MAINTAINING RESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT Elected leadership rated as high quality: Duval Co. 2005 Target: 70% 2004: 64% What does this measure? The percentage of Duval
County respondents who answer “excellent” or “good” to the question: In your opinion, is the quality of elected leadership in the City of Jacksonville government excellent, good, fair, or poor?
Why is it important? The quality of local elected Upward movement in the trend line is positive.
Source: Telephone survey by American Public Dialogue
What other indicators affect this trend? No indicators in other Elements link strongly to influence the trend of this indicator.
What does this trend affect? This indicator has no strong link that affects the trend of any indicator in another Element.
leadership is often reflected by their perceived effectiveness in the community.
How are we doing? Survey responses have ranged from a high of 71 percent in 2000 to a low of 26 percent in 1992. 2004 2003 Excellent 13.1% 8.9% Good 51.0% 53.2% Fair 25.6% 28.6% Poor 7.3% 6.1%
20
Years Ago
50% 1985 Duval Co.
School Board leadership rated as high quality: Duval Co.
2005 Target: 55%
2004: 42%
What does this measure? The percentage of Duval
County respondents who answer “good” or “excellent” to the question: In your opinion, is the quality of elected leadership on the Duval County School Board excellent, good, fair, or poor?
Why is it important? The effectiveness of the public Upward movement in the trend line is positive.
Source: Telephone survey by American Public Dialogue
What other indicators affect this trend? The graduation rate, FCAT scores, teacher salary, teacher advanced degrees, degrees awarded, and student conduct violations.
What does this trend affect? This indicator affects the trends of all public-school indicators.
education system relies on the quality of its leadership.
How are we doing? The indicator asks about the quality of the seven members of the elected School Board, but some people may respond to the question with the Superintendent or principals in mind. Excellent Good Fair Poor
2004 6.0% 36.3% 29.7% 14.2%
2003 4.8% 30.5% 35.0% 16.1%
2004 Quality of Life Progress Report
63