1

Introduction

MoCAN hosted Missouri Livable Streets Advocacy training programs from November 2010 through December 2011 throughout the state of Missouri. Per sign-in records, a total of 274 attended one of the trainings. Many of these participants represented community organizations such as local health departments, city councils, and other advocacy groups. The premise of the training was to provide individuals with the skills to be competent Livable Streets advocates in their own communities.

An online quantitative survey was sent via email to attendees following the training yielding responses from 56 participants. Further, more in-depth evaluation was requested to better understand perceptions of the training and how MoCAN can support advocacy efforts. Additional evaluation began in June 2012 at the Prevention Research Center in St. Louis. A qualitative interview was developed to be administered over the phone to training participants. This report synthesizes results from surveys and other forms of evaluation.

Training Locations and Participants


Online Survey: Results

The survey sent to participants who provided an email address on the training sign-in sheet. Survey closed in April 2012.

1. Have you participated in any of the following activities to support or promote livable streets in your community? (check all that apply)
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response Count
Spoken with family/friends/acquaintances about livable streets / 76.9% / 40
Attended a local coalition or group meeting / 61.5% / 32
Conducted a presentation for a community group about livable streets / 13.5% / 7
Participated in a community event to promote livable streets / 30.8% / 16
Formed a local coalition or advocacy group / 7.7% / 4
Met with local officials to advocate for new or revised local livable streets policies / 17.3% / 9
Other (please specify) / 17.3% / 9
2. Which of the following Missouri Livable Streets materials have you used? (check all that apply)
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response Count
Livable Streets Advocacy Guide / 32.1% / 17
Livable Streets Design Manual / 20.8% / 11
Livable Streets website / 45.3% / 24
Livable Streets Facebook page / 3.8% / 2
Livable Streets listserv / 1.9% / 1
Livable Streets videos on the web / 17.0% / 9
None of the above / 28.3% / 15
3. Have you contacted anyone using email, social media, letters and/or by phone call to discuss livable streets?
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response Count
Yes / 44.6% / 25
No / 55.4% / 31
Whom did you contact to discuss livable streets? (check all that apply)
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response Count
Fellow citizens / 72.0% / 18
Elected government leader (such as a mayor, city council person) / 40.0% / 10
Local government staff (such as city planners, transportation staff) / 48.0% / 12
Local businesses / 24.0% / 6
Community groups (such as Lions club, PTA, Bicycle clubs) / 36.0% / 9
Local media / 20.0% / 5
State agency staff / 4.0% / 1
Other (please specify) / 16.0% / 4
Why have you not contacted anyone to discuss livable streets? (check all that apply)
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response Count
Too busy / 44.4% / 12
Uncertain who to contact / 14.8% / 4
Uncomfortable communicating about livable streets / 0.0% / 0
Uncertain about what to communicate regarding livable streets / 48.1% / 13
Not interested in promoting livable streets / 0.0% / 0
Other (please specify) / 14.8% / 4
4. What was the impact of livable streets advocacy efforts in your community? (check all that apply)
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response Count
A coalition or group has formed to discuss transportation improvements / 29.2% / 14
A community bicycle/pedestrian plan was initiated and/or developed / 31.3% / 15
A livable streets policy or ordinance was adopted / 10.4% / 5
A livable streets policy or ordinance was implemented / 4.2% / 2
Funding was sought to support livable streets projects / 14.6% / 7
None of the above / 27.1% / 13
Other (please specify) / 33.3% / 16
5. How were livable streets advocacy efforts received in your community?
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response Count
Very favorably / 6.5% / 3
Favorably / 69.6% / 32
Neither favorably or non-favorably / 19.6% / 9
Non-Favorably / 2.2% / 1
Very non-favorably / 2.2% / 1
6. Did your livable streets advocacy activities link to other advocacy efforts in your community, such as advocacy for safe routes to school, school site locations or healthy food access?
Answer Options / Response Percent / Response Count
No / 37.8% / 17
Yes (please describe) / 62.2% / 28

Qualitative Survey: Tool

Open-ended questions:

  1. How did the advocacy training prepare you for being a livable streets advocate?
  2. What are the opportunities for partnership in your community to facilitate advocacy?
  3. What techniques have you found to be the most successful for affecting change?
  4. What changes have you noticed in your community from your advocacy efforts?
  5. How capable do you feel to affect change as a livable streets advocate?
  6. How can (Trailnet/Pednet/MO Bike Fed) best support you in the future as an advocate?

Quantitative questions:

  1. What is your age?
  2. What is your home zip code?
  3. Which training did you attend?
  4. On average, how many days per week do you participate in active commuting?On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all prepared and 5 being completely prepared, how well do you feel that the Livable Streets advocacy training prepared you to be a complete streets advocate in your community?
  5. Have you contacted a local policy maker, such as an alderman or state congressman, about livable streets since attending the training? Who?
  6. How interested are you in future Livable Streets trainings? Very interested, Somewhat interested, or Not very interested
  7. If interested in future trainings, what topics would you be most interested in?
  8. Is there anyone else in your organization who would be interested in attending a training?

Qualitative Survey: Results

Training attendees who provided a phone number on the sign-in sheet were eligible to take part in the qualitative survey. Through communication with participants, it was notedthere was a general concern that too much time had passed to accurately provide feedback on the training. From the interviews that were completed, though, the following themes were identified:

  • Training and presentations should be provided directly to those with the capacity to make affect political change, such as: mayors and other elected officials, and planning commissions and councils at their meetings
  • Advocates must meet policy makers where they are and continue their efforts through continuous communication
  • Raising awareness has been possible, but actual progress has not occurred due to lack of funding
  • There are opportunities for partnerships with school districts, neighborhood associations, and city councils
  • Examples of what has worked for other communities has been helpful and collaboration with supporters of various causes increases knowledge and strength
  • Attendees are somewhat interested in future trainings

Additional Analyses

Many people have perceptions about what a livable street should be and where they should and can be located. Data from the 2010 U.S. Census indicates that the cities in which livable streets ordinances are in effect are varied by median household income and by population. The city of Clayton has a population of around 16,000 people with the median household income at $87,756. In the city of St. Louis, there is a population of approximately 320,000 and the median household income is $33,652. Though these cities are quite different from one another, they both support complete streets policy. The following tables provide a better look at these cities.

Analyses of city legislation demographics are important because it not only provides direction for future policies, but also shows how they may be supported.

These data are significant to the Livable Streets Advocacy Training stakeholders and constituents because they can be used to support advocacy efforts. When lobbying for livable street policy action, advocates should provide evidence of where such legislation exists and how their city could support it as well.

City Ordinances – Differences in Population and Income

City / Population / Median Household Income
Clayton / 15,939 / $87,756
Columbia / 108,500 / $41,287
Crystal City / 4,855 / $47,550
De Soto / 6,400 / $40,149
Ferguson / 21,203 / $37,134
Herculaneum / 3,468 / $48,841
St. Louis / 319,294 / $33,652
Pevely / 5,484 / $36,045

Understanding Cities with Livable Streets Ordinances

Recommendations

It is recommended that MoCAN gauge the awareness of the Livable Streets Initiative amongst the general public. The majority of the training participants were members of bike-ped organizations, city councils, or health departments and were already informed on the topic. A survey that provides results on awareness level will help MoCAN and other stakeholders know how to best market the program and increase support. Leveraging the general public is important for making lasting, meaningful policy change. An awareness survey was created and included in this report (see appendix). The survey may be administered through neighborhood associations and with other methods of random sampling.

Understanding current policies and using examples as evidence should be part of the advocacy process. Comparison of policies in place is important for lawmakers to show feasibility of the legislation. A fact sheet has been created and is included in the appendix of this report. This information should be available to participants to use in their advocacy efforts. MoCAN and other stakeholders should disseminate policy happenings and information to all constituents. The agency has contact information for almost all of the training attendees; it is recommended that they update participants on progress and issues via email. This will keep participants engaged and invested and will provide opportunities for advocacy and collaboration.

The length of time between the program and follow-up was a limitation for evaluation. It is recommended that in the future, feedback is collected promptly and continuously. The changing needs of communities and contextual factors should also be taken into account as MoCAN continues to support the Livable Streets Initiative.

Conclusion

The Missouri Livable Streets Advocacy Trainings provided an opportunity to inform individuals and to form community partnerships around the issue of Livable Streets. The training in Kirksiville, MO had the largest turnout of attendees, perhaps due to the Truman State University population. Overall, the most common action taken following the training was speaking with fellow citizens about Livable Streets. In general, Livable Streets efforts are viewed favorably within the community and link with other current efforts. The main reason participants reported for not contacting others about the issue was due to lack of time and/or not knowing what to communicate.

Future Livable Street Advocacy efforts should be focused on elected officials and policy makers. Training attendees generally feel capable of communicating about the cause and raising awareness but do not consider themselves able to make political change. Advocacy efforts should be most rigorous in communities in which there is no current legislation and should draw from community successes. Through continual communication, advocates and policy makers should be informed and educated on all factors affecting the initiative as they are happening.

Appendix

Livable Streets Awareness Survey

Please circle the answer that best describes you.

Age______Zip Code (home) ______

1. On average, how many days per week do you participate in active commuting? By active commuting, we mean walking or biking for at least 10 minutes as a form of transportation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. On average, how many days per week do you participate in walking or biking for leisure? By walking or biking for leisure, we mean at least 30 minutes of activity for exercise or pleasure.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. How many miles is your work or school from your home? If you attend both school and work, please choose the location you travel to most often.

Less than 1 mile 2 to 6 miles 6 to 10 miles More than 10 n/a

4. How safe would you feel biking or walking on streets to your work or school?

Not at all safe Moderately safe Extremely safen/a

5. On a scale of 1 to 5, how important is it to you to be able to walk or bike to your school or work?

1 2 3 4 5 n/a

6. On a scale of 1 to 5, how important is it to you to be able to walk or bike to places such as coffee shops,grocery stores, restaurants, or other desired retail/service locations from your home?

1 2 3 4 5 n/a

7. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all important and 5 being extremely important, please rank the importance of each of the following features for streets in your community.

Sidewalks: 1 2 3 4 5 Local businesses: 1 2 3 4 5

Bike lanes: 1 2 3 4 5 Accessible bus stops: 1 2 3 4 5

Medians: 1 2 3 4 5Crosswalks: 1 2 3 4 5

Safe routes for kids to walk to school: 1 2 3 4 5

The term ‘livable/complete streets’ is used to describe streets designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including walkers, bikers, persons with disabilities, and children.

8. Are you familiar with the concept of livable/complete streets? Yes No

9. Are you familiar with the policies regarding livable streets in your community? Yes No

10. Have you ever attended a Livable Streets Advocacy Training?Yes No

11. Have you attended any events hosted by bike/pedestrian organizations, such as Trailnet, PedNet Coalition, Missouri bike federations, etc.? Yes No

12. If yes, please name the organization(s) you have been involved with. ______

13. If no, are you interested in becoming involved with bike/ped organizations in your community? Yes No

12. On a scale of 1 to 5, how interested would you be in learning more about Missouri Livable Streets?

1 2 3 4 5

13. Would you like to receive information about being a livable streets advocate?Yes No

14. If yes, please provide your email address ______