Signal Hill City Council
May 10, 2022

Attachment B

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Table of Contents
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Motivation for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Overview of Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Organization of Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Disclaimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About True North . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Key Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Quality of Life & City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Quality of Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Question 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 What Should Be Changed About Signal Hill? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Question 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Overall Satisfaction with City Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Why are you Dissatisfied? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Question 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Rating Access to Essential Services, Items & Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Question 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Items that are Difficult to Obtain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Question 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Neighborhood Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Rating Neighborhood Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Question 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Neighborhood Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Question 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Question 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Suggestions to Improve Diversity, Equity & Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Question 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Basis for Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Question 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Statements about Signal Hill Police. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Question 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Interactions with Signal Hill Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Question 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Additional Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Question 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Background & Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Programming & Pre-Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Sample, Recruiting & Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Margin of Error due to Sampling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Data Processing & Weighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Table of Contents
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 ii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rounding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Questionnaire & Toplines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 List of Tables
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 iii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

L IST OF T ABLES
Table 1 Rating Access to Items, Services & Amenities by Age (Showing % Excellent & Good, Among Those Who Provided Opinion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 2 Rating Access to Items, Services & Amenities by Years in Signal Hill (Showing % Excellent & Good, Among Those Who Provided Opinion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Table 3 Rating Access to Items, Services & Amenities by Child in Hsld, Home Ownership Status & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Excellent & Good, Among Those Who Provided Opinion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 4 Rating Access to Items, Services & Amenities by Ethnicity (Showing % Excellent & Good, Among Those Who Provided Opinion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 5 Rating Access to Items, Services & Amenities by Hsld Income (Showing % Excellent & Good, Among Those Who Provided Opinion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Table 6 Opinion of Neighborhood Issues by Age (Showing % Big Problem). . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 7 Opinion of Neighborhood Issues by Years in Signal Hill (Showing % Big Problem). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 8 Opinion of Neighborhood Issues by Gender, Child in Hsld, Home Ownership Status & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Big Problem) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 9 Opinion of Neighborhood Issues by Ethnicity & Perception of Neighborhood Safety (Showing % Big Problem). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 10 Opinion of Neighborhood Issues by Hsld Income (Showing % Big Problem) . . . . . . 23 Table 11 Agreement With Statements by Age (Showing % Strongly Agree) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 12 Agreement With Statements by Years in Signal Hill (Showing % Strongly Agree). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 13 Agreement With Statements by Gender, Child in Hsld, Home Ownership Status & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Strongly Agree) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 14 Agreement With Statements by Ethnicity (Showing % Strongly Agree) . . . . . . . . . . 28 Table 15 Agreement With Statements by Hsld Income (Showing % Strongly Agree). . . . . . . . 29 Table 16 Agreement With Police Department Statements by Age (Showing % Strongly & Somewhat Agree Among Those Who Provided Opinion). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 17 Agreement With Police Department Statements by Years in Signal Hill (Showing % Strongly & Somewhat Agree Among Those Who Provided Opinion) . . . 35 Table 18 Agreement With Police Department Statements by Gender, Child in Hsld, Home Ownership Status & Police Interaction in Past 3 Years (Showing % Strongly & Somewhat Agree Among Those Who Provided Opinion) . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Table 19 Agreement With Police Department Statements by Ethnicity & Overall Satisfaction (Showing % Strongly & Somewhat Agree Among Those Who Provided Opinion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Table 20 Agreement With Police Department Statements by Hsld Income (Showing % Strongly & Somewhat Agree Among Those Who Provided Opinion) . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Table 21 Demographics of Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 22 Census & Sample Alignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 List of Figures
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

L IST OF F IGURES
Figure 1 Quality of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 2 Quality of Life by Years in Signal Hill & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Figure 3 Quality of Life by Ethnicity, Child in Hsld, Home Ownership Status & Gender. . . . . 10 Figure 4 Quality of Life by Hsld Income, Hsld Difficulty Obtaining Services, Items, Amenities & Perception of Neighborhood Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Figure 5 Changes to Improve City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 6 Overall Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 7 Overall Satisfaction by Years in Signal Hill & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 8 Overall Satisfaction by Ethnicity, Child in Hsld, Home Ownership Status & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Figure 9 Overall Satisfaction by Hsld Income, Hsld Obtaining Services, Items, Amenities & Perception of Neighborhood Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 10 Reasons For Dissatisfaction With City Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 11 Rating Access to Items, Services & Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 12 Difficulty Obtaining Services, Items or Amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 13 Difficulty Obtaining Services, Items or Amenities by Years in Signal Hill & Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 14 Difficulty Obtaining Services, Items or Amenities by Ethnicity, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 15 Difficulty Obtaining Services, Items or Amenities by Hsld Income, Overall Satisfaction & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 16 Hsld Most Needed Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 17 Opinion of Neighborhood Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Figure 18 Neighborhood Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 19 Neighborhood Safety by Years in Signal Hill & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 20 Neighborhood Safety by Ethnicity, Child in Hsld, Home Ownership Status & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 21 Neighborhood Safety by Hsld Income, Overall Satisfaction & Police Interaction in Past 3 Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Figure 22 Agreement With Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Figure 23 Inclusion, Diversity, Equity Scores by Overall, Years in Signal Hill & Overall Satisfaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Figure 24 Inclusion, Diversity, Equity Scores by Age, Perception of Neighborhood Safety & Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 25 Inclusion, Diversity, Equity Scores by Ethnicity, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Figure 26 Inclusion, Diversity, Equity Scores by Hsld Income & Hsld Difficulty Obtaining Services, Items, Amenities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 27 Suggestions to Improve Diversity, Equity & Inclusion in City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Figure 28 Discrimination Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 29 Agreement With Police Department Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Figure 30 Agreement With Police Department Statements Among Those Who Provided Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Figure 31 In Past 3 Years Have You... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Figure 32 In Past 3 Years Have You... by Years in Signal Hill & Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 33 In Past 3 Years Have You... by Ethnicity, Child in Hsld & Home Ownership Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 34 In Past 3 Years Have You... by Hsld Income, Overall Satisfaction & Gender . . . . . . 38 Figure 35 Additional Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 36 Maximum Margin of Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Introduction
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I NTRODUCTION
The killing of George Floyd on May 25, 2020 during an arrest in Minneapolis sparked outrage, prompted thousands of protests across the nation, and brought into stark relief the unjust treatment of persons of color by police. The events following George Floyd’s death have also prompted a national discussion about structural racism and that certain public practices and policies have created inequities and disparities related to education, employment, housing, health care, public safety, and wealth for Black people and other persons of color.

The City of Signal Hill is committed to fostering a culture in which all members of the community feel safe, respected and valued, are invited to participate fully, sharing their unique gifts, talents and backgrounds, recognize the value of perspectives that differ from their own, and understand that diversity and inclusion are key priorities of the City's success.1 To help identify, understand, and address current issues surrounding racial justice, systemic inequities, and structural racism within the community, the City formed the Diversity Coalition Committee (DCC). Comprised of community members and stakeholders, the DCC is examining the City’s policies and practices and engaging the community in a wider dialogue on topics of diversity, equity, and inclusion, with the goals of achieving continuous improvement in these areas through thoughtful facilitation and education.

MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH The purpose of the survey described in this report was to provide the City Council, DCC, and staff with a statistically reliable understanding of Signal Hill residents’ access, experiences, and opinions as they relate to city and community services, with a focus on how they may differ systematically by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age, gender, or other factors. Specifically, the survey was designed to:
• Measure residents’ opinions of the quality of life in Signal Hill and how it may be improved • Gauge overall satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services • Profile residents’ access to a wide range of services and amenities, including employment and job opportunities, education, social services, child care, and healthy foods • Identify issues or problems that residents encounter in their neighborhoods • Explore residents’ perceptions and attitudes related to issues of equity, diversity, and inclusion in Signal Hill, as well as their ideas for how the City of Signal Hill can improve on these dimensions
• Measure residents’ experience with—and opinions about—the Signal Hill Police Department • Gather relevant background and demographic data
OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY For a full discussion of the research methods and techniques used in this study, turn to Methodology on page 41. Since the goal of the study was to be as inclusive as possible, all households were included in the initial sampling and the survey was ultimately completed by 704 residents in the City of Signal Hill. To maximize the participation rate and better engage traditionally hard-to-reach subgroups, four methods were used to recruit participation in the survey—mailed letter invitations, email invitations, text invitations, and telephone calls—and respondents were provided the flexibility of participating online or by tele1. Signal Hill City Council Resolution No. 2020-07-6576.

Introduction
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 phone. Administered in English, Spanish, Khmer, and Korean between January 12 and January 31, 2022, the average interview lasted 16 minutes.

ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed to meet the needs of readers who prefer a summary of the findings as well as those who are interested in the details of the results.

For those who seek an overview of the findings, the section titled Key Findings is for you. It provides a summary of the most important factual findings of the survey and a discussion of their implications. For the interested reader, this section is followed by a more detailed question-byquestion discussion of the results from the survey by topic area (see Table of Contents), as well as a description of the methodology employed for collecting and analyzing the data. And, for the truly ambitious reader, the questionnaire used for the interviews is contained at the back of this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 44) and a complete set of crosstabulations for the survey results is contained in Appendix A.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS True North thanks the City of Signal Hill for the opportunity to assist the City in this important effort. The collective expertise, local knowledge, and insight provided by city staff, representatives, and members of the DCC improved the overall quality of the research presented here.

DISCLAIMER The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors (Dr. Timothy McLarney and Richard Sarles) at True North Research, Inc. and not necessarily those of the City of Signal Hill. Any errors and omissions are the responsibility of the authors.

ABOUT TRUE NORTH True North is a full-service survey research firm that is dedicated to providing public agencies with a clear understanding of the values, perceptions, priorities, and concerns of their residents and voters. Through designing and implementing scientific surveys, focus groups, and one-on-one interviews as well as expert interpretation of the findings, True North helps its clients to move with confidence when making strategic decisions in a variety of areas—such as planning, policy evaluation, performance management, establishing fiscal priorities, passing revenue measures, and developing effective public information campaigns. During their careers, True North’s principals (Dr. McLarney and Mr. Sarles) have designed and conducted over 1,200 survey research studies for public agencies, including more than 500 community opinion surveys for California cities and special districts.

Key Findings
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

K EY F INDINGS
As noted in the Introduction, this study was designed to provide the City Council, DCC, and staff with a statistically reliable understanding of Signal Hill residents’ access, experiences, and opinions as they relate to city and community services, with a focus on how they may differ systematically by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, age, gender, or other factors. Whereas subsequent sections of this report are devoted to conveying the detailed results of the survey, in this section we summarize the findings in each key area of interest.

How do residents view
the quality of life and
City services in Signal
Hill?
More than eight-in-ten residents shared positive views of the quality of life in Signal Hill and the job the City is doing to provide municipal services.

With respect to the quality of life in the City, 22% described it as excellent and 59% rated it as good. Approximately 17% of residents indicated the quality of life in the City is fair, whereas 2% used poor and 0% very poor to describe quality of life in the City. Positive assessments of the quality of life in Signal Hill were also widespread, with at least six-in-ten respondents in every identified subgroup (and at least 75% in most subgroups) providing a rating of excellent or good. That said, when compared to their respective counterparts, respondents who felt their neighborhood was unsafe and those that had difficulty accessing needed services, items or amenities in Signal Hill provided somewhat lower ratings for the quality of life in the City. For more on this topic, see Quality of Life on page 9.

Regarding the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, the patterns were similar. Overall, 85% of Signal Hill residents indicated they were either very (37%) or somewhat (48%) satisfied with the City’s performance, while just one-in-ten respondents (10%) reported being very or somewhat dissatisfied with the City’s performance, and 5% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. At the subgroup level, once again the most striking pattern was the consistency of the results and the fact that more than two-thirds of respondents in every subgroup indicated they were generally satisfied with the City’s performance in providing municipal services. Just two subgroups—those who had difficulty accessing needed services, items or amenities and those who felt their neighborhood was unsafe—stood out for expressing somewhat lower satisfaction ratings than their counterparts. For more on this topic, see Overall Satisfaction with City Services on page 11.

Are residents able to
access the items, services, and amenities
their households need?
One of the cornerstones of an egalitarian community is that all members have comparable access to basic services and amenities, including education, healthcare, healthy foods, employment opportunities, and social services. Accordingly, one of the objectives of this survey was to profile Signal Hill residents’ access to essential items, services, and amenities, as well as understand how access may vary across subgroups.

Key Findings
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 At least two-thirds of Signal Hill residents used excellent or good to describe their household’s access to parks, open spaces, and places for recreation (77% excellent or good), education (76%), healthy foods (73%), health insurance (73%), and healthcare (70%). The majority of residents also reported having excellent or good access to transportation (66%), high speed internet (60%), social services (59%), employment opportunities (55%), and childcare services (52%). When compared to the other items tested in the survey, fewer respondents described their access to housing or rental assistance (48%) and places to garden (37%) as excellent or good.

At the subgroup level, renters and low-income households (less than $25,000 annually) consistently reported lower rates of access for most items when compared to Signal Hill residents in general. Seniors, longtime residents (20+ years), African Americans, those identifying as mixed/other ethnicities, and households earning $25,000 to $49,999, meanwhile, reported above-average access for many items. It is also worth noting that, with the exception of one service for one subgroup, none of the ethnicity subgroups reported significantly below-average access to any listed items.

When asked more generally if their household has a need for any services, items, or amenities that they have difficulty obtaining, 17% of respondents answered in the affirmative, with those living in households earning $50,000 to $74,999 annually and those generally dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services being the most likely to report difficulty obtaining needed services, items, or amenities. The most commonly mentioned services, items, or amenities that Signal Hill residents reported having difficulty accessing or obtaining were cable/internet services, restaurants and retail stores, recycling, affordable housing/rent control, and public safety/security. For more on this topic, see Access on page 15.

What problems do residents encounter in their
neighborhoods?
Research has shown that perceptions of safety and the overall quality of life in a community can be influenced by factors that, although they are not directly related to crime, when present in a community are suggestive of an unsafe environment. Unkempt yards, litter, and speeding vehicles, for example, are problems that can lead a resident to feel that their neighborhood is not safe. If nothing else, issues such as these can detract from the overall quality of life for residents in neighborhoods that experience them. With this in mind, respondents were asked to focus on their neighborhoods and assess the extent to which a variety of specific issues might be a problem.

The most commonly experienced neighborhood problem among those tested was speeding vehicles (cited by 59% as a big or moderate problem), followed by homelessness (49%), crime (47%), litter (45%), not Key Findings
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 enough parking spaces (43%), and excessive noise (41%). Less than onethird of respondents reported traffic congestion (31%), landscapes and buildings not being properly maintained (27%), graffiti (21%), and homebased businesses as big or moderate problems in their neighborhood (7%).

Younger residents (under 25), those dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services, those who don’t feel safe walking in their neighborhoods at night, and residents who live in lowincome households (less than $25,000 annually) were generally much more likely than the average Signal Hill resident to perceive the items tested in the survey as big problems in their neighborhoods. Newer residents (less than 5 years) and those identifying as mixed/other ethnicities, meanwhile, were far less likely to perceived big problems in their neighborhoods for more than half of the items tested.

From an ethnicity perspective, the patterns were mixed. Latino/Hispanic residents stood out for identifying not enough parking and home-based businesses as being big problems in their neighborhoods, while Asians were disproportionately likely to identify litter and excessive noise as big problems. African Americans were much more likely to identify traffic congestion, graffiti, and home-based businesses as big problems in their neighborhoods, whereas Caucasians were much less likely to identify these same issues as big problems.

On the specific topic of safety, two-thirds of Signal Hill residents (68%) indicated that they feel safe walking at night in their neighborhood, whereas 31% reported feeling unsafe, and 2% were unsure or preferred to not answer the question. When compared to their respective counterparts, those who had lived in Signal Hill 10 to 14 years, younger residents (under 25), Latino/Hispanic and Asian American residents, females, those living in low-income households (less than $25,000 annually), and those who were generally dissatisfied with the City’s performance in providing municipal services were less likely to report feeling safe walking at night in their neighborhood. For more on this topic, see Neighborhood Issues on page 21.

What are residents’
opinions on diversity,
equity, and inclusion in
Signal Hill?
Having measured respondents’ opinions about the quality of life in Signal Hill and the City’s performance in providing services, their access to essential services and amenities, as well as the problems they may experience in their neighborhoods, the survey transitioned to measuring respondents’ opinions on the topics of diversity, equity, and inclusion and how they may apply to Signal Hill.

More than three-quarters of Signal Hill residents agreed that Diversity makes our community stronger (86%) and My neighbors look out for me (78%), whereas two-thirds agreed that City-sponsored events and activi- Key Findings
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ties help residents feel and stay connected (69%), We need to do more to appreciate and celebrate our differences (67%), and the City of Signal Hill welcomes people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives (67%).

Although a majority of residents agreed that There is a sense of community in Signal Hill, and I am part of it (59%) and I have been invited to participate in community events and causes in Signal Hill (57%), it is also worth noting that more than one-quarter disagreed with these statements (as opposed to being unsure). A majority also agreed that The City is inclusive in its approach to governing and wants to hear from all individuals and groups (56%) and The City treats all residents the same regardless of their color, income, age or identity (51%), with less than one-in-five disagreeing with these statements.

When compared to the other statements tested, fewer residents agreed that Our community’s diversity is well represented among City staff and leadership (45%), All neighborhoods receive the same quality of services from the City (37%), and People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill—we don’t have the same opportunities as others (15%).

For statements that tap the underlying constructs of diversity, equity and inclusion, two subgroups—new residents (less than one year) and those generally dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services—consistently expressed the least positive attitudes for most of the statements tested. Meanwhile, younger adults (18 to 24), longtime residents (20+ years), and those living in households that earn $25,000 to $49,999 annually expressed the most positive views for many of the statements.

Among ethnic subgroups, there were several notable differences. African Americans stood out for high levels of agreement with the statements:

We need to do more to appreciate and celebrate our differences, I have been invited to participate in community events and causes in Signal Hill, and People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill—we don’t have the same opportunities as others. Those identifying as mixed/other ethnicities had high levels of agreement with the statement People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill—we don’t have the same opportunities as others, but particularly low levels of agreement with the statements We need to do more to appreciate and celebrate our differences and I have been invited to participate in community events and causes in Signal Hill.

Caucasians were the least likely to agree with the statements: People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill—we don’t have the same opportunities as others and There is a sense of community in Signal Hill and I am part of it.

Key Findings
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Creating index scores that represented respondents’ average attitudes on the dimensions of diversity, equity, and inclusion revealed interesting differences among ethnic subgroups. Although African Americans had the highest index score for inclusion (0.86), they had the lowest values for diversity (0.35) and equity (0.24). Latino/Hispanic residents had the lowest index score for inclusion (0.56) and second lowest for equity (0.39). Meanwhile, Caucasians and those identifying as mixed/other ethnicities had the highest scores for diversity (0.56 and 0.58, respectively) and equity (0.68 and 0.79, respectively). For more on this topic, see Attitudes on page 26.

How do residents view
the Signal Hill Police
Department?
On a national level, it is difficult to address the topics of racial justice, systemic inequities, and structural racism without also discussing policing. Indeed, publicized instances of police prejudice, mistreatment, and brutality against people of color have often been the spark that ignites periods of intense protest, reflection, and renewed efforts to address the inequities that exist not only in policing, but also in other sectors including education, wealth, healthcare, and access to basic services. Recognizing that respondents’ views of the Signal Hill Police Department will be central to any discussions of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the City, the survey devoted several questions to profiling residents’ opinions of the Department, its culture, and its practices.

When presented with a series of statements about the Signal Hill Police Department, respondents generally expressed positive views of the Signal Hill Police Department or indicated that they were unsure/had no opinion. Negative views of the Police Department ranged between 9% and 16% of respondents, depending on the statement.

Overall, more than two-thirds of respondents agreed with the statements: I trust the Signal Hill Police Department to protect and serve the public (76%) and The Police Department consistently demonstrates professionalism when interacting with the public (67%). The majority also agreed that The Police Department does a good job engaging and interacting with the public (56%) and The Police Department works with the community to solve problems (53%).

Approximately half (49%) of survey participants agreed that The Signal Hill Police Department treats people fairly regardless of their race, income, or identity, while fewer agreed The Police Department holds its officers accountable (35%) and If a mistake is made, the Department admits it and works to fix the mistake (27%). For these latter statements, most of the remaining respondents were unsure/had no opinion rather than disagreeing with the statements.

Key Findings
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 At the subgroup level, younger residents (under 35), new residents (less than 1 year), those dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, and those residing in low-income households (less than $25,000 annually) were consistently among the least positive in their assessments of the Signal Hill Police Department and its practices, whereas seniors and residents from households earning $75,000 to $99,999 annually were consistently the most positive.

Among ethnic subgroups, African Americans were substantially less likely to agree that The Signal Hill Police Department treats people fairly regardless of their race, income, or identity and The Police Department does a good job engaging and interacting with the public, while Latino/ Hispanic respondents were the least likely to agree that If a mistake is made, the Department admits it and works to fix the mistake. Caucasians were the most likely to agree that The Police Department does a good job engaging and interacting with the public, while both Caucasians and those identifying as mixed/other ethnicities expressed higher than average agreement that If a mistake is made, the Department admits it and works to fix the mistake.

Finally, it is also noteworthy that assessments of the Signal Hill Police Department did not vary significantly according to whether a respondent had interacted with the Police Department during the past three years by being stopped by a police officer, talking to/interacting with a police officer at a community event or other setting, or calling the Police Department. For more on this topic, see Police on page 33.

Quality of Life & City Services
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Q UALITY OF L IFE & C ITY S ERVICES
The opening series of questions in the survey was designed to assess residents’ top of mind perceptions about the overall quality of life in Signal Hill, explore their ideas for ways to improve Signal Hill as a place to live, as well as measure their satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services.

QUALITY OF LIFE At the outset of the interview, respondents were asked to rate the quality of life in the City, using a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. As shown in Figure 1 below, more than eight-in-ten respondents shared favorable opinions of the quality of life in Signal Hill, with 22% reporting it is excellent and 59% stating it is good. Approximately 17% of residents indicated the quality of life in the City is fair, whereas 2% used poor and 0% very poor to describe quality of life in the City.

Question 2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in Signal Hill? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor? FIGURE 1 QUALITY OF LIFE Figures 2-4 show how ratings of the quality of life in Signal Hill varied by length of residence, age, ethnicity, presence of a child in the home, home ownership, gender, household
income, whether their household had difficultly accessing needed services, items or amenities, and perceptions of their neighborhood’s safety. With a few notable exceptions, at least three-quarters of respondents in every subgroup rated the quality of life in Signal Hill as excellent or good. Respondents who felt their neighborhood was unsafe, as well as those that had difficulty accessing needed services, items or amenities provided somewhat lower ratings.

FIGURE 2 QUALITY OF LIFE BY YEARS IN SIGNAL HILL & AGE
Very poor

0.0 Not sure

0.2 Poor

2.4 Fair

16.5 Excellent

21.8 Good

59.1 20.0

30.8 27.7

17.2 19.2 23.1 21.1 26.9

61.1 49.6 49.1

61.1 58.8

59.5 61.3

63.1 Excellent 18.8 22.2 20.1

15.1 59.2

64.0 Good 60.1

64.2 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than 11 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or
more
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Years in Signal Hill (Q1) Age (QD2)
% Respondents
Quality of Life & City Services
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 FIGURE 3 QUALITY OF LIFE BY ETHNICITY, CHILD IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & GENDER FIGURE 4 QUALITY OF LIFE BY HSLD INCOME, HSLD DIFFICULTY OBTAINING SERVICES, ITEMS, AMENITIES & PERCEPTION

OF NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY
WHAT SHOULD BE CHANGED ABOUT SIGNAL HILL? The next question in this series asked residents to identify what one change they would like to see that would make Signal Hill a better place to live, now and in the future. Question 3 was posed in an open-ended manner, thereby allowing residents to mention any change that came to mind without being prompted by—or restricted to—a particular list of options. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 5 on the next page.

One-in-five respondents could not think of a change they desire (11%) or reported that no changes are needed/everything is fine (9%), both of which are indicative of a respondent who does not perceive any pressing issues or problems in the City. Among specific changes desired, the most common were improving public safety/reducing crime (13%), improving shopping and dining opportunities (12%), cleaning-up/beautifying the City (11%), addressing homeless issues (10%), and improving/maintaining infrastructure, streets and roads (8%). Enforcing City codes (6%), providing more police presence/funding (6%), enforcing traffic laws (5%), improving parks and recreation (5%), and providing more affordable housing (5%) were each also mentioned by at least 5% of respondents.

31.5 24.5 21.5 22.9 20.7 21.2 22.8

58.7 50.6 61.8 61.9

56.9 61.4 58.7
Excellent

22.8 21.4 25.6 19.9
Good

54.8 67.4 61.6

53.8 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
African
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Yes No Own Rent Male Female
Ethnicity (QD6) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
Gender (QD1)
% Respondents

19.2 21.0

7.9 27.8

10.8 28.1

9.5 61.1 61.2

63.0 58.1

61.6 62.0

51.4 Excellent

22.8 29.5

12.4 29.3
Good

53.4 59.4

61.7 56.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Yes No Not sure Safe Unsafe
Hsld Income (QD7) Hsld Difficulty Obtaining Services,
Items, Amenities (Q7)
Perception of
Neighborhood Safety
(Q10)
% Respondents
Quality of Life & City Services
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Question 3 If you could change one thing to make Signal Hill a better place to live - now and in the future - what change would you like to see? FIGURE 5 CHANGES TO IMPROVE CITY OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES The next question in this series asked respondents to indicate if, overall, they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Signal Hill is doing to provide city services. Because this question does not reference a specific program, facility, or service and requested that the respondent consider the City’s performance in general, the findings of this question may be regarded as an overall performance rating for the City.

As shown in Figure 6 on the next page, 85% of Signal Hill residents indicated they were either very (37%) or somewhat (48%) satisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services. Just one-in-ten respondents (10%) reported being very or somewhat dissatisfied with the City’s performance, whereas 5% were unsure or unwilling to share their opinion. At the subgroup level (see Figures 7-9), the most striking pattern is the consistency of the results and the fact that more than two-thirds of respondents in every subgroup indicated they were generally satisfied with the City’s performance in providing municipal services. That said, satisfaction was somewhat lower than average among those who had difficulty accessing needed services, items or amenities, as well as those who felt their neighborhood was unsafe.

13.1 12.0

11.4 11.0

10.1 8.8

8.2 6.0

5.9 5.1

5.1 4.4

3.7 3.0

2.5 2.2

2.2 1.8

4.8 5.4
0 5 10 15
Improve public safety, reduce crime
Improve shopping, dining opportunities
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Clean-up, beautify City
Address homeless issues
No changes needed / Everything is fine
Improve, maintain infrastructure, streets, roads
Enforce City codes
Provide more police presence, funding
Enforce traffic laws
Improve parks, recreation
Provide more affordable housing
Address parking issues
Provide more community events, activities for all ages
Address environmental issues, disaster preparedness
Reduce, limit growth, density
Stop oil drillings, less fracking
Reduce traffic congestion
Improve Council, resident-City communication
Add, improve street lighting
% Respondents
Quality of Life & City Services
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Question 4 Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Signal Hill is doing to provide city services? FIGURE 6 OVERALL SATISFACTION FIGURE 7 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY YEARS IN SIGNAL HILL & AGE FIGURE 8 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY ETHNICITY, CHILD IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & GENDER Somewhat
satisfied

47.9 Very satisfied

37.1 Somewhat
dissatisfied

6.8 Very
dissatisfied

3.4 Prefer not to
answer

0.2 Not sure

4.7 47.3 44.3 39.8 33.1 32.9 31.7 38.3

49.6 34.6 46.9

42.0 47.1 44.6

55.5 54.2

42.1 Very
satisfied

23.5 36.5 35.4 32.5
Smwt
satisfied

55.0 47.3 51.7 49.8
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or more 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Years in Signal Hill (Q1) Age (QD2)
% Respondents

23.7 35.3 36.8 39.0 35.3 38.4 37.2

70.3 47.5 48.4 48.6

46.4 48.5 47.7

41.7 43.9

32.7 Very
satisfied

33.6 52.4

46.8 49.9
Smwt
satisfied

41.9 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
African
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Yes No Own Rent Male Female
Ethnicity (QD6) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
Gender (QD1)
% Respondents
Quality of Life & City Services
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 FIGURE 9 OVERALL SATISFACTION BY HSLD INCOME, HSLD OBTAINING SERVICES, ITEMS, AMENITIES & PERCEPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY WHY ARE YOU DISSATISFIED? The 10% of respondents who indicated they were dissatisfied with the City’s performance were subsequently asked to describe the particular reason for their dissatisfaction. Question 5 was presented in an open-ended manner to allow respondents the opportunity to mention any specific reason that came to mind without being prompted by, or constrained to, a particular list of reasons. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 10.

Question 5 Is there a particular reason you are dissatisfied with the City's performance in providing services? FIGURE 10 REASONS FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH CITY SERVICES

32.7 37.3

27.1 44.9

17.6 44.8

20.9 49.7 48.4

49.2 45.6

56.7 45.8

51.5 38.9

25.9 51.5 Very
satisfied

33.9 42.4

56.2 56.3
Smwt
satisfied

41.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Yes No Not sure Safe Unsafe
Hsld Income (QD7) Hsld Difficulty Obtaining Services, Items, Amenities (Q7)
Perception of
Neighborhood Safety
(Q10)
% Respondents

37.6 24.0

19.7 13.4

10.4 9.9

7.8 5.5

4.5 2.7

1.0 3.5

0.7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Trash, graffiti in public areas
Parking issues
Lack of responsiveness from City
City code violations
Need more focus on underserved residents
Poor infrastructure maintenance
Management, leadership concerns
Public safety, security concerns
Speeding vehicles, traffic violations
Fireworks concerns
Noise ordinance violations
Insufficient public transportation
Not sure / No particular reason
% Respondents Dissatisfied With City (Q5)
Quality of Life & City Services
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 The most frequently mentioned reasons for being dissatisfied with the City’s performance were trash and graffiti in public areas (38%), parking issues (24%), lack of responsiveness from the City (20%), code violations (13%), a desire for more focus on underserved residents (10%), and poor infrastructure maintenance (10%).

Access
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

A CCESS
One of the cornerstones of an egalitarian community is that all members have comparable access to basic services and amenities, including education, healthcare, healthy foods, employment opportunities, and social services. On a national level, there are many areas where inequalities not only exist, but are growing—including wages, wealth, access to healthcare and healthy foods, occupational segregation, education, and incarceration. Accordingly, one of the objectives of this survey was to profile Signal Hill residents’ access to essential items, services, and amenities, as well as understand how access may vary across subgroups.

RATING ACCESS TO ESSENTIAL SERVICES, ITEMS & AMENITIES For each of the items shown on the left of Figure 11, respondents were asked to rate their household’s access to the item on a five-point scale of excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor. To allow for an applesto-apples comparison across items, only those respondents who provided a rating for an item are included in the figure.2
Question 6 Next, I'd like you to rate your household's access to different types of items, services, and amenities. If an item doesn't apply to your household, please say so.

FIGURE 11 RATING ACCESS TO ITEMS, SERVICES & AMENITIES
At least two-thirds of Signal Hill residents used excellent or good to describe their household’s access to parks, open spaces, and places for recreation (77% excellent or good), education (76%), healthy foods (73%), health insurance (73%), and healthcare (70%). The majority of residents also reported having excellent or good access to transportation (66%), high speed internet (60%), social services (59%), employment opportunities (55%), and childcare services (52%). When com2. Respondents who were unsure or preferred to not answer the question were not included in the percentage calculations.

36.3 25.6

26.5 31.4

27.0 22.4

19.6 20.6

18.9 16.0

15.7 12.9

41.1 50.4

46.6 41.5

42.7 43.5

40.5 38.0

36.5 36.3

32.2 23.8

15.3 14.5

20.5 20.0

21.2 22.9

22.8 29.1

27.3 28.9

28.7 26.5

4.9 5.9

4.5 5.0

6.2 8.1

11.6 9.1

12.3 11.5

16.1 24.1

2.3 3.6

1.8 2.1

2.9 3.2

5.5 3.3

5.0 7.2

7.3 12.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Parks, open spaces, places for recreation
Education
Healthy foods
Health insurance
Healthcare
Transportation
High speed internet
Social services
Employment and job opportunities
Childcare services
Housing or rental assistance
Places to garden
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very poor
Access
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 pared to the other items tested in Question 6, fewer respondents described their access to housing or rental assistance (48%) and places to garden (37%) as excellent or good.

Whereas Figure 11 presents the ratings among all Signal Hill respondents, Tables 1-5 show how the percentage who described their access to an item as excellent or good varied by age, length of residence in the City, presence of a child in the home, home ownership, overall satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, ethnicity, and household income. For the reader’s convenience, cells that are at least 15% of the overall value above that found among Signal Hill residents are highlighted in green, whereas cells that are at least 15% below the overall value are highlighted in red.3 Stated differently, green highlighted cells have well above-average access to an item, whereas red highlighted cells have significantly below-average access to an item.

The most striking patterns that emerge from the tables are found with respect to household ownership and income, with renters and low-income households (less than $25,000 annually) consistently reporting lower access ratings for most items when compared to Signal Hill residents in general. Seniors, longtime residents (20+ years), African Americans, those identifying as mixed/other ethnicities, and households earning $25,000 to $49,999, meanwhile, reported above-average access ratings for many items. It is also worth noting that, with one exception, none of the ethnicity subgroups reported significantly below-average access to any items.

TABLE 1 RATING ACCESS TO ITEMS, SERVICES & AMENITIES BY AGE (SHOWING % EXCELLENT & GOOD, AMONG THOSE

WHO PROVIDED OPINION)
TABLE 2 RATING ACCESS TO ITEMS, SERVICES & AMENITIES BY YEARS IN SIGNAL HILL (SHOWING % EXCELLENT &

GOOD, AMONG THOSE WHO PROVIDED OPINION)

3. For example, if the overall value among all Signal Hill residents for an item is 50%, any cell that is 57.5% or greater will be highlighted in green. If the overall value were 70%, then cells that are 80.5% or higher will be highlighted in green.
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Parks, open spaces, places for recreation 77.7 77.4 70.3 80.4 75.0 82.8 Education 89.1 80.2 63.3 67.1 80.5 75.4
Healthy foods 81.4 70.8 73.1 71.8 68.5 81.6
Health insurance 71.1 70.3 69.5 67.0 76.5 84.9
Healthcare 77.5 61.9 66.5 69.5 69.5 80.9
Transportation 72.0 61.7 59.2 69.9 67.8 70.8
High speed internet 63.2 61.3 52.2 60.4 58.1 63.6
Social services 71.2 57.8 48.2 55.6 56.4 66.3
Employment and job opportunities 60.0 49.7 52.6 57.6 59.2 60.9 Childcare services 71.1 45.0 53.2 45.9 36.6 66.1
Housing or rental assistance 51.8 49.7 40.4 41.9 47.9 57.6 Places to garden 32.7 31.7 25.1 35.9 44.1 56.2
Age (QD2)
Less
than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or more
Parks, open spaces, places for recreation 72.7 73.2 78.0 81.2 80.3 80.4 Education 83.2 75.4 67.0 80.0 80.4 78.6
Healthy foods 73.2 69.0 73.3 76.0 73.9 75.0
Health insurance 68.7 71.5 66.4 63.7 85.5 82.3
Healthcare 61.6 65.2 59.4 72.9 78.3 81.7
Transportation 49.7 69.6 60.3 65.9 77.3 67.9
High speed internet 70.8 58.5 54.7 67.4 46.1 64.8
Social services 62.7 52.5 52.4 61.8 58.0 67.7
Employment and job opportunities 63.1 59.2 44.2 50.3 66.7 57.2 Childcare services 63.5 43.5 43.4 49.5 76.6 61.3
Housing or rental assistance 55.3 55.0 34.5 40.5 40.2 59.6 Places to garden 28.5 29.9 31.5 40.1 47.9 47.2
Years in Signal Hill (Q1)
Access
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 TABLE 3 RATING ACCESS TO ITEMS, SERVICES & AMENITIES BY CHILD IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % EXCELLENT & GOOD, AMONG THOSE WHO PROVIDED OPINION) TABLE 4 RATING ACCESS TO ITEMS, SERVICES & AMENITIES BY ETHNICITY (SHOWING % EXCELLENT & GOOD, AMONG

THOSE WHO PROVIDED OPINION)
TABLE 5 RATING ACCESS TO ITEMS, SERVICES & AMENITIES BY HSLD INCOME (SHOWING % EXCELLENT & GOOD,

AMONG THOSE WHO PROVIDED OPINION)
ITEMS THAT ARE DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN Regardless of how they rated their access to the items tested in Question 6, all respondents were next asked if there are specific services, items, or amenities that their household needs that they have difficulty obtaining and—if yes—to describe the items. As shown in Figure 12 on the next page, approximately one-in-five respondents (17%) stated they have a need for services, items, or amenities that they have difficulty obtaining, whereas 65% reported no such difficulties and the remainder were either unsure (17%) or preferred to not answer the question (1%). When compared to their counterparts, those living in households earning $50,000 to $74,999 annually and those generally dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services were the most likely to report difficulty obtaining needed services, items, or amenities (see Figures 13-15).

Yes No Own Rent Satisfied Dissatisfied
Parks, open spaces, places for recreation 77.6 76.9 81.2 55.0 72.6 78.3 Education 72.9 79.3 79.5 57.3 67.7 81.7
Healthy foods 70.9 77.3 74.9 59.7 72.9 72.4
Health insurance 81.6 65.7 76.9 46.3 68.9 73.8
Healthcare 76.0 63.8 73.9 37.8 65.3 70.8
Transportation 67.9 64.0 69.6 46.5 63.2 65.4
High speed internet 62.2 58.3 62.5 48.1 59.3 59.4
Social services 60.1 57.4 64.7 28.2 57.9 59.1
Employment and job opportunities 62.4 48.5 59.6 30.4 50.6 56.3 Childcare services 47.2 54.1 57.5 33.4 54.5 45.7
Housing or rental assistance 57.0 42.7 52.8 26.9 44.7 47.4 Places to garden 37.5 33.7 40.4 18.3 30.5 39.6
Child in Hsld (QD3)
Home Ownership
Status (QD4) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
African
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Parks, open spaces, places for recreation 73.7 77.9 83.1 78.9 80.5 Education 72.7 78.2 79.5 82.2 74.7
Healthy foods 73.0 74.6 70.6 75.4 60.2
Health insurance 65.4 75.8 78.0 80.6 82.8
Healthcare 65.3 74.9 69.5 73.3 65.2
Transportation 59.6 69.2 75.0 67.0 78.9
High speed internet 56.5 61.4 54.3 66.7 55.2
Social services 54.1 63.2 61.4 64.3 55.4
Employment and job opportunities 47.3 56.3 64.7 61.6 79.5 Childcare services 48.7 52.5 62.9 53.4 75.6
Housing or rental assistance 43.4 46.3 64.5 51.6 50.5
Places to garden 35.2 36.8 43.4 37.5 34.2
Ethnicity (QD6)
Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Parks, open spaces, places for recreation 62.1 88.7 78.0 77.9 78.7 78.3 Education 75.9 92.6 73.0 73.9 73.5 68.2
Healthy foods 75.0 78.6 69.6 76.9 72.7 71.1
Health insurance 59.9 65.8 74.5 72.3 79.8 75.7
Healthcare 58.2 70.5 69.1 66.8 74.1 73.8
Transportation 62.5 77.0 56.9 65.6 66.6 66.7
High speed internet 59.1 66.6 44.4 70.1 61.9 61.4
Social services 45.4 68.3 54.9 66.2 60.8 62.1
Employment and job opportunities 41.5 55.4 34.0 52.2 64.1 72.0 Childcare services 41.0 74.1 49.7 50.3 48.1 47.9
Housing or rental assistance 34.8 48.5 42.8 43.2 68.3 51.8 Places to garden 33.7 50.3 32.0 50.0 35.9 33.3
Hsld Income (QD7)
Access
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Question 7 Are there any services, items, or amenities that your household needs that you have difficulty obtaining?
FIGURE 12 DIFFICULTY OBTAINING SERVICES, ITEMS OR AMENITIES FIGURE 13 DIFFICULTY OBTAINING SERVICES, ITEMS OR AMENITIES BY YEARS IN SIGNAL HILL & AGE FIGURE 14 DIFFICULTY OBTAINING SERVICES, ITEMS OR AMENITIES BY ETHNICITY, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS
Not hard to
obtain

65.1 Yes, hard to
obtain

17.2 Not sure

16.5 Prefer not to
answer

1.2 13.9

18.7 0.0

17.2 22.2

19.1 22.5

15.2 11.0

16.6 19.2 19.5
0 10
20 30
40 Less than
1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or
more
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Years in Signal Hill (Q1) Age (QD2)
% Respondents in Hslds With Difficulty
Obtaining Services, Items, Amenities

12.1 21.7

16.6 17.0

18.8 14.2 15.7

17.7 19.9
0 10
20 30
40 Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
African
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Yes No Own Rent
Ethnicity (QD6) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
% Respondents in Hslds With Difficulty
Obtaining Services, Items, Amenities
Access
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 FIGURE 15 DIFFICULTY OBTAINING SERVICES, ITEMS OR AMENITIES BY HSLD INCOME, OVERALL SATISFACTION & GENDER
Respondents who answered Question 7 in the affirmative were subsequently asked to describe the most important services or items that their household needs that they also have difficulty obtaining. Question 8 was presented in an open-ended manner, which allowed respondents to mention any service, item, or amenity that came to mind without being prompted by—or restricted to—a particular list. True North later reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 16.

Question 8 Please describe the most important services or items that your household needs that you have difficulty obtaining.

FIGURE 16 HSLD MOST NEEDED SERVICES

16.8 15.8 15.4

33.6 16.7 18.0

13.4 11.5

28.5 14.5
0 10
20 30
40 Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Satisfied DissatisfiedMale Female
Hsld Income (QD7) Overall Satisfaction
(Q4)
Gender (QD1)
% Respondents With Difficulty
Obtaining Services, Items, Amenities

17.3 12.0

11.8 11.0

10.4 8.8

8.1 5.1

4.7 3.7

3.3 2.7

2.5 2.4

4.4 3.2
0 5 10 15 20
Cable, internet services
Restaurants, retail stores
Recycling
Affordable housing, rent control
Public safety, security
Recreational areas, parks, places to gather
Infrastructure, roads, sidewalks
Senior services
Public transportation
Cell signal, reception
Parking spaces
EV charging stations
Healthcare
Not sure / Cannot think of anything
Employment, jobs
School, education
% Respondents in Hslds With Difficulty
Obtaining Services, Items, Amenities
Access
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 The most commonly mentioned services, items, or amenities that Signal Hill residents reported having difficulty accessing or obtaining were cable/internet services (17%), restaurants and retail stores (12%), recycling (12%), affordable housing/rent control (11%), and public safety/security (10%).

Neighborhood Issues
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

N EIGHBORHOOD I SSUES
Research has shown that perceptions of safety and the overall quality of life in a community can be influenced by factors that, although they are not directly related to crime, when present in a community are suggestive of an unsafe environment. Unkempt yards, litter, and speeding vehicles, for example, are problems that can lead a resident to feel that their neighborhood is not safe. If nothing else, issues such as these can detract from the overall quality of life for residents in neighborhoods that experience them. Accordingly, this section of the survey asked residents to focus on their neighborhoods and assess the extent to which a variety of specific issues might be a problem.

RATING NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES The first question in this series presented respondents with each of the issues shown on the left of Figure 17 and asked, for each, whether the issue is a big problem, moderate problem, small problem, or not a problem in their neighborhood. The order of the items was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias.

Question 9 As I read the following issues, please indicate whether each issue is a big problem, a moderate problem, a small problem, or not a problem in your neighborhood.

FIGURE 17 OPINION OF NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES
The most commonly experienced neighborhood problem among those tested was speeding vehicles (cited by 59% as a big or moderate problem), followed by homelessness (49%), crime (47%), litter (45%), not enough parking spaces (43%), and excessive noise (41%). Less than one-third of respondents reported traffic congestion (31%), landscapes and buildings not being properly maintained (27%), graffiti (21%), and home-based businesses as big or moderate problems in their neighborhood (7%).

31.3 26.7

16.4 21.9

21.6 18.9

11.6 10.1

6.1 27.3

22.2 30.8

23.5 21.6

22.3 18.9

16.8 15.3

3.7 21.8

24.5 28.3

29.6 22.1

23.4 27.3

26.3 29.1

10.6 18.3

23.9 19.1

23.1 32.1

34.8 41.2

41.6 45.9

55.9 1
3 2
3 1
1 3
3 5.4

5.1 27.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Speeding vehicles
Homelessness
Crime
Litter
Not enough parking spaces
Excessive noise
Traffic congestion
Landscapes, buildings not properly
maintained
Graffiti
Home-based businesses
% Respondents
Big problem Moderate problem Small problem Not a problem Not sure/Prefer not to answer Neighborhood Issues
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Tables 6-10 show the percentage of respondents who rated each issue as a big problem in their neighborhood across Signal Hill subgroups. For the reader’s convenience, cells that are at least 30% of the overall value above that found among Signal Hill residents are highlighted in red, whereas cells that are at least 30% below the overall value are highlighted in green.4 Stated differently, green highlighted cells have a well below average percentage of respondents indicating an item is a big problem in their neighborhood, whereas red highlighted cells have a significantly above-average percentage indicating the item is a big problem.

The tables demonstrate that younger residents (under 25), those dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services, those who don’t feel safe walking in their neighborhoods at night, and residents who live in low-income households (less than $25,000 annually) were generally much more likely than the average Signal Hill resident to perceive the items tested in Question 9 as big problems in their neighborhoods. Newer residents (less than 5 years) and those identifying as mixed/other ethnicities, meanwhile, were far less likely to perceive big problems in their neighborhoods for more than half of the items tested.

From an ethnicity perspective, the patterns were mixed. Latino/Hispanic residents stood out for identifying not enough parking and home-based businesses as being big problems in their neighborhoods, while Asians were disproportionately likely to identify litter and excessive noise as big problems. African Americans were much more likely to identify traffic congestion, graffiti, and home-based businesses as big problems in their neighborhoods, whereas Caucasians were much less likely to identify these same issues as big problems.

TABLE 6 OPINION OF NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES BY AGE (SHOWING % BIG PROBLEM) TABLE 7 OPINION OF NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES BY YEARS IN SIGNAL HILL (SHOWING % BIG PROBLEM)

4. For example, if the overall value among all Signal Hill residents for an item is 30%, any cell that is 39% or greater will be highlighted in red.
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Speeding vehicles 46.8 28.2 29.9 28.3 37.0 27.4
Homelessness 33.5 21.3 31.8 28.1 29.0 19.0
Litter 30.6 25.4 21.2 22.4 19.7 17.7
Not enough parking spaces 32.5 17.3 17.6 21.2 25.5 19.8 Excessive noise 22.3 20.4 17.5 14.1 21.5 17.7
Crime 18.2 17.0 20.6 13.6 18.4 11.7
Traffic congestion 25.3 10.7 11.7 6.6 11.0 11.2
Landscapes, buildings not properly maintained 22.3 8.1 12.6 7.6 10.5 5.3 Graffiti 15.2 4.1 5.7 5.2 6.7 4.8
Home-based businesses 12.2 4.1 0.6 0.0 1.7 1.0
Age (QD2)
Less
than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or more
Speeding vehicles 13.6 13.6 29.3 32.1 34.9 36.1
Homelessness 20.2 20.2 31.5 27.5 20.1 30.4
Litter 18.4 18.4 18.1 17.5 19.1 27.7
Not enough parking spaces 14.0 14.0 21.9 21.5 24.9 24.3 Excessive noise 14.3 14.3 20.4 18.7 16.8 16.0
Crime 7.1 7.1 16.7 14.7 8.8 22.0
Traffic congestion 3.2 3.2 7.6 14.7 12.9 14.0
Landscapes, buildings not properly maintained 10.6 10.6 5.1 8.0 12.8 11.3 Graffiti 0.0 0.0 5.1 2.8 8.1 10.2
Home-based businesses 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 6.4 1.7
Years in Signal Hill (Q1)
Neighborhood Issues
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 TABLE 8 OPINION OF NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES BY GENDER, CHILD IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % BIG PROBLEM)
TABLE 9 OPINION OF NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES BY ETHNICITY & PERCEPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY (SHOWING %

BIG PROBLEM)
TABLE 10 OPINION OF NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES BY HSLD INCOME (SHOWING % BIG PROBLEM) NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY All respondents were next asked to rate how safe they feel when walking at night in their neighborhood. As shown in Figure 18 on the next page, two-thirds of Signal Hill residents (68%) indicated that they feel safe walking at night in their neighborhood, whereas 31% reported feeling unsafe, and 2% were unsure or preferred to not answer the question.

Perceived safety when walking at night in one’s neighborhood varied across subgroups (see Figures 19-21). When compared to their respective counterparts, those who had lived in Signal Hill 10 to 14 years, younger residents (under 25), Latino/Hispanic and Asian American residents, females, those living in low-income households (less than $25,000 annually), and those who were generally dissatisfied with the City’s performance in providing municipal services were less likely to report feeling safe walking at night in their neighborhood.

Male Female Yes No Own Rent Satisfied Dissatisfied
Speeding vehicles 29.6 32.8 42.0 26.9 27.9 34.2 30.6 41.4 Homelessness 26.3 26.9 33.5 24.2 23.4 29.6 25.0 44.8
Litter 23.1 21.1 24.1 21.4 20.7 23.3 19.4 49.1
Not enough parking spaces 20.3 22.5 24.0 20.9 16.3 27.3 19.5 43.8 Excessive noise 17.0 19.3 15.9 20.4 19.0 18.7 15.1 49.5 Crime 14.4 17.8 22.3 14.6 14.4 18.7 13.3 45.9
Traffic congestion 12.5 10.2 11.2 10.6 9.3 13.6 9.4 32.3 Landscapes, buildings not properly maintained 9.7 9.5 11.7 9.8 7.5 11.4 6.6 42.3 Graffiti 5.8 5.5 7.9 5.4 4.4 7.6 4.0 25.3
Home-based businesses 0.9 3.5 2.7 2.6 1.2 4.0 1.5 12.5
Gender (QD1) Child in Hsld (QD3)
Home Ownership
Status (QD4)
Overall Satisfaction
(Q4)
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
African
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other Safe Unsafe
Speeding vehicles 37.6 32.1 32.7 24.5 11.3 27.5 40.3
Homelessness 31.0 26.0 30.9 21.8 17.3 21.1 39.8
Litter 20.3 29.2 19.1 20.8 6.1 18.3 30.8
Not enough parking spaces 29.3 12.5 27.5 16.8 13.4 16.0 34.3 Excessive noise 18.4 27.2 16.1 14.7 7.6 12.6 32.9
Crime 16.9 17.5 18.0 13.7 21.0 10.9 28.8
Traffic congestion 13.5 12.6 15.5 7.6 3.7 8.2 19.1
Landscapes, buildings not properly maintained 11.9 10.5 9.9 8.8 0.0 5.2 21.2 Graffiti 7.8 5.1 11.2 3.5 0.0 4.1 10.9
Home-based businesses 5.0 0.0 6.4 0.2 3.7 1.5 5.0
Ethnicity (QD6)
Perception of
Neighborhood Safety
(Q10)
Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Speeding vehicles 43.4 33.0 35.9 20.5 24.5 34.3
Homelessness 38.8 27.5 26.1 27.4 23.9 27.1
Litter 28.1 17.1 23.6 20.0 17.3 27.7
Not enough parking spaces 43.6 20.8 26.9 18.7 18.1 16.6 Excessive noise 33.6 13.7 16.7 8.5 20.9 18.4
Crime 19.5 7.8 14.8 12.2 17.8 20.8
Traffic congestion 23.9 9.7 11.6 3.7 9.2 13.3
Landscapes, buildings not properly maintained 17.4 5.8 10.1 7.2 8.6 9.8 Graffiti 14.7 4.2 3.3 4.4 5.7 4.2
Home-based businesses 10.9 1.5 0.0 0.7 2.7 1.5
Hsld Income (QD7)
Neighborhood Issues
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Question 10 How safe do you feel walking at night in your neighborhood? Would you say you feel very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe? FIGURE 18 NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY
FIGURE 19 NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY BY YEARS IN SIGNAL HILL & AGE FIGURE 20 NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY BY ETHNICITY, CHILD IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & GENDER Not sure

1.7 Prefer not to
answer

0.1 Very unsafe

8.0 Somewhat
unsafe

22.6 Very safe

18.8 Somewhat safe

48.7 29.7 24.6 20.4 17.0 14.6 21.9 17.6 23.4

41.7 46.0

30.7 52.6 52.8

51.2 53.4 45.6
Very
safe

15.1 13.4 17.9 16.2
Smwt
safe

59.0 38.3

57.0 49.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Less than
1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or
more
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Years in Signal Hill (Q1) Age (QD2)
% Respondents

29.1 21.0 18.0 18.9 18.6 25.4

13.1 54.6

43.0 50.9 49.1 49.0

50.4 47.4

17.6 18.6 18.9
Very
safe

19.2 42.7

58.1 53.6 Smwt
safe

44.4 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
African
American
Caucasian
/ White
Mixed or
other
Yes No Own Rent Male Female
Ethnicity (QD6) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership
Status (QD4)
Gender (QD1)
% Respondents
Neighborhood Issues
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 FIGURE 21 NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY BY HSLD INCOME, OVERALL SATISFACTION & POLICE INTERACTION IN PAST 3 YEARS

20.6 18.6 19.9

10.9 21.3

12.6 48.3 54.6 52.2

24.4 47.5

54.8 Very
safe

8.1 28.0 21.0 20.4
Smwt
safe

42.5 46.3 49.9

44.6 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Satisfied DissatisfiedYes No
Hsld Income (QD7) Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Police Interaction in Past 3 Years (Q15)
% Respondents
Attitudes
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

A TTITUDES
Having measured respondents’ opinions about the quality of life in Signal Hill and the City’s performance in providing services, their access to essential services and amenities, as well as the problems they may experience in their neighborhoods, the survey transitioned to measuring respondents’ opinions on the topics of diversity, equity, and inclusion and how they may apply to Signal Hill.

DIVERSITY, EQUITY & INCLUSION STATEMENTS Each of the statements shown on the left of Figure 22 were designed to tap into the underlying concepts of diversity, equity, or inclusion. For each statement, respondents were simply asked the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement, or if they had no opinion either way. Although the order of the statements was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias, they are sorted in Figure 22 from high to low based on the percentage who agreed with the statements.

Question 11 Next, I'm going to read several statements about Signal Hill. For each, I'd like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

FIGURE 22 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS
More than three-quarters of Signal Hill residents agreed that Diversity makes our community stronger (86%) and My neighbors look out for me (78%), whereas two-thirds agreed that Citysponsored events and activities help residents feel and stay connected (69%), We need to do more to appreciate and celebrate our differences (67%), and the City of Signal Hill welcomes people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives (67%).

63.4 35.6

35.6 36.4

32.5 16.6

24.8 27.5

25.7 21.4

16.6 4.6

22.1 42.7

33.2 31.0

34.3 42.4

32.4 28.5

24.8 23.1

20.5 10.6

3.5 7.7

8.5 8.5

4.8 16.2

14.5 9.1

8.9 9.2

14.1 17.4

7.5 3.6

6.4 9.1

14.5 5.7

5.7 6.5

12.7 41.8

8.3 6.4

19.1 17.7

26.3 15.7

13.9 29.2

34.9 39.8

36.1 25.6
3 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Diversity makes our community stronger
My neighbors look out for me
City-sponsored events and activities help residents feel and stay connected We need to do more to appreciate and celebrate our differences The City of Signal Hill welcomes people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives
There is a sense of community in Signal Hill, and I am part of it I have been invited to participate in community events and causes in Signal Hill
The City is inclusive in its approach to governing, wants to hear from all individuals and groups
The City treats all residents the same regardless of their color, income, age or identity
Our community’s diversity is well represented among City staff and leadership All neighborhoods receive the same quality of services from the City People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill - we don’t have the same opportunities as others
Q11d Q11j Q11l Q11f Q11g Q11i Q11k Q11h Q11a Q11e Q11b Q11c % Respondents
Strongly agree Smwt agree Smwt disagree Strongly disagree DK/NA Attitudes
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Although a majority of residents agreed that There is a sense of community in Signal Hill, and I am part of it (59%) and I have been invited to participate in community events and causes in Signal Hill (57%), it is also worth noting that more than one-quarter disagreed with these statements (as opposed to being unsure). A majority also agreed that The City is inclusive in its approach to governing and wants to hear from all individuals and groups (56%) and The City treats all residents the same regardless of their color, income, age or identity (51%), with less than one-in-five disagreeing with these statements.

When compared to the other statements tested, fewer residents agreed that Our community’s diversity is well represented among City staff and leadership (45%), All neighborhoods receive the same quality of services from the City (37%), and People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill—we don’t have the same opportunities as others (15%).

Tables 11-15 show the percentage of respondents who agreed with each of the statements, by subgroup. For the reader’s convenience, cells that are at least 30% of the overall value different than that found among all respondents in a positive direction are highlighted in green, whereas cells that are at least 30% of the overall value different in a negative direction are highlighted in red.5 Stated differently, green highlighted cells indicate particularly strong positive views, whereas red cells indicate particularly strong negative views.

Two subgroups—new residents (less than one year) and those generally dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services—consistently expressed the least positive attitudes for most of the statements tested. Meanwhile, younger adults (18 to 24), longtime residents (20+ years), and those living in households that earn $25,000 to $49,999 annually expressed the most positive views for many of the statements.

Among ethnic subgroups, there were several notable differences. African Americans stood out for high levels of agreement with the statements: We need to do more to appreciate and celebrate our differences, I have been invited to participate in community events and causes in Signal Hill, and People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill—we don’t have the same opportunities as others. Those identifying as mixed/other ethnicities had high levels of agreement with the statement People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill—we don’t have the same opportunities as others, but particularly low levels of agreement with the statements We need to do more to appreciate and celebrate our differences and I have been invited to participate in community events and causes in Signal Hill. Caucasians were the least likely to agree with the statements: People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill—we don’t have the same opportunities as others and There is a sense of community in Signal Hill and I am part of it.

5. Although most of the statements are phrased such that higher values indicate more positive results, two of the statements are phrased such that higher values indicate more negative results. The color-coding takes this into consideration such that red highlighted cells always indicate more negative results, whereas green highlighted cells always indicate more positive results.

Attitudes
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 TABLE 11 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS BY AGE (SHOWING % STRONGLY AGREE) TABLE 12 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS BY YEARS IN SIGNAL HILL (SHOWING % STRONGLY AGREE) TABLE 13 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS BY GENDER, CHILD IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING % STRONGLY AGREE)
TABLE 14 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS BY ETHNICITY (SHOWING % STRONGLY AGREE) 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Diversity makes our community stronger 50.0 81.5 64.1 61.4 56.2 58.9 We need to do more to appreciate and celebrate our differences 36.8 45.1 40.7 35.2 33.3 26.7 My neighbors look out for me 34.7 31.7 31.5 34.3 41.1 46.1 City-sponsored events and activities help residents feel and stay connected 37.5 35.3 41.8 28.3 33.8 35.6 City of Signal Hill welcomes people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives 39.6 31.3 28.4 28.0 34.7 36.5 City is inclusive in its approach to governing, wants to hear from all individuals and groups 44.8 24.4 20.0 20.6 36.1 30.6 City treats all residents the same regardless of their color, income, age or identity 33.8 24.8 23.3 16.4 29.2 28.4 I have been invited to participate in community events and causes in Signal Hill 32.5 26.9 19.7 18.7 29.0 25.4 Community’s diversity is well represented among City staff and leadership 34.6 19.1 14.0 16.5 25.5 22.6 There is a sense of community in Signal Hill, and I am part of it 20.2 16.6 16.4 10.5 18.5 18.7 All neighborhoods receive the same quality of services from the City 24.5 16.6 14.7 11.2 17.6 18.7 People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill, we don’t have same opportunities as others 5.1 7.8 5.0 5.1 3.2 1.0 Age (QD2)
Less
than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or more
Diversity makes our community stronger 69.5 75.5 66.5 52.4 57.4 54.1 We need to do more to appreciate and celebrate our differences 57.2 38.5 42.4 30.3 31.2 26.0 My neighbors look out for me 28.8 30.0 41.4 31.9 34.3 43.4 City-sponsored events and activities help residents feel and stay connected 35.0 35.4 30.0 36.9 28.1 44.7 City of Signal Hill welcomes people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives 22.7 27.9 28.5 34.7 36.1 43.0 City is inclusive in its approach to governing, wants to hear from all individuals and groups 14.2 22.1 26.2 27.1 36.9 37.5 City treats all residents the same regardless of their color, income, age or identity 13.4 26.6 21.9 19.2 27.3 38.3 I have been invited to participate in community events and causes in Signal Hill 11.1 22.6 22.1 24.9 33.5 31.8 Community’s diversity is well represented among City staff and leadership 14.9 21.6 15.2 22.2 22.5 29.1 There is a sense of community in Signal Hill, and I am part of it 12.0 15.6 18.0 14.7 11.4 23.0 All neighborhoods receive the same quality of services from the City 8.5 16.5 13.6 19.6 15.2 21.8 People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill, we don’t have same opportunities as others 8.1 6.6 2.8 6.6 1.4 2.6 Years in Signal Hill (Q1)
Male Female Yes No Own Rent Satisfied Dissatisfied
Diversity makes our community stronger 59.9 68.2 61.6 64.1 65.9 61.2 63.9 54.9 We need to do more to appreciate and celebrate our differences 33.4 40.0 38.4 36.5 32.8 42.3 35.8 36.1 My neighbors look out for me 37.6 35.4 40.1 34.4 38.7 32.9 38.7 19.0 City-sponsored events and activities help residents feel and stay connected 33.7 38.4 41.5 34.2 33.7 38.2 37.2 27.7 City of Signal Hill welcomes people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives 32.3 33.5 37.1 31.3 33.6 30.9 35.9 12.9 City is inclusive in its approach to governing, wants to hear from all individuals and groups 27.4 28.3 32.0 26.2 26.8 27.1 30.3 14.8 City treats all residents the same regardless of their color, income, age or identity 26.7 23.7 28.3 25.3 23.5 26.9 27.9 11.2 I have been invited to participate in community events and causes in Signal Hill 23.0 26.7 29.8 22.3 24.4 24.7 27.3 10.5 Community’s diversity is well represented among City staff and leadership 20.3 21.6 25.5 20.3 20.6 21.3 23.3 14.3 There is a sense of community in Signal Hill, and I am part of it 15.5 17.8 23.2 14.8 16.8 17.0 17.7 15.3 All neighborhoods receive the same quality of services from the City 17.0 15.7 21.0 14.9 15.9 17.1 18.1 12.1 People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill, we don’t have same opportunities as others 3.5 5.0 4.8 4.9 1.4 8.9 4.2 6.8 Overall Satisfaction
Gender (QD1) Child in Hsld (QD3) (Q4)
Home Ownership
Status (QD4)
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
African
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Diversity makes our community stronger 64.8 65.3 69.3 58.6 69.4 We need to do more to appreciate and celebrate our differences 39.3 36.2 49.0 31.0 22.3 My neighbors look out for me 33.5 36.9 46.0 34.4 27.6
City-sponsored events and activities help residents feel and stay connected 38.6 35.2 44.8 28.6 33.9 City of Signal Hill welcomes people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives 31.4 38.1 25.8 33.4 33.0 City is inclusive in its approach to governing, wants to hear from all individuals and groups 31.0 23.6 29.8 26.6 25.6 City treats all residents the same regardless of their color, income, age or identity 29.1 25.7 20.3 24.6 23.2 I have been invited to participate in community events and causes in Signal Hill 26.0 27.1 36.6 17.8 12.4 Community’s diversity is well represented among City staff and leadership 23.3 22.4 20.6 20.0 18.0 There is a sense of community in Signal Hill, and I am part of it 21.4 14.3 21.2 11.0 15.0 All neighborhoods receive the same quality of services from the City 18.5 20.2 16.9 11.8 20.6 People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill, we don’t have same opportunities as others 4.4 4.6 10.8 2.4 6.1 Ethnicity (QD6)
Attitudes
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 TABLE 15 AGREEMENT WITH STATEMENTS BY HSLD INCOME (SHOWING % STRONGLY AGREE) The statements tested in Question 11 were designed to tap into one of the underlying constructs of diversity, equity, or inclusion. To simplify comparisons across subgroups, index variables were derived for each dimension based on the sum of the average scores for statements within each dimension. To form an index value on statements that tap feelings of inclusion, for example, the responses to statements that tap inclusion were first scored on a five point scale:
strongly agree=+2, somewhat agree=+1, no opinion/prefer not to answer=0, somewhat disagree=-1, and strongly disagree=-2.6 The scores were then summed and averaged to create a single index score for inclusion for each respondent. The same process was followed for the dimensions of diversity and equity.

Figures 23-26 present the average index scores for Signal Hill respondents overall, and across a variety of subgroups. Overall, Signal Hill residents expressed the most positive views for statements about inclusion (0.65 average), followed by equity (0.50) and diversity (0.49). Across subgroups, it is noteworthy that the average index value for each dimension was always positive, with the one exception (inclusion) among respondents who were generally dissatisfied with the City’s overall performance in providing municipal services.

FIGURE 23 INCLUSION, DIVERSITY, EQUITY SCORES BY OVERALL, YEARS IN SIGNAL HILL & OVERALL SATISFACTION

6. For statements that were phrased in the negative (e.g., People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill, we don’t have the same opportunities as others), the scale was reversed because disagreement with the statement is a positive statement.

Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Diversity makes our community stronger 46.9 74.9 65.1 59.7 67.1 71.5 We need to do more to appreciate and celebrate our differences 31.5 52.2 39.0 35.4 38.3 31.2 My neighbors look out for me 31.1 30.6 31.8 31.5 42.1 41.6 City-sponsored events and activities help residents feel and stay connected 31.2 48.2 33.3 44.8 35.1 31.1 City of Signal Hill welcomes people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives 33.8 44.7 26.1 31.8 32.8 32.2 City is inclusive in its approach to governing, wants to hear from all individuals and groups 19.9 43.4 24.1 26.6 29.4 26.4 City treats all residents the same regardless of their color, income, age or identity 27.4 31.0 22.1 26.8 24.4 24.0 I have been invited to participate in community events and causes in Signal Hill 24.8 40.6 21.0 24.6 19.1 25.8 Community’s diversity is well represented among City staff and leadership 18.5 35.3 17.1 24.4 22.3 18.1 There is a sense of community in Signal Hill, and I am part of it 12.5 25.3 16.5 20.7 18.3 11.8 All neighborhoods receive the same quality of services from the City 18.5 29.5 11.3 15.4 14.5 14.3 People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill, we don’t have same opportunities as others 5.6 11.0 8.5 0.0 3.8 2.6 Hsld Income (QD7)

0.66 0.59

0.90 0.76
-0.08

0.49 0.33

0.48 0.40

0.46 0.45

0.66 0.54

0.15 0.50

0.27 0.51

0.36 0.53

0.47 0.74

0.58 0.03

0.58 0.56

0.50 0.65
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 Less than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or more Satisfied Dissatisfied Overall Years in Signal Hill (Q1) Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Average Score
Inclusion Diversity Equity
Attitudes
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 As shown in the figures, longtime residents (20+ years), seniors, those who feel safe walking at night in their neighborhood, and those who have no difficulty obtaining needed items or services had among the higher average scores for all three dimensions—inclusion, diversity, and equity.

By comparison, new residents (less than 1 year), those dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, those who do not feel safe walking at night in their neighborhood, those from households earning less than $25,000 or between $50,000 and $74,999 annually, and those who were unsure about their household’s ability to obtain needed items and services had among the lowest index scores for all three dimensions.

The patterns among ethnic subgroups varied. Although African Americans had the highest index score for inclusion (0.86), they had the lowest values for diversity (0.35) and equity (0.24).

Latino/Hispanic residents had the lowest index score for inclusion (0.56) and second lowest for equity (0.39). Meanwhile, Caucasians and those identifying as mixed/other ethnicities had the highest scores for diversity (0.56 and 0.58, respectively) and equity (0.68 and 0.79, respectively).

FIGURE 24 INCLUSION, DIVERSITY, EQUITY SCORES BY AGE, PERCEPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY & GENDER FIGURE 25 INCLUSION, DIVERSITY, EQUITY SCORES BY ETHNICITY, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS 0.71 0.83 0.83 0.25 0.68 0.64 0.48 0.51 0.33 0.43 0.54 0.60 0.58 0.290.49 0.51 0.39 0.46 0.41 0.370.64 0.74 0.68 0.13 0.57 0.440.65 0.60 0.56 0.59 -2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Safe Unsafe Male Female
Age (QD2) Perception of
Neighborhood Safety
(Q10)
Gender (QD1)
Average Score
Inclusion Diversity Equity

0.62 0.71

0.62 0.73

0.56 0.490.49

0.35 0.56

0.58 0.48

0.50 0.53

0.39 0.41

0.58 0.24

0.68 0.79

0.52 0.49

0.61 0.36

0.65 0.86

0.68 0.56
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
African
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Yes No Own Rent
Ethnicity (QD6) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
Average Score
Inclusion Diversity Equity
Attitudes
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 FIGURE 26 INCLUSION, DIVERSITY, EQUITY SCORES BY HSLD INCOME & HSLD DIFFICULTY OBTAINING SERVICES, ITEMS,

AMENITIES
SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVE DIVERSITY, EQUITY & INCLUSION Having gauged respondent’s opinions on the statements tested in Question 12, the survey next asked in an open-ended manner if they have any specific suggestions for how the City of Signal Hill could improve when it comes to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The verbatim responses to Question 12 were subsequently reviewed by True North and grouped into the categories shown in Figure 27.

Question 12 Do you have any specific suggestions for how the City of Signal Hill could improve when it comes to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion? FIGURE 27 SUGGESTIONS TO IMPROVE DIVERSITY, EQUITY & INCLUSION IN CITY 0.79 0.64

0.47 0.79

0.28 0.48

0.52 0.45

0.57 0.54

0.51 0.42

0.55 0.39

0.38 0.44

0.32 0.64

0.57 0.57

0.33 0.63

0.20 0.39

0.79 0.49

0.80 -2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Yes No Not sure
Hsld Income (QD7) Hsld Difficulty Obtaining Services,
Items, Amenities (Q7)
Average Score
Inclusion Diversity Equity

69.9 8.2

4.5 3.5

2.8 2.0

1.7 1.7

1.2 1.0

0.7 0.5

0.3 1.2

0.7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
No suggestions / Cannot think of anything
Improve diversity of cultural, community events
Improve City-resident communication
Improve diversity of, selection process for City staff, council Ensure equality at all levels of government
Address, acknowledge racism
Provide more affordable housing
Improve public safety, police presence
Hire according to qualifications, not based on race, profiles Improve economy, jobs
Provide more senior, disability services
City already meeting, exceeding diversity, inclusion needs Provide more assistance to families
Improve access, hours to public facilities, programs
Encourage, enable police-resident interactions, events
% Respondents
Attitudes
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Seven-in-ten respondents (70%) had no suggestions or could not think of a way that the City could improve when it comes to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Among the specific suggestions that were offered, the most common were improving the diversity of cultural/community events (8%), improving City-resident communication (5%), improving the diversity of City staff and Council/the selection process (4%), ensuring equality at all levels of government (3%), and addressing/acknowledging racism (2%) when and where it occurs.

BASIS FOR DISCRIMINATION The final question in this section was reserved for the 15% of respondents who agreed with the statement tested in Question 11 that People like me face discrimination in Signal Hill—we don’t have the same opportunities as others. Question 13 asked these respondents to indicate whether the discrimination they face is based on race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, age, religion, a disability, or other factors. As shown below in Figure 28, discrimination based on race and ethnicity was most frequently mentioned (11%), followed discrimination based on gender (3%), age (2%), sexual orientation (1%), gender identity (<1%), disability (<1%), and religion (<1%).

Question 13 You previously indicated that people like you face discrimination in Signal Hill. Is the discrimination you face based on race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, age, religion, a disability, or other factors? FIGURE 28 DISCRIMINATION FACTORS

84.7 11.1

2.9 1.6

1.3 0.7

0.5 0.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Do not face discrimination (Q11C)
Race and ethnicity
Gender
Age
Sexual orientation
Gender identity
Disability
Religion
% Respondents
Police
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

P OLICE
On a national level, it is difficult to address the topics of racial justice, systemic inequities, and structural racism without also discussing policing. Indeed, publicized instances of police prejudice, mistreatment, and brutality against people of color have often been the spark that ignites periods of intense protest, reflection, and renewed efforts to address the inequities that exist not only in policing, but also in other sectors including education, wealth, healthcare, and access to basic services. Recognizing that respondents’ views of the Signal Hill Police Department will be central to any discussions of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the City, the survey devoted several questions to profiling residents’ opinions of the Department, its culture, and its practices.

STATEMENTS ABOUT SIGNAL HILL POLICE For each of the statements shown on the left of Figure 29, respondents were asked the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement, or if they had no opinion either way. Although the order of the statements was randomized for each respondent to avoid a systematic position bias, they are sorted in the figure from high to low based on the percentage who agreed with the statements.

Question 14 Next, I'm going to read you a few statements about the Signal Hill Police Department. For each, I'd like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

FIGURE 29 AGREEMENT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT STATEMENTS
As shown in Figure 29, respondents generally expressed positive views of the Signal Hill Police Department or indicated that they were unsure/had no opinion. Negative views of the Police Department (somewhat or strongly disagree) ranged between 9% and 16% of respondents, depending on the statement.

More than two-thirds of respondents agreed with the statements: I trust the Signal Hill Police Department to protect and serve the public (76%) and The Police Department consistently demonstrates professionalism when interacting with the public (67%). The majority also agreed that The

45.1 39.5

31.0 29.7

29.9 21.2

14.6 31.2

27.9 25.0

23.4 18.7

14.2 12.7

8.2 4.6

8.7 7.6

6.4 3.8

4.5 7.6

6.5 6.1

7.0 11.0

24.1 27.7

32.9 37.3

54.7 61.3

3.9 7.6

4.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
I trust the Signal Hill Police Department to protect and serve the public The Police Department consistently demonstrates professionalism when interacting with the public
The Police Department does a good job engaging and interacting with the public
The Police Department works with the community to solve problems The Signal Hill Police Department treats people fairly regardless of their race, income, or identity
The Police Department holds its officers accountable
If a mistake is made, the Department admits it and works to fix the mistake Q14b Q14a Q14d Q14e Q14f Q14c Q14g
% Respondents
Strongly agree Smwt agree Smwt disagree Strongly disagree DK/NA Police
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Police Department does a good job engaging and interacting with the public (56%) and The Police Department works with the community to solve problems (53%). Approximately half (49%) of survey participants agreed that The Signal Hill Police Department treats people fairly regardless of their race, income, or identity, while fewer agreed The Police Department holds its officers accountable (35%) and If a mistake is made, the Department admits it and works to fix the mistake (27%). For these latter statements, most of the remaining respondents were unsure/had no opinion rather than disagreeing with the statements.

Figure 30 takes another perspective on the findings of Question 14, focusing on just those respondents who held an opinion for each statement. Among those with an opinion, positive assessments of the Signal Hill Police Department and its practices were most prevalent for all statements tested, with agreement ranging from a low of 71% to a high of 89%.

FIGURE 30 AGREEMENT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT STATEMENTS AMONG THOSE WHO PROVIDED OPINION Whereas Figure 30 presents levels of agreement with the statements among all Signal Hill respondents with an opinion, Tables 16-20 show how the percentage who agreed with each statement (among those with an opinion) varied by age, length of residence in the City, gender, presence of a child in the home, home ownership, recent interaction with Signal Hill police, ethnicity, and overall satisfaction with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services. For the reader’s convenience, cells that are at least 10% of the overall value above that found among Signal Hill residents with an opinion are highlighted in green, whereas cells that are at least 10% of the value below are highlighted in red. Stated differently, green highlighted cells have well above-average agreement with the statement, whereas red highlighted cells have significantly below-average agreement with the statement.

The tables reveal that younger residents (under 35), new residents (less than 1 year), those dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services, and those residing in low-income households (less than $25,000 annually) were consistently among the least positive in their assessments of the Signal Hill Police Department and its practices, whereas seniors and resi52.0

50.6 44.3

46.8 47.8

42.9 37.7

36.8 35.0

34.9 31.4

29.8 34.6

32.8 6.0

9.3 11.2

8.5 10.2

12.1 11.5

9.6 13.4

10.5 18.0

5.2 12.2

5.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
The Police Department consistently demonstrates professionalism when interacting with the public
I trust the Signal Hill Police Department to protect and serve the public The Police Department works with the community to solve problems The Police Department holds its officers accountable
The Signal Hill Police Department treats people fairly regardless of their race, income, or identity
The Police Department does a good job engaging and interacting with the public
If a mistake is made, the Department admits it and works to fix the mistake
Q14a Q14b Q14e Q14c Q14f Q14d Q14g
% Respondents Who Provided Opinion
Strongly agree Smwt agree Smwt disagree Strongly disagree Police
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 dents from households earning $75,000 to $99,999 annually were consistently the most positive.

Among ethnic subgroups, African Americans were substantially less likely to agree that The Signal Hill Police Department treats people fairly regardless of their race, income, or identity and The Police Department does a good job engaging and interacting with the public, while Latino/ Hispanic respondents were the least likely to agree that If a mistake is made, the Department admits it and works to fix the mistake. Caucasians were the most likely to agree that The Police Department does a good job engaging and interacting with the public, while both Caucasians and those identifying as mixed/other ethnicities expressed higher than average agreement that If a mistake is made, the Department admits it and works to fix the mistake.

Finally, it is also noteworthy that assessments of the Signal Hill Police Department did not vary significantly according to whether a respondent had interacted with the Police Department during the past three years by being stopped by the Police, talking to/interacting with a police officer at a community event or other setting, or calling the Police Department (see Table 18).

TABLE 16 AGREEMENT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT STATEMENTS BY AGE (SHOWING % STRONGLY & SOMEWHAT AGREE

AMONG THOSE WHO PROVIDED OPINION)
TABLE 17 AGREEMENT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT STATEMENTS BY YEARS IN SIGNAL HILL (SHOWING % STRONGLY &

SOMEWHAT AGREE AMONG THOSE WHO PROVIDED OPINION)
TABLE 18 AGREEMENT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT STATEMENTS BY GENDER, CHILD IN HSLD, HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS & POLICE INTERACTION IN PAST 3 YEARS (SHOWING % STRONGLY & SOMEWHAT AGREE AMONG THOSE WHO

PROVIDED OPINION)
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older Police Dept consistently demonstrates professionalism when interacting with the public 79.9 85.1 90.5 91.2 93.4 93.3 I trust the Signal Hill Police Department to protect and serve the public 81.4 84.3 82.5 84.4 93.7 93.3 The Police Department works with the community to solve problems 78.7 64.9 80.1 80.4 89.1 91.5 The Police Department holds its officers accountable 77.6 67.1 80.2 79.6 84.3 86.7 Signal Hill Police Department treats people fairly regardless of their race, income, or identity 64.7 75.3 79.4 75.3 85.3 87.4 The Police Department does a good job engaging and interacting with the public 72.8 68.5 73.9 79.7 82.5 90.7 If a mistake is made, the Department admits it and works to fix the mistake 61.3 61.7 80.9 62.1 77.9 81.7 Age (QD2)
Less
than 1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or more
Police Dept consistently demonstrates professionalism when interacting with the public 76.5 87.9 94.0 86.8 87.4 91.3 I trust the Signal Hill Police Department to protect and serve the public 78.0 84.0 91.8 85.3 86.0 85.3 The Police Department works with the community to solve problems 67.0 78.8 80.0 79.7 81.7 81.4 The Police Department holds its officers accountable 56.5 73.8 86.7 75.1 72.4 89.0 Signal Hill Police Department treats people fairly regardless of their race, income, or identity 64.0 78.5 77.8 78.4 71.0 83.7 The Police Department does a good job engaging and interacting with the public 59.7 74.0 78.9 79.3 77.5 84.0 If a mistake is made, the Department admits it and works to fix the mistake 62.1 68.8 68.7 67.1 66.5 81.0 Years in Signal Hill (Q1)
Male Female Yes No Own Rent Yes No
Police Dept consistently demonstrates professionalism when interacting with the public 93.9 88.0 87.5 89.1 90.4 87.7 89.5 87.2 I trust the Signal Hill Police Department to protect and serve the public 91.0 83.8 83.5 86.1 89.2 81.7 85.5 87.0 The Police Department works with the community to solve problems 84.6 78.5 79.7 78.1 81.7 75.3 79.8 76.7 The Police Department holds its officers accountable 87.0 75.1 81.7 75.1 80.5 75.3 78.9 75.6 Signal Hill Police Department treats people fairly regardless of their race, income, or identity 86.5 72.7 76.3 77.8 82.0 73.6 78.1 75.9 The Police Department does a good job engaging and interacting with the public 84.0 76.3 80.8 76.4 81.4 73.6 78.0 75.0 If a mistake is made, the Department admits it and works to fix the mistake 82.4 64.2 65.6 71.3 74.9 66.0 70.4 72.8 Gender (QD1) Child in Hsld (QD3)
Home Ownership
Status (QD4)
Police Interaction in Past
3 Years (Q15)
Police
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 TABLE 19 AGREEMENT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT STATEMENTS BY ETHNICITY & OVERALL SATISFACTION (SHOWING %

STRONGLY & SOMEWHAT AGREE AMONG THOSE WHO PROVIDED OPINION) TABLE 20 AGREEMENT WITH POLICE DEPARTMENT STATEMENTS BY HSLD INCOME (SHOWING % STRONGLY &

SOMEWHAT AGREE AMONG THOSE WHO PROVIDED OPINION)
INTERACTIONS WITH SIGNAL HILL POLICE Having measured respondents’ opinions of the Signal Hill Police Department, Question 15 sought to profile the types of interactions respondents may have had with the police during the three years prior to the interview. As shown in Figure 31 below, 15% of respondents had been stopped or pulled over by a Signal Hill Police Officer during this period, 57% had called the Police Department for assistance, and 47% had talked or interacted with a Signal Hill Police Officer at a community event or other setting.

Question 15 In the past three years, have you: _____?
FIGURE 31 IN PAST 3 YEARS HAVE YOU...

Figures 32-34 show that with the exception of new residents (less than 1 year), more than six-inten respondents in every identified subgroup reported at least one type of interaction with the Signal Hill Police Department during the three years preceding the interview. When compared to Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
African
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other Satisfied Dis-satisfied
Police Dept consistently demonstrates professionalism when interacting with the public 88.3 89.1 87.2 90.6 95.8 91.4 78.2 I trust the Signal Hill Police Department to protect and serve the public 83.3 87.3 84.6 88.8 84.5 88.7 69.4 The Police Department works with the community to solve problems 75.7 84.7 79.0 82.6 71.9 83.0 62.0 The Police Department holds its officers accountable 75.6 81.2 76.3 81.8 82.7 81.6 62.8 Signal Hill Police Department treats people fairly regardless of their race, income, or identity 73.9 84.5 67.9 82.6 85.3 79.9 72.1 The Police Department does a good job engaging and interacting with the public 74.8 77.4 65.0 86.7 81.2 81.0 61.3 If a mistake is made, the Department admits it and works to fix the mistake 62.7 72.6 69.9 78.6 82.7 73.9 61.7 Ethnicity (QD6) Overall Satisfaction (Q4)
Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Police Dept consistently demonstrates professionalism when interacting with the public 76.6 88.9 93.3 97.7 92.2 90.3 I trust the Signal Hill Police Department to protect and serve the public 73.8 84.5 85.8 96.3 85.4 89.8 The Police Department works with the community to solve problems 64.1 81.9 76.4 94.7 84.8 79.0 The Police Department holds its officers accountable 71.7 76.8 77.3 93.4 82.2 76.2 Signal Hill Police Department treats people fairly regardless of their race, income, or identity 66.5 76.6 73.6 86.5 84.1 80.1 The Police Department does a good job engaging and interacting with the public 71.1 78.1 82.1 88.0 79.9 75.2 If a mistake is made, the Department admits it and works to fix the mistake 61.2 72.7 57.4 88.0 77.9 73.1 Hsld Income (QD7)

15.3 56.8

46.9 83.3

42.2 52.2
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Been stopped or pulled
over by a Signal Hill Police
Officer
Called the Police
Department for assistance
Talked or interacted with
a Signal Hill Police Officer
at a community event or
other setting
Q15 In past 3 years have you . . .
% Respondents
Prefer not
to answer
No
Yes
Police
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 their respective counterparts, longtime residents (20+ years), those 55 to 64 years of age, Latino/Hispanic and African American residents, those with a child in their home, individuals from low-income households (less than $25,000 annually), and those dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services were the most likely to have interacted with the Signal Hill Police Department during the period of interest.

FIGURE 32 IN PAST 3 YEARS HAVE YOU... BY YEARS IN SIGNAL HILL & AGE FIGURE 33 IN PAST 3 YEARS HAVE YOU... BY ETHNICITY, CHILD IN HSLD & HOME OWNERSHIP STATUS

79.0 84.8

68.8 73.1 72.8

76.8 80.4

69.0 74.8

82.6 66.1

41.8 0
80 Less than
1 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or
more
18 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or
older
Years in Signal Hill (Q1) Age (QD2)
% Respondents Who Had Police
Interaction in Past 3 Years

65.6 80.3

71.8 74.6 73.2

79.8 69.3

77.3 69.4
0 80
Latino /
Hispanic
Asian
American
African
American
Caucasian /
White
Mixed or
other
Yes No Own Rent
Ethnicity (QD6) Child in Hsld (QD3) Home Ownership Status (QD4)
% Respondents Who Had Police
Interaction in Past 3 Years
Police
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 FIGURE 34 IN PAST 3 YEARS HAVE YOU... BY HSLD INCOME, OVERALL SATISFACTION & GENDER

74.6 69.9 72.9

85.0 72.3 74.9

67.5 80.9

65.9 86.6
0 80
Less than
$25K
$25K to
$49K
$50K to
$74K
$75K to
$99K
$100K to
$149K
$150K or
more
Satisfied Dis-satisfied Male Female
Hsld Income (QD7) Overall Satisfaction (Q4) Gender (QD1) % Respondents Who Had Police
Interaction in Past 3 Years
Additional Comments
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

A DDITIONAL C OMMENTS
The final substantive question of the survey provided respondents with an open-ended opportunity to express any additional thoughts or comments they’d like to share with the City of Signal Hill. True North reviewed the verbatim responses and grouped them into the categories shown in Figure 35.

Most respondents (59%) had no additional comments to share with the City. The remaining comments most frequently centered on a desire for improved public safety (6%), positive comments about the Signal Hill Police Department (5%), and positive comments in general (4%). At least 3% of respondents also indicated a desire to improve environmental issues (4%), improve City-resident communication (3%), and address homeless issues (3%).

Question 16 Do you have any additional comments that you'd like to share with the City? FIGURE 35 ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

59.0 6.3

5.2 3.8

3.8 3.4

3.0 2.6

2.5 1.7

1.6 1.3

1.2 1.2

1.2 1.1

1.1 1.0

0.7 0.7

2.1 1.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
No additional comments / Cannot think of anything
Provide more public safety
Positive comments about police department
Positive comments in general
Improve environmental issues
Improve City-resident communication
Address homeless issues
Enforce traffic laws
Maintain, improve infrastructure
Address noise violations
Improve parking enforcement
Reduce traffic congestion
Beautify City, landscaping
Improve economy, jobs
Provide, maintain parks, recreation places
Provide more community events
Provide more diversity, equality
Improve shopping, dining opportunities
Stop fracking, oil production
Address COVID-19 issues, concerns
Improve animal control
Provide more support for police
% Respondents
Background & Demographics
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 B ACKGROUND & D EMOGRAPHICS TABLE 21 DEMOGRAPHICS OF SAMPLE Table 21 presents the key demographic and background information collected during the survey. In addition to allowing the research team to monitor sample demographics during data collection, collecting background and demographic information also provides insights into how results of the substantive questions of the survey vary across subgroups of Signal Hill residents.

Total Respondents 704
Years in Signal Hill (Q1)
Less than 1 9.0
1 to 4 24.5
5 to 9 20.0
10 to 14 16.1
15 to 19 10.1
20 or more 20.2
Prefer not to answer 0.3
Gender (QD1)
Male 47.2
Female 48.0
Prefer not to answer 4.8
Age (QD2)
18 to 24 9.0
25 to 34 23.4
35 to 44 16.9
45 to 54 17.0
55 to 64 15.4
65 or older 14.2
Prefer not to answer 4.3
Child in Hsld (QD3)
Yes 25.0
No 69.8
Prefer not to answer 5.2
Home Ownership Status (QD4)
Own 49.2
Rent 44.8
Prefer not to answer 6.1
Employment Status (QD5)
Full-time 53.1
Part-time 7.3
Self-employed 7.2
Student 7.0
Retired 15.9
Prefer not to answer 9.4
Ethnicity (QD6)
Latino / Hispanic 31.5
Asian American 21.6
African American 12.7
Caucasian / White 29.2
Mixed or other 2.7
Prefer not to answer 2.2
Hsld Income (QD7)
Less than $25K 12.4
$25K to $49K 12.7
$50K to $74K 12.2
$75K to $99K 9.6
$100K to $149K 20.2
$150K or more 21.4
Prefer not to answer 11.4
S1 Survey language
English 88.4
Spanish 10.1
Khmer 1.1
Korean 0.4
Methodology
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

M ETHODOLOGY
The following sections outline the methodology used in the study, as well as the motivation for using certain techniques.

QUESTIONNAIRE DEVELOPMENT Dr. McLarney of True North Research worked closely with the City of Signal Hill and the DCC to develop a questionnaire that covered the topics of interest and avoided many possible sources of systematic measurement error, including position-order effects, wording effects, response-category effects, scaling effects, and priming. Several questions included multiple individual items. Because asking items in a set order can lead to a systematic position bias in responses, the items were asked in a random order for each respondent.

Some questions asked in this study were presented only to a subset of respondents. For example, only respondents who indicated they were dissatisfied with the City’s efforts to provide municipal services (Question 4) were asked to describe the particular reason they were dissatisfied with the City’s performance (Question 5). The questionnaire included with this report (see Questionnaire & Toplines on page 44) identifies the skip patterns used during the interview to ensure that each respondent received the appropriate questions.

PROGRAMMING & PRE-TEST Prior to fielding the survey, the questionnaire was CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) programmed to assist interviewers when conducting the telephone interviews. The CATI program automatically navigates the skip patterns, randomizes the appropriate question items, and alerts interviewers to certain types of keypunching mistakes should they happen during the interview. The survey was also programmed into a passcode-protected online survey application to allow online participation for sampled residents. The integrity of the questionnaire was pre-tested internally by True North and by dialing into random homes in the City prior to formally beginning the survey.

SAMPLE, RECRUITING & DATA COLLECTION A comprehensive database of Signal Hill households was utilized for this study, ensuring that all households in Signal Hill had the opportunity to participate in the survey. Since the goal of the study was to be as inclusive as possible, all households were included in the initial sampling and additional contact information (names, phone numbers, email addresses) was appended to each record for adult residents, where available. To maximize the participation rate and better engage traditionally hard-to-reach subgroups, four methods were used to recruit participation in the survey—mailed letter invitations, email invitations, text invitations, and telephone calls. Each individual was assigned a unique passcode to ensure that only Signal Hills residents who received an invitation could access the online survey site, and that the survey could be completed only one time per passcode.7 Telephone interviews averaged 16 minutes in length and were conducted during weekday evenings (5:30PM to 9PM) and on weekends (10AM to 5PM). It is standard practice not to call during

7. When additional contact information for adult residents was not available for a Signal Hill household, the household was sent a mailed letter with two passcodes to allow up to two adults within the household the opportunity to take the survey.

Methodology
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 the day on weekdays because most working adults are unavailable and thus calling during those hours would bias the sample. A total of 704 completed surveys were gathered online and by telephone between January 12 and January 31, 2022.

MARGIN OF ERROR DUE TO SAMPLING The results of the survey can be used to estimate the opinions of all adult residents in the City. Because not every adult resident of the City participated in the survey, however, the results have what is known as a statistical margin of error due to sampling. The margin of error refers to the difference between what was found in the survey of 704 adult residents for a particular question and what would have been found if all of the estimated 9,632 adult residents8 had been interviewed.

Figure 36 provides a plot of the maximum margin of error in this study. The maximum margin of error for a dichotomous percentage result occurs when the answers are evenly split such that 50% provide one response and 50% provide the alternative response. For this survey, the maximum margin of error is ± 3.6% for questions answered by all 704 respondents.

FIGURE 36 MAXIMUM MARGIN OF ERROR
Within this report, figures and tables show how responses to certain questions varied by demographic characteristics such as length of residence and age of the respondent. Figure 36 is thus useful for understanding how the maximum margin of error for a percentage estimate will grow as the number of individuals asked a question (or in a particular subgroup) shrinks. Because the margin of error grows exponentially as the sample size decreases, the reader should use caution when generalizing and interpreting the results for small subgroups.

8. Source: U.S. Census Bureau estimate for Signal Hill, April 2020. 704 Respondents
± 3.6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 Sample Size (Number of Respondents)
Margin of Error
Methodology
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 DATA PROCESSING & WEIGHTING Data processing consisted of checking the data for errors or inconsistencies, coding and recoding responses, categorizing verbatim responses, and preparing frequency analyses and cross-tabulations. The final data were weighted to balance the sample by age and home ownership status according to Census estimates. Table 22 demonstrates the close alignment between the final sample of 704 respondents and the profile of all Signal Hill adults based on the latest Census ACS estimates.

TABLE 22 CENSUS & SAMPLE ALIGNMENT
ROUNDING Numbers that end in 0.5 or higher are rounded up to the nearest whole number, whereas numbers that end in 0.4 or lower are rounded down to the nearest whole number.

These same rounding rules are also applied, when needed, to arrive at numbers that include a decimal place in constructing figures and charts. Occasionally, these rounding rules lead to small discrepancies in the first decimal place when comparing tables and figures for a given question.
2019 Census/ACS
Estimates
Sample of 704
Residents
Age
18 to 24 years 9% 9%
25 to 34 years 23% 24%
35 to 44 years 17% 18%
45 to 54 years 18% 18%
55 to 64 years 17% 16%
65 years and over 16% 15%
Home Ownership
Own 52% 52%
Rent 48% 48%
Gender
Male 46% 50%
Female 54% 50%
Race/Ethnicity
Latino / Hispanic 32% 32%
Asian American 25% 22%
African American / Black 11% 13%
Caucasian / White 29% 30%
Mixed or other 3% 3%
Household Income
Less than $25,000 17% 14%
$25,000 to less than $50,000 15% 14%
$50,000 to less than $75,000 18% 14%
$75,000 to less than $100,000 11% 11%
$100,000 to less than $150,000 21% 23%
$150,000 or more 19% 24%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Q UESTIONNAIRE & T OPLINES

True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 1
City of Signal Hill
Community Survey
Final Toplines (n=704)
February 2022
Section 1: Introduction to Study
Hi, may I please speak to _____. My name is _____, and I’m calling from TNR on behalf of the City of Signal Hill. The City is conducting a survey of residents about important issues in Signal Hill and would like to get your opinions.

If needed: This is a survey about important issues in your community. I’m NOT trying to sell anything and I won’t ask for a donation.

If needed: Your answers will be completely confidential.

If needed: The survey should take about 12 minutes to complete.

If needed: If now is not a convenient time, can you let me know a better time so I can call back?
If the person asks why you need to speak to the listed person or if they ask to participate instead, explain: For statistical purposes, at this time the survey must only be completed by this particular individual.

If the person says they are an elected official or is somehow associated with the survey, politely explain that this survey is designed to measure the opinions of those not closely associated with the study, thank them for their time, and terminate the interview.

Section 2: Quality of Life & City Services
I’d like to begin by asking you a few questions about what it is like to live in Signal Hill.

Q1 How long have you lived in Signal Hill?
1 Less than 1 year 9%
2 1 to 4 years 24%
3 5 to 9 years 20%
4 10 to 14 years 16%
5 15 years to 19 years 10%
6 20 years or longer 20%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Q2 How would you rate the overall quality of life in Signal Hill? Would you say it is excellent, good, fair, poor or very poor?
1 Excellent 22%
2 Good 59%
3 Fair 17%
4 Poor 2%
5 Very poor 0%
98 Not sure 0%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 City of Signal Hill Community Survey February 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 2
Q3
If you could change one thing to make Signal Hill a better place to live – now and in the future – what change would you like to see? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Improve public safety, more police
presence
19%
Improve shopping, dining opportunities 12%
Clean-up, beautify City 11%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything 11%
Address homeless issues 10%
No changes needed / Everything is fine 9%
Improve, maintain infrastructure, streets,
roads 8%
Enforce City codes 6%
Provide more affordable housing 5%
Improve parks, recreation 5%
Enforce traffic laws 5%
Address parking issues 5%
Provide more community events, activities
for all ages 4%
Address environmental issues, disaster
preparedness 4%
Reduce, limit growth, density 3%
Stop oil drillings, less fracking 3%
Reduce traffic congestion 2%
Improve Council, resident-City
communication 2%
Add, improve street lighting 2%
Q4
Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of Signal Hill is doing to provide city services? Get answer, then ask: Would that be very (satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)? 1 Very satisfied 37% Skip to Q6
2 Somewhat satisfied 48% Skip to Q6
3 Somewhat dissatisfied 7% Ask Q5
4 Very dissatisfied 3% Ask Q5
98 Not sure 5% Skip to Q6
99 Prefer not to answer 0% Skip to Q6
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 City of Signal Hill Community Survey February 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 3
Q5
Is there a particular reason you are dissatisfied with the City’s performance in providing services? If yes, ask: Please describe the reason. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Trash, graffiti in public areas 38%
Parking issues 24%
Lack of responsiveness from City 20%
City code violations 13%
Need more focus on underserved residents 10%
Poor infrastructure maintenance 10%
Management, leadership concerns 8%
Public safety, security concerns 6%
Speeding vehicles, traffic violations 4%
Fireworks concerns 3%
Noise ordinance violations 3%
Insufficient public transportation 1%
Not sure / No particular reason 1%
Section 3: Access
Q6
Next, I’d like you to rate your household’s access to different types of items, services, and amenities. If an item doesn’t apply to your household, please say so. Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Would you describe your household’s access to this as excellent, good, fair, poor, or very poor?
Randomize
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Not
Applicable
Prefer not to
answer
A Employment and job opportunities 11% 22% 16% 7% 3% 37% 4% B Healthcare 21% 33% 16% 5% 2% 22% 2%
C Health insurance 19% 26% 12% 3% 1% 35% 3%
D Education 16% 31% 9% 4% 2% 36% 2%
E Childcare services 5% 12% 9% 4% 2% 65% 3%
F Social services 10% 18% 14% 4% 2% 49% 4%
G High speed internet 19% 39% 22% 11% 5% 3% 0%
H Healthy foods 25% 44% 19% 4% 2% 4% 1%
I Parks, open spaces, and places for
recreation 36% 41% 15% 5% 2% 1% 0%
J Places to garden 9% 16% 18% 16% 8% 32% 2%
K Housing or rental assistance 7% 15% 14% 8% 3% 50% 3%
L Transportation 16% 31% 16% 6% 2% 27% 2%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 City of Signal Hill Community Survey February 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 4
Q7 Are there any services, items, or amenities that your household needs that you have difficulty obtaining?
1 Yes 17% Ask Q8
2 No 65% Skip to Q9
98 Not sure 17% Skip to Q9
99 Prefer not to answer 1% Skip to Q9
Q8
Please describe the most important services or items that your household needs that you have difficulty obtaining. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

Cable, internet services 17%
Restaurants, retail stores 12%
Recycling 12%
Affordable housing, rent control 11%
Public safety, security 10%
Recreational areas, parks, places to gather 9%
Infrastructure, roads, sidewalks 8%
Senior services 5%
Public transportation 5%
Cell signal, reception 4%
Parking spaces 4%
Healthcare 3%
EV charging stations 3%
Employment, jobs 3%
Not sure / Cannot think of anything 3%
School, education 2%
Section 4: Neighborhood Issues
Q9 As I read the following issues, please indicate whether each issue is a big problem, a moderate problem, a small problem, or not a problem in your neighborhood.

Randomize
Big Problem
Moderate
Problem
Small
Problem
Not a
Problem
Not Sure
Prefer not to
answer
A Graffiti 6% 15% 29% 46% 3% 0%
B Landscapes and buildings not being
properly maintained 10% 17% 26% 42% 5% 0%
C Homelessness 27% 22% 24% 24% 3% 0%
D Excessive noise 19% 22% 23% 35% 1% 0%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 City of Signal Hill Community Survey February 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 5
E Not enough parking spaces 22% 22% 22% 32% 3% 0%
F Crime 16% 31% 28% 19% 5% 0%
G Litter 22% 24% 30% 23% 2% 0%
H Speeding vehicles 31% 27% 22% 18% 1% 0%
I Traffic congestion 12% 19% 27% 41% 1% 0%
J Home-based businesses 3% 4% 11% 56% 26% 1%
Q10 How safe do you feel walking at night in your neighborhood? Would you say you feel very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe, or very unsafe? 1 Very safe 19%
2 Somewhat safe 49%
3 Somewhat unsafe 23%
4 Very unsafe 8%
98 Not sure 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 0%
Section 5: Attitudes
Q11
Next, I’m going to read several statements about Signal Hill. For each, I’d like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Do you agree or disagree, or do you not have an opinion? If agree or disagree, ask: Would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)?
Randomize
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
Equity
A
The City treats all residents the same
regardless of their color, income, age or
identity
26% 25% 9% 6% 34% 1%
B All neighborhoods receive the same quality
of services from the City 17% 21% 14% 13% 35% 1%
C
People like me face discrimination in Signal
Hill - we don’t have the same opportunities
as others
5% 11% 17% 42% 23% 3%
Diversity
D Diversity makes our community stronger 63% 22% 4% 3% 7% 1% E
Our community’s diversity is well
represented among City staff and
leadership
21% 23% 9% 7% 38% 2%
F We need to do more to appreciate and
celebrate our differences 36% 31% 8% 6% 16% 2%
G The City of Signal Hill welcomes people
with diverse backgrounds and perspectives 32% 34% 5% 2% 25% 1% Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 City of Signal Hill Community Survey February 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 6
Inclusion
H
The City of Signal Hill is inclusive in its
approach to governing. The City wants to
hear from all individuals and groups.
28% 29% 9% 6% 28% 2%
I There is a sense of community in Signal
Hill, and I am part of it 17% 42% 16% 9% 14% 1%
J My neighbors look out for me 36% 43% 8% 8% 6% 1%
K I have been invited to participate in
community events and causes in Signal Hill 25% 32% 14% 14% 13% 1% L City-sponsored events and activities help
residents feel and stay connected 36% 33% 9% 4% 18% 1%
Q12
Do you have any specific suggestions for how the City of Signal Hill could improve when it comes to issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion? If yes, ask: Please describe your suggestions. Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

No suggestions / Cannot think of anything 70%
Improve diversity of cultural, community
events 8%
Prefer not to answer 5%
Improve City-resident communication 4%
Improve diversity of, selection process for
City staff, council 4%
Ensure equality at all levels of government 3%
Address, acknowledge racism 2%
Provide more affordable housing 2%
Improve public safety, police presence 2%
Hire according to qualifications, not based
on race, profiles 1%
Improve economy, jobs 1%
Provide more senior, disability services 1%
City already meeting, exceeding diversity,
inclusion needs 1%
Provide more assistance to families 1%
Improve access, hours to public facilities,
programs
1%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 City of Signal Hill Community Survey February 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 7
Ask Q13 if Q11C=(1,2).

Q13
You previously indicated that people like you face discrimination in Signal Hill. Is the discrimination you face based on race and ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, age, religion, a disability, or other factors? Multiple responses OK. Question asked of 15% of respondents who agreed with Q11C.
1 Race and ethnicity 73%
2 Sexual orientation 9%
3 Gender 19%
4 Gender identity 5%
5 Age 10%
6 Religion 2%
7 Disability 3%
8 Other 13%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Section 6: Police
Q14
Next, I’m going to read you a few statements about the Signal Hill Police Department.

For each, I’d like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with the statement.

Here is the (first/next) one: _____. Do you agree or disagree, or do you not have an opinion? If agree or disagree, ask: Would that be strongly (agree/disagree) or somewhat (agree/disagree)?
Randomize
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not sure
Prefer not to
answer
A
The Police Department consistently
demonstrates professionalism when
interacting with the public
39% 28% 5% 4% 23% 1%
B I trust the Signal Hill Police Department to
protect and serve the public 45% 31% 8% 5% 10% 1%
C The Police Department holds its officers
accountable 21% 14% 4% 6% 53% 1%
D The Police Department does a good job
engaging and interacting with the public 31% 25% 9% 8% 27% 1% E The Police Department works with the
community to solve problems 30% 23% 8% 6% 32% 1%
F
The Signal Hill Police Department treats
people fairly regardless of their race,
income, or identity
30% 19% 6% 8% 36% 1%
G If a mistake is made, the Department
admits it and works to fix the mistake 15% 13% 4% 7% 60% 1% Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 City of Signal Hill Community Survey February 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 8
Q15 In the past three years, have you: _____?
Randomize
Yes
No
Prefer not
to answer
A Been stopped or pulled over by a Signal Hill
Police Officer 15% 83% 1%
B Called the Police Department for assistance 57% 42% 1% C
Talked or interacted with a Signal Hill Police
Officer at a community event or other
setting
47% 52% 1%
Section 7: Additional Comments
Q16 Do you have any additional comments that you’d like to share with the City? Verbatim responses recorded and later grouped into categories shown below.

No additional comments / Cannot think of
anything 59%
Provide more public safety 6%
Positive comments about police department 5%
Improve environmental issues 4%
Positive comments in general 4%
Enforce traffic laws 3%
Improve City-resident communication 3%
Address homeless issues 3%
Beautify City, landscaping 2%
Maintain, improve infrastructure 2%
Address noise violations 2%
Reduce traffic congestion 2%
Improve parking enforcement 2%
Improve economy, jobs 1%
Provide, maintain parks, recreation places 1%
Improve shopping, dining opportunities 1%
Provide more community events 1%
Provide more support for police 1%
Address COVID-19 issues, concerns 1%
Stop fracking, oil production 1%
Provide more diversity, equality 1%
Improve animal control 1%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 City of Signal Hill Community Survey February 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 9
Section 8: Background & Demographics
Thank you so much for your participation. I have just a few background questions for statistical purposes.

D1 What is your gender?
1 Male 47%
2 Female 48%
3 Non-binary 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
D2 In what year were you born? Year recoded into age groups shown below. 18 to 24 9%
25 to 34 23%
35 to 44 17%
45 to 54 17%
55 to 64 15%
65 or older 14%
Prefer not to answer 4%
D3 Do you have one or more children living in your household? 1 Yes 25%
2 No 70%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
D4 Do you own or rent your residence in Signal Hill?
1 Own 49%
2 Rent 45%
3 Live rent free with family/friend 3%
99 Prefer not to answer 3%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 City of Signal Hill Community Survey February 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 10
D5
Which of the following best describes your employment status? Would you say you are employed full-time, part-time, self-employed, a student, a homemaker or caregiver, retired, or are you currently laid-off or furloughed from work? 1 Employed full-time 53%
2 Employed part-time 7%
3 Self-employed 7%
4 Student 7%
5 Homemaker or caregiver 3%
6 Retired 16%
7 Laid off or furloughed 2%
99 Prefer not to answer 5%
D6 What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to? Read list if respondent hesitates
1 Latino/Hispanic 31%
2 Asian American – Cambodian,
Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Japanese,
Vietnamese, or other Asian
22%
3 Caucasian/White 29%
4 African-American/Black 13%
5 American Indian or Alaskan Native <1%
6 Pacific Islander <1%
7 Middle Eastern 1%
8 Mixed Ethnicity 1%
98 Other <1%
99 Prefer not to answer 2%
D7
I have just one more question for you for statistical reasons. I am going to read some income categories. Please stop me when I reach the category that best describes your total household income.
1 Less than $25,000 12%
2 $25,000 to less than $50,000 13%
3 $50,000 to less than $75,000 12%
4 $75,000 to less than $100,000 10%
5 $100,000 to less than $150,000 20%
6 $150,000 or more 21%
98 Not sure 11%
99 Prefer not to answer 12%
Those are all of the questions that I have for you! Thanks so much for participating in this important survey! This survey was conducted for the City of Signal Hill Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 City of Signal Hill Community Survey February 2022
True North Research, Inc. © 2021 Page 11
Post Interview Items
S1 Survey Language
1 English 88%
2 Spanish 10%
3 Khmer 1%
4 Korean <1%
Questionnaire & Toplines
City of Signal Hill True North Research, Inc. © 2022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55