The 8 Front Doors Challenge: An Outcome Evaluation of Pilot Intervention in South Central Wichita (KS) June-September 2021
Prepared by: Dasha Shamrova, Ph.D., Amy Alberton, Ph.D.
1
Table of Contents Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 3 The 8 Front Doors Challenge: Program Description ............................................ 4 Method of Evaluation ............................................................................................ 4 Findings ................................................................................................................. 5 Who are the people who responded to the survey? .......................................... 5 What is the difference between those who completed the 8 Front Doors Challenge (completed pre-post survey) and those who dropped out (completed only pre-test)? ................................................................................. 5 What do respondents say about their experience in the neighborhood? .......... 7 What challenge activities did the respondents participated in? ....................... 10 Why did people not participate in the 8 Front Door Challenge Activities? ...... 10 What changes happened for the neighbors after their participation in the 8 Front Door Challenge?..................................................................................... 11 How did the 8 Front Door Challenge activities impact the outcomes? ............ 12 Does race, ethnicity and gender of the participants make a difference for the Challenge outcomes and participation rates? ................................................. 12 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................. 12 References .......................................................................................................... 13 Attachment .......................................................................................................... 14
2
Executive Summary • This report includes the data of the pilot evaluation of the 8 Front Doors Challenge conducted in Wichita, KS. • The results are based on the sample of neighbors who completed both pre and post surveys. • Women were more likely to complete both tests than men (51% of women vs 36% of men). • About 48% of Non-Hispanic White participants completed both surveys vs. 35% of respondents of color. • Almost all participants read the postcards. About 83% of them talked to the 8 Front Doors team members and 66% followed the tips on the cards. Less than a half of participants reported that they filled out the 8 Front Doors map. About 28% took part in neighborhood events. Females were more likely to participate more frequently if we look at cumulative participation across multiple activities • The analysis of pre and post measurements on the main three outcomes of the intervention -social cohesion, belonging, and social network development – shows no statistically significant differences. • Frequency of working with the 8 Front Doors Map and following suggestions on the tip cards was found to be related to increased sense of belonging.
Corresponding author: Dr. Dasha Shamrova, dasha.shamrova@wichita.edu Preferred citation: Shamrova, D. & Alberton, A. (2021). The 8 Front Doors Challenge: An Outcome Evaluation of Pilot Intervention in South Central Wichita (KS) Contributors: We are grateful for the Neighboring Movement team who coordinated and implemented the 8 Front Doors Challenge as well as collected data on its outcomes presented in this report. This report would not be possible without hard work that the Neighboring movement put into testing their ideas.
3
The 8 Front Doors Challenge: Program Description The 8 Front Doors Challenge is unique grassroot initiative developed by the Neighboring Movement that create space for neighbors to meet one another starting with the 8 front doors closest to their own. The 8 Front Doors Challenge has been piloted in South Central neighborhood in Wichita, KS. The pilot project lasted from June to September 2021 with weekly check ins with the neighbors. The Challenge was implemented by the team of adults and youth who comprised the Listening team. The Listening team was trained in Asset-Based Community Development principles as well as the research methodology described below. The Challenge started with introduction of the 8 Front Door Challenge to the neighborhood. All neighbors included in the Challenge received the mailed communication. After that the Listening team started knocking the doors and introduce the Challenge again, provided post cards with neighboring tips, introduced the Block Maps, checked in on neighbors, and invited them for the neighboring events (e.g.,. block parties).
Method of Evaluation Evaluation questions: This evaluation report focuses on answering the following evaluation questions: • • • • • • •
Who are the people who responded to the survey? What weres the differences between those who completed the 8 Front Doors Challenge (completed pre-post survey) and those who dropped out (completed only pre-test)? What did respondents say about their experience in the neighborhood? What challenge activities did the respondents participate in? What changes did neighbors experience after their participation in the 8 Front Door Challenge? How did participation in the 8 Front Door Challenge activities impact the main outcomes? Did race, ethnicity and/or gender of the participants make a difference for the Challenge outcomes and participation rates?
Design: This evaluation is based on the pre-experimental design. Data were collected twice at the beginning (the second week) of the 8 Front Doors Challenge as well as at the end (the last week of the Challenge) by using face-to-face household survey methodology. Sample: A total of about 400 addresses were included in the 8 Front Doors Challenge. The Listening team, consisting of the Neighboring Movement staff and youth, knocked on all the doors to introduce the Challenge to the neighbors. Out of about 400 total households in the neighborhood, 91 respondents completed the pre-challenge survey. Forty (40) out of 91 completed the post-test which constitutes 44% response rate.
4
Data Collection and Analysis: The questionnaires were developed by the evaluators and discussed with the Neighboring Movement specialists to tailor them to the intervention design and the culture of the program. They were translated into Spanish to include more non-English speaking participants. The questionnaires included questions about demographics, participation in activities, length of residence, perceived safety, initial civic engagement (elections, census), as well as social cohesion, sense of belonging, social networks, number of people who neighbors know in the neighborhood, volunteering experiences, and quality of life. The Neighborhood Perception Scale developed by Beenackers and colleagues (2013) was included as a standardized scale for measuring the main outcomes - social cohesion, sense of belonging, and social networks. Social cohesion can be understood as “the extent of connectedness and solidarity among groups” in a neighborhood (Kawachi & Berkman, 2000). Social networks were defined as “the presence and nature of interpersonal relationships and interactions; extent to which one is interconnected and embedded in a community” (McNeill et al., 2006). Finally, sense of belonging was understood as “feeling at home in this neighborhood” (Beenackers et al., 2013, p. 222). Specific questions asked in this scale can be found in the attachment. All participants who completed pre and post surveys received $20 gift cards. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS 27.1 and included descriptive and bivariate analyses.
Findings Who are the people who responded to the survey? About 58% of those who responded to both pre- and post-surveys were female. Over a half of the participants were Non-Hispanic White (55%). About 28% identified as Hispanic/Latinx, 13% African American/Black; 5% Native; and 3% mixed race. About an equal number of people owned (49%) and rented (51%) in the sample. Age of the participants ranged from 24 to 84 years old with a mean age of approximately 47 years old. About 51% of households did not have children living in them. On average, about one child was living in each surveyed household. The number of children varied from zero to four. About 54% of respondents were employed at the time of the survey (36% full-time and 18% part time). About 18% were unemployed, 10% received disability benefits, 13% were retired, and 5% marked “other” as their employment status.
What were the differences between those who completed the 8 Front Doors Challenge (completed pre-post survey) and those who dropped out (completed only pre-test)? Women were more likely to complete both surveys than men did (51% of women vs 36% of men). NonHispanic White participants were more often among those who completed both tests than those who identified as Black, African-American, Hispanic/Latinx, Native American, and mixed race combined. About 48% of Non-Hispanic White participants completed both surveys vs. 35% of respondents of color. About 50% of those who owned their house completed both surveys vs 39% of those who rented.. 5
When we asked respondents how many neighboring households they know people in (ex. greet, exchange latest news, etc.), we found that those who completed the Challenge and responded to both surveys tended to know people in 1.6 more neighboring households on average than those who only completed pre-test (Fig.1). This finding shows that those who were engaged in the 8 Door Challenge and completed the post survey might already have already been more connected with their neighbors than those who dropped out. Those who completed both surveys were not significantly different from those who dropped out in age or number of children in the household.
Fig 1. Average number of neighboring households respondents knew people in (baseline, pre-test) 1 6 4.9
5 4
3.3
3 2 1 0 Completed both pre and post test
Completed only pre-test
In addition, we analyzed whether those who completed both surveys and those who only completed pretest differed on their sense of belonging in the neighborhood, social cohesion with others in the neighborhood, and level of social networking in the neighborhood. We found that those who only completed pre-test scored lower on all these indicators at the baseline (at the beginning of the challenge) (Fig 2). While these differences were not statistically significant, we think they are important in practical sense because they are telling us that there is an emerging trend in those who drop out.
Fig.2 Baseline Comparison of Main Neighboring Outcomes between Those Who Completed Both Surveys vs. Those Who Dropped Out 5 4.5 4
3.64
3.5
3.57
3.5
3.33
3
2.56 2.22
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Social Cohesion
Sense of Beloning
Both Surveys
Social Networks
Pre-Test Only
6
What did respondents say about their experience in the neighborhood? Neighbors who responded to both surveys described their experience with social cohesion in the neighborhood in terms of their ability to trust their neighbors, whether they believe the neighbors get on with one another, whether people in the neighborhood are willing to help, have similar attitudes, and whether they believed they would be helped in case of emergency. Before the Challenge, the vast majority of respondents thought that their neighbors would help in case of emergency (88%), about three quarters of respondents believed that people in their neighborhood are willing to help (73%). Less people agreed that people get on with one another (62%), have similar attitudes (59%), and can be trusted (50%). However, less people agreed to each of these statements after the 8 Front Doors Challenge was completed in comparison with the baseline (Fig.3). This decline was not statistically significant.
Fig 3. Social Cohesion among Neighbors before and after the 8 Front Doors Challenge (% of respondents who Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the Statements Below) 100%
88%
90%
80%
73%
70% 60% 50% 40%
72%
62% 50%
53%
50%
59%
40% 25%
30% 20% 10% 0% Most people in this Most people in this People in this neighborhood can be neighborhood get on with neighborhood are willing trusted one another to help 21-Jun
People in this neighborhood have similar attitudes
My neighbors would help in case of emergency
21-Sep
Overall, we evaluated perceived sense of belonging through statements about plans to move out, feeling lonely, and feeling at home in the neighborhood. At the baseline, 67% of neighbors reported feeling like at home, only 10% said they felt lonely and 33% thought of moving out. In September, we see slight change that was not statistically significant. However, slightly more neighbors felt lonely, were planning to move out and did not feel like this neighborhood is their home (Fig.4).
7
Fig.4. Sense of Beloning among Neighbors before and after the 8 Front Doors Challenge (% of respondents who Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the Statements Below) 80%
67%
70% 60%
53%
50% 40%
33%
37%
30% 20%
15%
10%
10% 0% If I get the chance, I will move out of this neighborhood
I often feel alone in this neighborhood 21-Jun
I feel at home in the neighborhood
21-Sep
The development of social networks was measured via statements related to visiting neighbors in general, celebrating birthdays together, borrowing and lending things, and asking for advice. At the baseline, more than a half of neighbors felt comfortable borrowing from and lending things to their neighbors (58%), one third were comfortable with asking neighbors for advice, one fifth visited neighbors at home, and about 15% visited neighbors for their birthdays. Again, we observed slight decline in those behaviors after the intervention (Fig. 5).
Fig.5. Social Network among Neighbors before and after the 8 Front Doors Challenge (% of respondents who Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the Statements Below) 70% 58%
60%
55%
50% 38%
40% 30%
20%
32% 22%
18%
15%
11%
10% 0% I often visit neighbors in their home
My neighbors visit me for my birthday
21-Jun
I borrow/lend things from/to my I can always ask my neigbhors if neighbors I need advice
21-Sep
8
While these findings are not what we would expect, they can be explain by some circumstances of the intervention. Sometimes, social interventions, like the 8 Front Doors Challenge, have “side effects” that interfere with or are just a natural part of social change, depending on how we look at it. We can speculate that in this situation, neighbors exhibited what is called “reactivity” in research and evaluation. Their perception might have changed due to more exposure to their neighbors that the Challenge was promoting. For example, if one thought that they can trust their neighbors and if needed they will help before the 8 Front Doors intervention, then were encouraged by the listening team to approach the neighbors. If they did contact the neighbors and were not met with what they expected in return, then their self-report on those measures can decline due to those experiences and increased exposure. In addition, there might be some factors that this study did not account for. Things that were happening over the summer that need more exploration and discussion with the implementation team of the Challenge. Here are some selected open-ended responses we have received highlighting positive and negative parts of the neighbors’ experiences: Positive “I am so thankful for the protection of the police department” “it may not look nice but there are some great neighbors” “Socializing outside here, never had anything stolen, the police have been doing a good job lately patrolling this area.” “I love my neighborhood”
“I feel like you guys are doing a good job and need more help” “So far it is so good- neighbors came to notify when van door was left open” “It's a quiet, peaceful neighborhood.”
Negative “Lots of houses without electricity during winter- even households with young children” “Crime from drug use and homeless have caused us the most grief example our door got kicked in when I was home” “I feel unsafe getting to know most of my neighbors due to suspicious activities. this also makes it difficult to have my child play outside or walk.” “Too many trucks (semis) traveling on Wichita St., the entire house shakes as they drive by; these are old houses! Too many vehicles/abandoned vehicles with no tags. abandoned houses.” “Streets get dirty and takes a while for them to get cleaned” “Needs to have more playgrounds and things for kids to do in this neighborhood” “I wish the city would get the 2 empty houses on my block fixed up and get rid of the squatters so property values would come back up”
“This is a very nice neighborhood which would benefit greatly by not being lumped in with riverside district”
“Wish the city would work on the drainage- lots of trash”
“It’s just a friendly neighborhood”.
“There are too many big dogs running loose. you see homeless people between Broadway and the river. this is the 1st time I've lived somewhere and it's stressful” “Too much traffic- too speedy, not safe for kids to play out on the street.”
“When I first moved in, I had 3 incidents that could've been harmful to me. now, I know a few neighbors and we are starting tentative friendships”
9
What challenge activities did the respondents participate in? Participants engaged with the 8 Front Doors Listening team in a variety of activities including having neighborly conversations once a week, receiving and reading postcards about neighboring, following suggestion and tips on the postcards, completing the 8 Front Doors Map, and participation in organized events in the neighborhood. Almost all participants read the postcards. About 83% of them talked to the 8 Front Doors team members and 66% followed the tips on the cards. Less than a half of participants reported that they filled out the 8 Front Doors map. About 28% took part in neighborhood events (Fig. 6).
Fig.6. % of responders who participated in the 8 Front Doors activities (participants engaged with different frequency from rare to always) Participated in an organized event in my…
28%
Talked to the 8 Front Door team member
83 %
Completed the 8 Front Door Map
43 %
Follow the suggestions and tips on the postcards
66 %
Read the postcards about neighboring
96% 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% of responders who participated in the 8 Front Doors activities
Why did people not participate in the 8 Front Door Challenge Activities? In most cases, if neighbors did not take part in the Challenge activities, they said they were unable to. While it is important for us to know why, the survey tool did not include a follow up question. We are
Fig.7 % of participants who did not participate in the 8 Front Door Challange Activities 100% 80% 60% 40%
20%
39%
28% 2% 2%
33%
18%
6%
4%
39%
13%
0% Read the postcards about Follow the suggestions neighboring and tips on the postcards
Complete the 8 Front Door Map
Did not do because did not know
Talked to the 8 Front Door team member
Participated in an organized event in my neighborhood
Did not do because I was unable to
10
planning to update the data collection tool to reflect the need for this data. In other cases, participants said they did not know about the 8 Front Doors Map (18%) and neighborhood events (33%) (Fig. 7)
What changes happened for the neighbors after their participation in the 8 Front Door Challenge? We expect that the 8 Doors Challenge should achieve changes in at least three outcomes – increase in social cohesion, sense of belonging, and development of new social networks among neighbors.
Fig. 8. Main Outcome Mean Scores at Pre- and Post-Test 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50
3.64
3.40 2.85
3.00
3.00 2.56
2.55
Scale Mid-Point
2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 Social Cohesion
Belonging Pre-Test
Social Networks
Post-Test
The analysis of pre and post measurements on the main three outcomes of the intervention - social cohesion, belonging, and social network development – showed no statistically significant differences (Fig.8). The small observed increases and decreases are negligible considering the sample size. Respondents shared with us that their social cohesion - feeling of connectedness and solidarity among neighbors – was a little be above average before and after the challenge which means that the majority of the neighbors neither agree nor disagree with their neighborhood being socially cohesive. The same applies to sense of belonging in the neighborhood, which scored on the average level as well. Development of social networks were noted to be below average which translated to most participants disagreeing that they have social networks established in the neighborhood. Participants reported statistically significant increases in their physical and mental health self-reports. We can speculate that the 8 Doors Challenge might have influenced health. However, based on this data it is hard to attribute this effect directly to the intervention and not to other major positive shifts in public health and COVID-related situation over this summer (Fig.9).
11
Fig.9. Change in average selfreported physical and mental health on the scale from 0 to 100
In addition, the findings showed no evidence of positive change in feelings of safety, volunteering frequency, or quality of life between June and September.
100
90 74
80 70
65
77
78
How did the 8 Front Doors Challenge activities impact the outcomes?
60 50
In ad-hoc analysis, it was found that some activities were correlated with certain outcomes. 30 For example, frequency of working with the 8 20 Doors Map and following suggestions on the tip 10 cards1 was found to be related to an increased 0 Physical Health Mental Health sense of belonging.2 However, none of other activities were significantly associated with the June September main outcomes. In addition, it is important to note that the increased level of belongingness was tested in relation to the sense of belonging at the follow up only. It is impossible to claim that this increase happened due to the 8 Doors Challenge. The difference on main outcomes between pre- and post-test was analyzed as well with the goal of identifying possible groups of participants for whom the 8 Doors Challenge made a difference. No significant predictors of change were identified based on the data. Therefore, if change did happen to some participants the difference occurred sporadically. 40
Did race, ethnicity and/or gender of the participants make a difference for the Challenge outcomes and participation rates? Gender seems to play a role in how committed the participants were to the 8 Front Doors Challenge. Females were more likely to participate more frequently if we look at cumulative participation across multiple activities3. About 43% of women often or always talked to the member of the 8 Front Doors Challenge team and only 25% of men did.
Conclusions and Recommendations •
Some Activities Have Promising Results: Despite the small sample size impacting the analyses, it seems as though participating in activities, especially following the suggestions on the tip cards and completing the 8 Front Doors Map, may have a positive impact on participants’ sense of
X2 [15] = 30.45, p = .01 r(36)=.367, p<.05 3 t(36) =2.001, p=.05 1 2
12
•
•
•
•
belonging. Future cohorts should focus on engaging participants in these activities. It may be helpful to organize and host more neighborhood events to familiarize participants with these activities. Focus on Improving the Intervention: While the 8 Front Doors Challenge has potential for impacting neighborhood well-being, there is a room for improvement. The 8 Front Doors Challenge can be enriched with existing evidence from the research literature around social capital interventions, trust-building interventions, social network interventions in the neighborhood settings. Also, the intervention itself might need a longer implementation timeline to be able to see changes affecting neighboring behaviors. Recruitment and retention: As stated in the findings, a major issue with analysis was the small sample size. Going forward, it will be important to focus on recruitment and retention of participants. Data shows that females are more likely to participate more frequently than males. It may be helpful to have more males assist with the recruitment process. Race/ethnicity also seems to play a role in retention as nearly half of non-Hispanic White participants completed the post-test while just over one-third of respondents of color completed the post-test. This finding suggests that perhaps future cohorts should try to recruit Listening team members from diverse backgrounds. This may help with building trust and subsequently, recruiting and retaining participants for the 8 Front Doors Challenge. Communication about The Challenge Activities: One-third of participants reported never participating in an organized neighborhood event because they did not know about it. This finding suggests perhaps future cohorts should focus on promotion efforts for events. These events may provide neighbors with opportunities to learn more about and engage with the 8 Front Doors Challenge. To this end, it may be worthwhile to consider hosting events at the outset of the Challenge in a neighborhood. Again, this may also help with recruitment and retention of participants, especially given the finding that respondents who completed the post-survey may have already been more connected to their neighbors than those who did not complete the postsurvey. Survey Tool Improvement: Nearly half of participants noted that they did not complete the 8 Front Doors Map or participate in an organized event in their neighborhood because they were unable to. It may be worthwhile to consider open-ended questions on future surveys to inquire about why participants were unable to participate in these activities.
References •
Beenackers, M. A., Kamphuis, C. B. M., Mackenbach, J. P., Burdorf, A., & van Lenthe, F. J. (2013). Why some walk and others don’t: Exploring interactions of perceived safety and social neighborhood factors with psychosocial cognitions. Health Education Research, 28(2), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyt002
•
Kawachi I. & Berkman L (2000). Social cohesion, social capital, and health. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I (eds). Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press McNeill L., Kreuter M., & Subramanian S. (2006). Social environment and physical activity: A review of concepts and evidence. Social Science Medicine; 63: 1011–22.
•
13
Attachment4 Important!!! Interviewer put ID number from the Contact Attempt Record Form Here: ____________________
8 Doors Household Survey 0. We conducted the first survey in your neighborhood a few months ago. Was it you who filled it out?
Yes, I was the person who filled this survey previously No, it was another person in my household (if you choose this option, please STOP filling out this survey and ensure that appropriate person from your household fill it out) No, no one in my household filled out this survey before Not sure 1. First, we would like to know your name so when we come back to follow up on this survey, we could identify you. Would you feel comfortable sharing your name?
Write in or mark the most appropriate answers: 2. How old are you?__________________________________________________________________ 3. What is your gender? Female Male Other_____________________ 4. What best describes your race: African American/Black White/European Decent Asian Native American/Alaskan Native Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian Other, not listed:______________________________________________________________________ 5. What best describes your ethnicity: Hispanic/Latinx Non-Hispanic/Non-Latinx
This attachment is for demonstration only and include only the questionnaire used at the post-test. Other data collection tools available upon request. 4
14
Other, not listed, please name: ____________________
6. Are you employed? Full-time Part-time Unemployed Receiving disability benefits Other:____________________ 7. Do you own or rent this property? Own Rent Other: ____________________________________ 8. How many children or youth younger than 18 living with you? ____________ On the scale from 1 to 5 how much do you agree or disagree with the following statements. 1 means Totally Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Neither agree or disagree, 4 – Agree; 5 – Totally Agree Mark the most appropriate answer in the table as X or check mark: Totally Disagree
Disagree
Neither agree or disagree
Agree
Totally Agree
I don’t know
9. Most people in this neighborhood can be trusted 10. Most people in this neighborhood get on with one another 11. People in this neighborhood are willing to help each other 12. People in this neighborhood have similar attitudes and norms 13. My neighbors would help in case of emergency 14. I often visit my neighbors in their homes 15. My neighbors visit me on my birthday 16. I borrow or lend things from/to my neighbors
15
17. I can always ask my neighbors if I need advice 18. If I get the chance, I will move out of this neighborhood 19. I often feel alone in this neighborhood 20. I feel at home in this neighborhood 21. My neighborhood is a good place for children and youth to grow up in 22. My neighborhood has enough spaces for children and youth to spend time outside (ex. play zones, basketball court etc) 23. Children and youth in our neighborhood participate in community events 24. Children and youth in this neighborhood have opportunities to makes friend within the community 25. I like to interact with children and youth in my neighborhood 26. Children and youth older than X can safely be outside without direct supervision 27. If I see a child in the vicinity from my house, I keep an eye on his/her 28. Children and youth in our neighborhood volunteer to make this community a better place to live 29. If decisions about neighborhood planning and development are made children and youth from my neighborhood take an active part
30. In how many neighboring households do you know people (ex. you greet them, exchange latest news etc.)? _________________
31. How long are you planning to live in this neighborhood? Year__________ Months__________ 16
32. On the scale from 0 to 100, where 0 is the worst and 100 is the best, indicate how would you rate your physical health? ____________________ 33. On the scale from 0 to 100, where 0 is the worst and 100 is the best, indicate how would you rate your mental health? _______________________ 34. Your neighborhood was a part of the 8 Doors Project. How often did you take part in the following program activities? Simply mark the box that best reflects your activities. Never because I did not know
Never because I was unable to
Read the postcards about neighboring delivered to me
Rarely
From time to time
Often
Always
1
2
3
4
I don’t know
Followed the suggestions and tips on the postcard Completed the 8 Front Doors Map Talked to 8 Front Doors initiative team members Participated in an organized event in my neighborhood 35. On the scale from 1 to 5 where 1 is completely unsafe and 5 is completely safe, respond to the following statements: Mark the most appropriate answer in the table as X or check mark:
How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during daytime?
Completely Unsafe
Somewhat unsafe
Neither safe or unsafe
Somewhat safe
Completely safe
1
2
3
4
5
17
How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during nighttime?
1
2
3
4
5
36. How often did you volunteer for your neighborhood in last 3 months? Have not volunteered in my neighborhood in last 3 months for personal reasons Have not volunteered because there were no opportunity Once or twice Every few months Every month Every week 37. How would you rate your quality of life? Very poor Poor Neither poor nor good Good Very good 38. Is there anything else you would like us to know about your neighborhood? ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ If you have responded to both questionnaires about your neighborhood, you will have a chance to receive a $20 gift card as a sign of our appreciation. Please indicate below if you are interested in being part of the drawing for a gift card:
Yes, I would like to participate No, I do not want to participate
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey!
18