondents who have been involved in less common but highly impactful engagement activities, such as attending a public meeting about community affairs and working with people in their neighborhood to fix or improve something. Given their habits, these respondents are in unique position to do work to help improve the community and to enhance the quality of life for other Lexington residents. Having such an engaged respondent group can be useful to BGCF as it seeks to broaden the reach and impact of these kinds of community conversations. Respondents can, in a sense, serve as community liaisons to bring the outcomes and aftereffects of these conversations to residents who are less involved in and less connected to their communities. Second, respondents were motivated to take part in On the Table Lexington conversations for three main reasons: to discuss and address important issues in their community, to learn from and listen to others, and to get more involved in their community. This presents an opportunity for BGCF to design programming and events that allow respondents to engage actively in these behaviors. Third, issues related to transportation were of primary concern to respondents. Respondents were talking about transportation in their conversations, said they care about transportation, and prioritized improving transportation in Lexington. Despite its common occurrence, respondents appeared uncertain as how to address transportation-related issues. Indeed, transportation features the largest problemsto-causes disparity, which shows that respondents are not contributing to transportation in the same proportion to which they say it is an issue of importance to them. With transportation being top-of-mind for Lexington respondents, BGCF has an opportunity to address their concerns perhaps by working with the Division of Planning to prioritize this issue in the city s most current Comprehensive Plan (Imagine Lexington). Fourth, through the subgroup comparisons, we uncovered that respondents who are newer residents (those who have lived in Lexington 0-4 years) are looking to get more involved yet are not sure how. On the Table Lexington was a good example of an accessible entry activity through which to get involved, as a number of newer resident respondents said they were motivated to participate in it for this reason. In terms of actions or next steps, newer resident respondents were thinking about to how further involve themselves and were more likely than respondents who have lived in Lexington for 20 or more years to indicate that they intend to get more involved in the community, volunteer, and improve themselves through personal development and learning. When asked what prevents them from becoming more involved however, newer resident respondents were more likely to report being unsure of how to get involved. As the convener of a city-wide conversation initiative like On the Table Lexington that engaged respondents who are new to Lexington, BGCF is in a prime position to help these newcomers and anyone else who is interested in becoming more involved but is unsure how to engage with the community. On the Table Lexington was an opportunity for Lexingtonians to get together with old friends and new acquaintances to have conversations about the issues that they care about the most. In doing so, thousands came together to share their experiences and pride about life in Lexington and how they would like to see it become an even better city that serves all of its residents. Conversations served as a catalyst for generating ideas and potential actions and created a space for participants to make personal connections so that they might find ways to ignite change with fellow residents. It is truly these On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 19

20 connections and the ideas for action that are generated through these connections that will have lasting impact. On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 20

21 APPENDICES Appendix A: On the Table Lexington Survey On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 21

22 On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 22

23 On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 23

24 On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 24

25 Appendix B: Summary Visualizations of Survey Responses On the Table Lexington Summary of Results for All Respondents Following On the Table Lexington, 1,102 participants responded to the survey by clicking on an link, 254 responded by clicking on the web link, and 108 responded by submitting a print survey. In total, 1,464 On the Table Lexington participants fully or partially responded to the survey. This document provides a summary of responses by question. The 'n' provided in each question is the number of respondents for that question. Section 1: Who Participated? Respondent Demographics Figure B.1 What is your current gender identity? % of respondents (n = 1,384) On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 25

26 Figure B.2 What is the highest level of education you have completed? % of respondents (n = 1,388) Figure B.3 How would you identify your race and/or ethnicity? % of respondents (n = 1,387) On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 26

27 Figure B.4 Age of Respondents by Decade % of respondents (n = 1,352) Figure B.5 Where do you currently live? Top Cities: % of respondents (n = 1,330) On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 27

28 Figure B.6 Where do you currently live? Top ZIP codes: % of respondents (n = 1,375) On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 28

29 Figure B.7 Where do you currently live? Top Neighborhoods: % of respondents (n = 830) Figure B.8 About how many years have you lived in your local community? % of respondents (n = 1,393) On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 29

30 Figure B.9 Do you own or rent your primary residence? % of respondents (n = 1,396) *The top 3 'other' responses are: Live with family (0.5%), Homeless (0.2%), and Other housing (0.2%). Figure B.10 What is your relationship to the Blue Grass Community Foundation? % of respondents (n = 1,317 // select all that apply) *The top 3 'other' responses are: Heard of them (9.5%), Collaborator / Partner (3.5%), and Board member (0.8%). On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 30

31 Civic Attitudes and Activities Figure B.11 How much impact do you think people like you can have in making your community a better place to live? % of respondents (n = 1,408) Figure B.12 In general, how attached do you feel to your local community? % of respondents (n = 1,411) Figure B.13 Overall, how would you rate your community as a place to live? % of respondents (n = 1,388) On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 31

32 Figure B.14 What do YOU find most appealing about Lexington? % of respondents (n = 1,112) On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 32

33 Figure B.15 Which of the following social issues are most important to you? % of respondents (n = 1,378 // choose up to three) *The top 3 'other' responses are: Managing Growth (2%), Community Development (0.4%), and Community Engagement (0.2%). On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 33

34 Figure B.16 To which social issues do you PRIMARILY contribute your time, talent, and/or financial resources? % of respondents (n = 1,361 // choose up to three) *The top 3 'other' responses are: Managing Growth (0.7%), Community Development (0.6%), and Community Engagement (0.6%). On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 34

35 Figure B.17 Which of the following are your top priorities for improving Lexington? % of respondents (n = 1,362 // choose up to three) *The top 3 'other' responses are: Promote equity and social inclusion (2.8%), Support schools and education (1.3%), and Reduce crime and violence (1.1%). Figure B.18 How involved are you in community and neighborhood activities where you live? % of respondents (n = 1,404) On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 35

36 Figure B.19 Engagement Activities in the Past Year % of respondents (n = 1,395 // select all that apply) Figure B.20 How often do you vote in local elections, such as for mayor or a school board? % of respondents (n = 1,396) On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 36

37 Figure B.21 What, if anything, prevents you from getting involved in the issues you care about most? % of respondents (n = 1,328 // select all that apply) *The top 3 'other' responses are: Age, health, or family (1.8%), Misc. (1.2%), and I want to be more involved (0.5%). Figure B.22 Where do you like to connect with others? % of respondents (n = 1,362 // select all that apply) *The top 3 'other' responses are: Community events / meetings (10.1%), Restaurants (9.2%), and Community service activities (3.9%) On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 37

38 Figure B.23 How often, if ever, do you get information about YOUR LOCAL COMMUNITY from each of the following sources, whether online or offline? % of respondents On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 38

39 Section 2: Conversation Dynamics, Topics, and Impact Conversation Dynamics and Topics Figure B.24 How did you hear about On the Table? % of respondents (n = 1,382 // select all that apply) *The top 3 'other' responses are: Other media (3.8%), Place of employment (2.3%), and Organization / Institution (1.8%). Figure B.25 Which best describes your MOST IMPORTANT reason(s) for participating in On the Table? % of respondents (n = 1,457 // select all that apply) *The top 3 'other' responses are: Organizational or Professional Benefit (0.4%), Curious or Interested (0.3%), and To Raise Awareness (0.3%). On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 39

40 Figure B.26 Where did your conversation take place? Top Cities: % of respondents (n = 1,418) Figure B.27 Where did your conversation take place? Top Neighborhoods: % of respondents (n = 745) On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 40

41 Figure B.28 'The other people at my conversation were...' % of respondents (n = 1,444) Figure B.29 Issues Raised During the Conversation % of respondents (n = 1,158 ) On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 41

42 Impact of the Conversation Figure B.30 How did you connect with others at your conversation(s)? % of respondents (n = 1,407 // select all that apply) Figure B.31 After participating in your conversation(s), to what extent do you better understand how you, personally, can help address the issues facing your community? % of respondents (n = 1,417) On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 42

43 Figure B.32 How likely are you to take specific actions or next steps regarding an issue or solution discussed? % of respondents (n = 1,417) Figure B.33 Actions or next steps respondents are likely to take regarding an issue or solution discussed % of respondents (n = 1,154 // select all that apply) *The top 3 'other' responses are: Misc. (0.6%), Community Participation (0.4%), and Research / Assessment / Planning (0.3%). On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 43

44 Appendix C: Blue Grass Community Foundation s On the Table Lexington Outreach Strategy The following statement is from Blue Grass Community Foundation regarding its outreach strategy: In an intentional effort to encourage diverse audiences to join the conversation, Blue Grass Community Foundation engaged with an experienced, local consulting team that specializes in neighborhood and community engagement strategies. Neighborhoods with higher percentages of diverse populations were selected as communities of focus for this work. These included the Berry Hill, Cardinal Valley, East End, Martin Luther King, North Limestone, Winburn and Woodhill neighborhoods. In addition to focus neighborhoods, we identified underrepresented populations typically missing from civic conversations. These included boys and men of color, the Hispanic community, immigrants (since 1998, Lexington has been an active partner in the national refugee resettlement effort), senior citizens, people with disabilities and youth. Active table hosting partners included the Fayette County Public Schools (FCPS), Kentucky Refugee Ministries, NAACP, Urban League, AARP, Lexington Senior Center and a variety of organizations representing neighborhood and cultural affinity groups. To improve accessibility, the Community Foundation provided On the Table host toolkits and other supporting materials in English, French and Spanish. Additionally, FCPS provided summary host and information materials in Arabic, Japanese, Nepali and Swahili. Engagement with Hispanic residents was complicated by the fact that detainments and deportations were occurring around the time of the initiative, making residents even more hesitant to participate in public settings. Efforts were made to minimize this impact by retaining a Spanish-speaking consultant with neighborhood level, grassroots connection to help spread the invitation to participate in focus neighborhoods. On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 44

45 Appendix D: Lexington s Appeal Codebook Defined Arts and Culture An arts and culture code refers to the arts scene that is thriving in Lexington and the many cultural opportunities it provides. It is inclusive of Lexington s rich history, given its Southern heritage and strong sense of tradition. Beauty and Cleanliness A beauty and cleanliness code refers to the beauty in and around Lexington, which is emphasized by the cleanliness of the city. City Size A city size code refers to the relative size of the city in terms of its balance between a big city offering many amenities and a small town feel. Given its size, traffic is typically minimal. Diversity A diversity code refers to the diverse cultures that make up Lexington and its welcoming stance. It is a multicultural city that considers itself a melting pot. Downtown/Built Environment A downtown/built environment code refers to downtown revitalization and creating a vibrant downtown. It is also inclusive of the condition of the roads in and around Lexington. Economic Opportunity An economic opportunity code refers to job opportunities that are present throughout Lexington as well as it being an affordable city with low cost of living. Entertainment Options An entertainment options code refers to the range of things to do in Lexington, including local events, dining options (restaurants, bars, coffee shops, etc.), and the bourbon industry. Family-Friendly A family-friendly code refers to Lexington being a good place for children and a great place to raise a family. Geographic Location A geographic location code refers to the regional location of Lexington and its convenience, especially with regard to it being within driving distance to other cities. Horse Industry A horse industry code refers to the horse farms outside of Lexington and the racing industry that is a point of pride for the city. Housing and Neighborhoods A housing and neighborhoods code refers to the neighborhoods within Lexington, with special reference made to those neighborhoods that are quieter and those that are older. On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 45

46 Local Government and Leadership A local government and leadership code refers to those who are leading Lexington inside and outside of government. Government is described as responsive and accessible. Local Institutions A local institutions code refers to those institutions that help shape the culture of Lexington and are prominent sites within the community. This includes the universities, hospital system, and nonprofit community. Natural Features and Rural Environment A natural features and rural environment code refers to the landscape and natural environment outside of Lexington, with its farmland, hills, and greenery, and the greenspace that exists within Lexington. The weather and climate is also a focal point. People and Local Attitudes A people and local attitudes code refers to the friendliness of the people and their caring and welcoming capacity. It describes the strong sense of community that is present in Lexington, the laidback atmosphere, and progressive and conservative politics. It is also inclusive of family and friends who live in the city. Public Facilities A public facilities code refers to publicly operated amenities, include parks, dog parks, bike trails, and government buildings. Quality of Life A quality of life code refers to the lifestyle in Lexington, which is described as comfortable, livable, and full of opportunities. There is a good work-life balance. Safety A safety code refers to the overall safe communities that make up Lexington and its low crime rate. Transportation Infrastructure A transportation infrastructure code refers to the ease of getting around Lexington and how it is a walkable and bike-friendly city. There is little traffic and there is easy accessibility to interstates On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 46

47 Appendix E: Issues Codebook Defined Arts and Culture An arts and culture code may refer to art initiatives such as art for social change as well as public art and art infrastructure, or it may acknowledge culture through cultural institutions (such as historic buildings) and city events and activities (such as festivals) as well as through opportunities for ethnic cultural awareness. Collaboration A collaboration code refers to working together and building relationships to create partnerships and expand networks. It may function at the community or individual level and often involves crossing divides and building bridges while working toward collective impact. Sharing resources and holding dialogues/conversations are other indicators of collaboration. Community Development A community development code refers to identifying community assets and building up the community, particularly through local economic development, in order to improve quality of life. It also refers to building a sense of community and creating community for those who live there. Community Engagement A community engagement code refers to overall involvement and participation in one s neighborhood or community in order to make a difference. Often there is an organizing element at the grassroots level as well as intentions for improved neighbor relations and opportunities for neighborhood gatherings. Economic Issues and Poverty An economic issues and poverty code refers to economic development, on one end, and economic insecurity, or poverty (which is inclusive of panhandling), on the other, covering in the intermediate unemployment and jobs as well as income inequality and wage issues. Education and Youth Development An education and youth development code refers primarily to schools (such as school system or curriculum) and students (often at the high school level) with additional focal points on mentoring and general youth development. It is also inclusive of other related topics such as community relationships, parent involvement, and research. Environment and Parks An environment and parks code refers to overall environmental sustainability efforts and clean up as well as recreational opportunities for all. It is inclusive of greenspace as well as farmland and agriculture. Equity and Social Inclusion An equity and social inclusion code uses a social justice lens to account for forms of exclusion and issues of access and equality for underserved groups. Reference is largely made to youth access and engagement concerns as well as to issues of disparity as noted across income levels, racial groups, and neighborhoods. Family A family code refers to the overall functioning and behavior of the family unit, particularly through parent involvement and support (or lack thereof) and child concerns such as childcare. On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 47

48 Food Access A food access code refers primarily to food insecurity, focusing on problems of hunger and food deserts and solutions regarding food assistance and urban agriculture. Government A government code refers to the governing habits of the state and regional municipalities, especially regarding fiscal issues and taxes, including pensions and cuts to social services, as well as transparency, accountability, and corruption. It also involves the function of government, particularly through elections, public engagement, and public policy. Health A health code refers to the wellbeing of both people and communities, considering in particular mental health issues and addiction while also taking into account public health, quality of life issues, nutrition and wellness, and heath care. Housing and Homelessness A housing and homelessness code primarily refers to homelessness and issues around home ownership and renting responsibilities. Immigration and Migration An immigration and migration code refers to the displacement, movement, and integration of immigrant communities, including those who are undocumented and those who are refugees. International An international code refers to world affairs. Managing Growth A managing growth code refers to how a city is planning to grow, especially if there is an Urban Service Boundary that is under consideration for expansion or preservation. Infill, density, and redevelopment are often talked about in opposition to development and sprawl. Media and Awareness A media and awareness code refers to raising awareness around issues of importance and addressing ignorance, particularly through the media and social media. It includes improving communication and building new narratives, especially around persistent stigmas. Morals and Religion A morals and religion code refers largely to personal attributes and attitudes, such as apathy or hope. It is also inclusive of faith-based community work Philanthropy A philanthropy code refers to increased funding and support for programs and nonprofit organizations and often incorporates a need for organizational capacity building, institutional community outreach, and corporate social responsibility. On the individual level, it refers to civic responsibility and volunteering, with individuals taking action for the greater good. On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 48

49 Public Safety and Judicial System A public safety and judicial system code may refer to public safety and crime as well as the criminal justice system, including instances of panhandling, violence, and drugs and how police and community can establish a better, working relationship. Technology A technology code refers to technology in a general sense and includes references to access, training, and improvement. Transportation A transportation code refers to transportation access and transportation infrastructure. On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 49

50 Appendix F: Social Media Analysis Prepared by Meltwater Buzz On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 50

51 On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 51

52 On the Table Lexington 2017 Impact Report 52