2. Soul of the Community — Ft. Wayne, IN – MSA September 2009

3. 2 Copyright Standards Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. This document contains proprietary research, copyrighted materials, and literary property of Gallup, Inc. It is for the guidance of your company only and is not to be copied, quoted, published, or divulged to others outside of your organization. Gallup ®, Q 12®, The Gallup Path ®, The Gallup Poll ®, CE 11®, SF 34®, Business Impact Analysis ™, SRI ® and Gallup Consulting ® are trademarks of Gallup, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. This document is of great value to both your organization and Gallup, Inc. Accordingly, international and domestic laws and penalties guaranteeing patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret protection protect the ideas, concepts, and recommendations related within this document. No changes may be made to this document without the express written permission of Gallup, Inc.

4. Agenda Methodology and Area Included for This Community Community Attachment Overview Overall Measures of Biggest Problem and Life Evaluation The Drivers of Community Attachment Ratings on Domains of Community Attachment Recommendations on Focus Areas and Groups CA by Demographic Groups Driving Community Changes Appendix (Survey Items, Community Lists, Key Terms) 3 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Note: Speaking and discussion points are included in the notes section of many slides

5. 4 Why Community Attachment? The Soul of the Community project is a three-year study by Gallup funded by Knight Foundation that explores what community qualities influence residents’ loyalty and passion for where they live and how those feelings relate to indicators of community well-being such as local economic growth and vitality in 26 U.S. communities. By pinpointing what drives residents’ loyalty and passion for where they live, this study helps local leaders influence residents’ feelings about their community — and potentially its well-being. This project does not serve as a replacement for national economic policy, but it does make the case that residents’ attachment to where they live matters to community vitality. As the country emerges from the economic crisis, this project highlights what draws residents to their communities and that this emotional connection may help local economic growth. Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

6. 5 Methodology Sampling U.S. Census geography — Core-Based-Statistical Areas (area geographies appear in the Appendix) –Ft. Wayne, IN – Metropolitan Statistical Area Random-Digit-Dial (RDD) sample of households in each of the 26 Knight Foundation Communities Interviewing Telephone interview with 400 randomly identified adults aged 18+ Interviewing dates: February 17 through April 25, 2009 Weighting Data were weighted in each community to reflect U.S. adult population by age, gender, race, and ethnicity. Communities were put into their correct proportion based on total adult population. Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

7. 6 Knight Foundation Communities *Oversampled communities Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Aberdeen, SD – µSA Akron, OH* – MSA Biloxi, MS – MSA Boulder, CO – MSA Bradenton, FL – MSA Charlotte, NC* – MSA Columbia, SC – MSA Columbus, GA – MSA Detroit, MI* – MSA Duluth, MN – MSA Fort Wayne, IN – MSA Gary, IN – MD Grand Forks, ND – MSA Lexington, KY – MSA City of Long Beach, CA Macon, GA – MSA Miami, FL – MD Milledgeville, GA – µSA Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA Palm Beach, FL – MD Philadelphia, PA – MD San Jose, CA – MSA St. Paul, MN – MSA State College, PA – MSA Tallahassee, FL – MSA Wichita, KS – MSA

8. Knight Foundation Communities 7 Bradenton, FL - MSA Fort Wayne, IN - MSA Aberdeen, SD - µSA Biloxi, MS - MSA Duluth, MN - MSA St. Paul, MN - MSA Macon, GA - MSA Milledgeville, GA - µSA Myrtle Beach, SC - MSA Columbia, SC - MSA State College, PA - MSA Philadelphia, PA - MD Lexington, KY - MSA Wichita, KS - MSA Miami, FL - MD Palm Beach, FL - MD Charlotte, NC - MSA San Jose, CA - MSA Detroit, MI - MSA Gary, IN - MD City of Long Beach, CA Akron, OH - MSA Boulder, CO - MSA Very High Urban – Very Large Population Very High Urban – Large Population Very High Urban – Medium Population High Urban – Medium Population Medium/Low Urban – Medium/Low Population LEGEND Tallahassee, FL - MSA Columbus, GA - MSA Grand Forks, ND - MSA Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

9. 8 Knight Community Comparison Groups 5 comparison groups were created among the 26 Knight Foundation communities based on their urbanicity (as defined by the U.S. Census) and relative adult population size. Goal of creating groups is for comparisons of cities within groups (rather than across group comparisons). 1 Very Large Population — Very High Urban Detroit, MI – MSA; Philadelphia, PA – MD; Miami, FL – MD 2 Large Population — Very High Urban St. Paul, MN – MSA; San Jose, CA – MSA; Palm Beach, FL – MD; Charlotte, NC – MSA 3 Medium Population — Very High Urban Bradenton, FL – MSA; Akron, OH – MSA; Gary, IN – MD; City of Long Beach, CA; Boulder, CO – MSA 4 Medium Population — High Urban Columbia, SC – MSA; Wichita, KS – MSA; Lexington, KY – MSA; Tallahassee, FL – MSA; Columbus, GA – MSA 5 Medium/Low Population — Medium/Low Urban Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

10. 9 Key Terms Community Attachment (CA) – Residents’ psychological connection with the community, specifically defined as their loyalty and passion for the place. Attitudinal Loyalty – The overall contentment of citizens with their community, their outlook for community’s future, and likelihood to recommend the community to others. Passion – The pride and enthusiasm citizens have toward their community, and their place in it. Domains – Perception of community qualities that drive overall CA and can be impacted locally. Social Capital – the people-connections citizens have to each other. Openness – how welcoming the community is to different types of people. Civic Involvement – what residents give to the community in terms of civic involvement. Emotional Wellness – the mixture of mental and physical well-being items. The metric is an overall measure of personal and community well-being. Basic Services – infrastructure supports such as highways, housing, and healthcare. Economy – local economic and employment conditions. Safety – local area crime and safety conditions. Leadership – rating of leadership and belief that elected officials represent resident’s interest. Education – quality of K-12 and colleges/universities in the community. Aesthetics – physical beauty and availability of parks and green spaces for residents. Social Offerings – entertainment infrastructure for people to meet each other, and citizen caring. Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

11. 10 Community Attachment Attitudinal CA= Loyalty+ Passion Community Attachment (CA) is comprised of two constructs: Attitudinal Loyalty to the community and their Passion for it. Each has equal weight in overall attachment. The CA metric is a mean score ranging from 1.00 to 5.00. Community Attachment is an individual’s psychological connection with the community. It goes beyond their satisfaction with the community and extends to the passion and pride they take in living there. Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. + = Community Attachment Attitudinal Loyalty Passion

12. 11 Community Domains Gallup identified five key Domains and seven Sub-Domains related to Community Attachment. These domains identify aspects of the community which drive attachment and can be impacted through local- level initiatives by community leaders and businesses. Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. COMMUNITY OFFERINGS Basic Services  Leadership  Education  Safety  Social Offerings  Aesthetics  Economy SOCIAL CAPITAL CIVIC INVOLVEMENT EMOTIONAL WELLNESS OPENNESS Community Offerings — the basic factors without which citizens cannot thrive. Emotional Wellness — the personal well-being of individuals. Social Capital — the people-connections citizens have to each other. Openness — how welcoming the community is to different types of people. Civic Involvement — what the residents give to the community in terms of civic involvement.

13. 12 SATISFACTION OUTLOOK RECOMMEND PRIDE PERFECT PLACE Community Attachment Model The goal is increased Community Attachment. The Domains are the levers to move to improve CA. Drive down higher-level Domain constructs to specific outcomes. CADomains (Outcome)(Levers) (Attitudinal Loyalty) (Passion) Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. COMMUNITY OFFERINGS Basic Services  Leadership  Education  Safety  Social Offerings  Aesthetics  Economy SOCIAL CAPITAL CIVIC INVOLVEMENT EMOTIONAL WELLNESS OPENNESS

14. Citizen Perception of Most Important Problem Facing Community Today Three Responses Allowed 13 Note: Only most frequently mentioned categories shown. May total to more than 100% due to multiple responses. Most Important Problem Facing Community Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

15. Knight Communities Life Evaluation 14 Gallup asks a nationally representative cross section of 1,000 U.S. adults about their life evaluation each day. This allows us to compare Knight Communities to the U.S. overall. Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA has lower levels of life evaluation than the Comparison Group. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA *Gallup – Healthways Well-Being Index February 17-April 25, 2009

16. 15 Attachment Matters to Knight Communities CA Correlation to GDP Growth=.431CA Correlation to Annual HS Dropout Rate=-.359 CA Correlation to Population Growth=.171 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. *Event HS dropout rate - percent of students who left high school between the beginning of one school year and the beginning of the next without earning a high school diploma or its equivalent (e.g., a GED). CA links to key economic outcomes of communities, such that communities with higher CA also are higher on these outcomes. There are strong positive correlations to GDP and recent measures of high school dropout rates, with weaker correlations to population growth.

17. 16 Community Attachment Groups Highly loyal and connected to the community (CA Mean 4.50+) Lack full loyalty and passion but see some positive aspects of community (CA Mean 3.50-4.49) Unhappy with the community, its services and offerings, and likely to leave if they can (CA Mean <3.50) CA Mean:3.563.583.773.733.603.64 Attached Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Neutral Not Attached ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA The Fort Wayne area continues to have lower CA than the Comparison Group and now rates similarly to Knight Communities Overall.

18. 17 Community Attachment Within Comparison Communities Large range in CA within Knight Groups Low/Medium Population – Low/Medium Urbanicity Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence CA Mean: 3.603.643.493.223.89 3.793.653.693.893.873.843.913.804.033.904.003.963.873.773.733.563.58 Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

19. 20082009 0.5540.575 0.4670.514 0.4510.513 0.4660.470 0.4540.433 0.3880.426 0.3780.339 0.3380.321 0.1360.190 0.1620.168 0.0560.017 18 Key Attachment Drivers Economy Social Offerings Emotional Wellness Aesthetics Civic Involvement Social Capital Education Safety Basic Services Leadership Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Drivers remained consistent year-over-year Openness The correlations of Domains to CA indicate the relative importance of each to overall Community Attachment. The domains are listed in order of strength. Community Attachment (Medium/Low Population — Medium/Low Urban) Community Attachment (Medium/Low Population — Medium/Low Urban) Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Medium/Low Population — Medium/Low Urban: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

20. Strengths-Weaknesses Opportunity Map 19 Community Aesthetics, Basic Services, and Education are strengths for Ft. Wayne that can be leveraged. Openness, Social Offerings, and Leadership offer the greatest areas for improvement to encourage attachment. Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Correlation: The association or relationship between variables. A positive correlation means that as one increases, the other increases as well. A 1.0 indicates a perfect correlation. Strength Critical Opportunity Performance (Mean Rating) Importance (Correlation With Attachment) 2009 2008 Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

21. Community Offerings –Aesthetics –Basic Services –Economy –Education –Leadership –Safety –Social Offerings Openness Emotional Wellness Social Capital Civic Involvement 20 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Citizen Ratings on the Domains Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

22. Citizens’ connectedness to their communities has improved slightly as the economy has worsened. 21 Community Offerings Sub-Domains Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Overall CA Community Attachment ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Like all communities, Ft. Wayne experienced a large drop in the Economy domain while the Civic Involvement domain increased since 2008. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

23. The structural, physical, and social offerings a community presents — without basic services, citizens can’t thrive. 22 Community Offerings Community Offerings Sub-Domains Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Overall Community Offerings ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Views of the local community Economy and local Leadership declined significantly; the overall Community Offerings rating remained below the Comparison Group. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

24. The physical beauty and availability of parks and green spaces for residents 23 Community Offerings Aesthetics Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Overall Aesthetics ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Citizens’ views of Ft. Wayne’s overall Aesthetics are unchanged from 2008, and the Total Community continues to have lower ratings than the Comparison Group and Knight Communities Overall. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

25. Infrastructure supports such as highways, housing, and healthcare 24 Community Offerings Basic Services Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Overall Basic Services ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Citizens’ ratings of Ft. Wayne’s overall Basic Services remain higher than the Comparison Group and Knight Communities Overall in 2009. The area’s lowest ratings are on its highway and freeway system. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

26. The local economic and employment conditions 25 Community Offerings Economy Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Overall Economy ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Perceptions of the Ft. Wayne Economy are much lower than in 2008, and Ft. Wayne continues to have lower ratings than the Comparison Group and Knight Communities Overall. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

27. The quality of K-12 and colleges/universities in the community 26 Community Offerings Education Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Overall Education ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Ft. Wayne citizens rate local colleges and universities relatively highly, but rate public schools poorly, resulting in an overall Education domain that is below the Comparison Group and Knight Communities Overall. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

28. The leadership and alignment of views of elected officials with citizens 27 Community Offerings Leadership Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Overall Leadership ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Citizens rate Ft. Wayne’s Leadership significantly lower in 2009: Opinions of city leaders have fallen as well as the perception that leaders in the community represent the interests of citizens. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

29. The local area crime and safety conditions 28 Community Offerings Safety Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Overall Safety ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Ft. Wayne citizens continue to feel safer around their homes than in the community at large. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

30. The entertainment infrastructure for people to meet each other, and citizen caring 29 Community Offerings Social Offerings Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Overall Social Offerings ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Ft. Wayne’s overall Social Offerings rating continues to remain below the Comparison Group and Knight Communities Overall. The lowest rated aspect is people caring about each other. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

31. How welcoming the community is to different types of people 30 Community Good For… Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Overall Openness Openness ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Citizens continue to view Ft. Wayne as a poor place for gays/lesbians and for young, talented college graduates, but see it as welcoming to families with young children. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

32. 31 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. The mixture of mental and physical well-being items. The metric is an overall measure of personal and community well-being. Overall Emotional Wellness Emotional Wellness ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Citizens in Ft. Wayne report a similar level of Emotional Wellness in 2009, yet the overall measure is slightly below the Comparison Group and Knight Communities Overall. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

33. The people-connections citizens have to each other 32 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Overall Social Captial Social Capital ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Ft. Wayne has relatively high Social Capital, above the Comparison Group and Knight Communities Overall. Citizens spent significantly more time with neighbors in 2009, and have many family members in the area. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

34. What residents give to the community in terms of civic involvement 33 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. As found in all communities, Ft. Wayne shows an increase in voting behavior due to the presidential election in Fall 2008. Ft. Wayne also experienced a significant increase in local volunteering since 2008. Overall Civic Involvement Civic Involvement ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA Knight Comparison Group 5: Fort Wayne, IN – MSA; Duluth, MN – MSA; Macon, GA – MSA; Biloxi, MS – MSA; Grand Forks, ND – MSA; Myrtle Beach, SC – MSA; State College, PA – MSA; Milledgeville, GA – µSA; Aberdeen, SD – µSA

35. Ft. Wayne, IN – MSA Community Attachment by Demographic Groups 34 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

36. Profile of Most Attached Citizens The next section details findings by key demographic groups. This type of analysis can help community leaders pinpoint populations to target. Citizens Most Likely To Be Attached –65 years of age or older –Widowed –Employed part-time or retired –Mid-income residents ($45,000-74,999) Citizens Least Likely To Be Attached –Renters –Single/never married –Some college education –Lived in community 6-19 years –Non-employed (includes laid-off, students, and homemakers) 35 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

37. Younger residents are generally less attached to the community 36 CA by Citizen Age Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

38. Residents with some college education are generally less attached to the community than those with higher or lower educational attainment 37 CA by Educational Attainment Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

39. Widowed residents are generally more attached to the community 38 CA by Marital Status Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

40. Homeowners are more attached to the community than renters 39 CA by Home Ownership Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

41. Long-term residents are generally more attached to the community 40 CA by Years Lived in Community Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA na na = sample size <30

42. Retired residents and part-time employees are generally more attached to the community 41 CA by Employment Status Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

43. Little difference to community attachment by type of area within the community 42 CA by Community Area Type Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

44. Mid-income residents continue to be most attached to the community 43 CA by Total Household Income Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. ↑↓Indicate statistical difference from previous year at 95% level of confidence Ft. Wayne, IN - MSA

45. 44 Q:So What Can Community Leaders Do to Drive Community Attachment? A:Focus on Key Sub-Groups Several Examples of Sub-Groups Where Actions Could Be Focused Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

46. Next to Laid-Off Residents, Students Are Least Attached 45 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Knight Communities Overall

47. Connect students with businesses while in school through internships, community ties, problem solving, etc. 46 Good schools is a relative strength for most communities, but once they partake of the educational opportunities, many students plan to leave the state. Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. While Educational Opportunities Draw Students — Communities Need to Focus on Keeping Them

48. Vocalize/promote future efforts and goals. Host seminars on area vision. Involve citizens to plan, drive, and share visions. Positive Future Outlook Is Related to Attachment Citizens who feel their community will be a much better place to live in 5 years are much more likely to be attached, as well as for key early- to mid-career segment of adults. % Attached Perception of What Community Will Be Like to Live in 5 Years From Now Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. 47

49. High Job Satisfaction Plays Role in Community Attachment Overall Satisfaction With Current Job 48 The more satisfied employed adults are with their current company, the more likely they are to be attached to their community. Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Work with business to learn how to better engage employees (e.g., host seminar on engaging employees, job swapping by local business, etc.).

50. 49 Communities Have Opportunity to Build Attachment With Newer Citizens Lifelong residents are significantly less attached than shorter-term residents, particularly in the largest urban communities — may feel they don’t have outside opportunities. But new residents aren’t yet connected. Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. Build residents’ attachment when they first move to the area. Leaders should contact new residents with a personal invitation to introduce them to the benefits of the community.

51. 50 Early- to Mid-Career Citizens Are Least Attached to Their Communities Respondent Age Find opportunities to connect early- to mid-career hires into community through events, sponsorships, and volunteering. Attachment among college-age adults decreased from 2008, likely due to the economy. Those in the prime of their working years — those with the most options for jobs — are the least attached to their communities as well. Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

52. Appendix 51 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

53. 52 Question/Reporting Scales ConstructQ NumberQuestion WordingOriginal ScaleLowMediumHigh COMMUNITY LOYALTY Q1Overall satisfaction with community 5-point satisfaction1-345 Q2Likely to recommend community to others 5-point likelihood1-345 Q6aOutlook for community 5 years from now 5-point much better to much worse PASSION Q3-BPerfect community for people like me 5-point agreement1-345 Q3-AProud to live in community5-point agreement1-345 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

54. Question/Reporting Scales (continued) 53 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved. ConstructQ NumberQuestion WordingOriginal ScaleLowMediumHigh COMMUNITY OFFERINGS Basic Services Q7-CHighway and freeway system5-point very good to very bad1-345 Q7-KAvailability of quality healthcare5-point very good to very bad1-345 Q7-DAvailability of affordable housing5-point very good to very bad1-345 Leadership Q15a-BCommunity leaders represent my interests 5-point agreement1-345 Q7-LLeadership of elected city officials5-point very good to very bad1-345 Education Q7-FQuality of public schools (K-12)5-point very good to very bad1-345 Q7-GQuality of colleges and universities5-point very good to very bad1-345 Safety Q19Level of community crime5-point high to low1-345 Q18Safe to walk within 1 mile of home5-point completely safe to not at all safe 1-345 Aesthetics Q7-AParks, playgrounds, and trails5-point very good to very bad1-345 Q7-BBeauty or physical setting5-point very good to very bad1-345 Economy Q9Economic conditions5-point very good to very bad1-345 Q10Economy getting better/worse3-point better/same/worseworsesamebetter Q7-EAvailability of job opportunities5-point very good to very bad1-345 Q14Company hiring momentum3-point hiring/no change/letting go worsesamebetter Q15Job provides income needed5-point agreement1-345 Q15a-AA good time to find a job in my area5-point agreement1-345 Social Offerings Q7-HVibrant nightlife5-point very good to very bad1-345 Q7-IGood place to meet people and make friends 5-point very good to very bad1-345 Q7-MOther people care about each other5-point very good to very bad1-345

55. 54 Question/Reporting Scales (continued) ConstructQ NumberQuestion WordingOriginal ScaleLowMediumHigh CIVIC INVOLVEMENT Q22-AVolunteer2-point yes/nonoyes Q22-CVoted in local election2-point yes/nonoyes Q22-BAttend local community meetings2-point yes/nonoyes Q22-DWork with residents to make change 2-point yes/nonoyes OPENNESS Q8-FGood place for senior citizens5-point very good to very bad1-345 Q8-CGood place for racial and ethnic minorities 5-point very good to very bad1-345 Q8-DGood place for families with kids5-point very good to very bad1-345 Q8-EGood place for gays/lesbians5-point very good to very bad1-345 Q8-AGood place for talented college graduates 5-point very good to very bad1-345 Q8-BGood place for immigrants from other countries 5-point very good to very bad1-345 SOCIAL CAPITAL Q23Belong to formal/informal groups/clubs 8-point 0 to 7+ groups01-23+ Q26Spend time with neighbors7-point never to about every day Once year or less Several times wk/daily Q24Close friends in the community6-point none to all1-23-56+ Q25Family in area6-point none to all1-23-56+ Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

56. 55 Question/Reporting Scales (continued) ConstructQ NumberQuestion WordingOriginal ScaleLowMediumHigh EMOTIONAL WELLNESS Q16-AIn my community I am treated with respect 5-point strongly agree to strongly disagree 1-345 Q16-BI felt well-rested yesterday5-point strongly agree to strongly disagree 1-345 Q16-CI felt a high level of stress yesterday 5-point strongly agree to strongly disagree 3-521 Q16-DI learned or did something interesting yesterday 5-point strongly agree to strongly disagree 1-345 Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

57. 56 Community Definitions CommunityStateGallup Recommended Survey Geography: CBSA (MSA/μSA)/CBSA Division Long BeachCACity of Long Beach, CA ZIP Codes: 90802, 90806, 90813, 90840, 90803, 90807, 90814, 90804, 90808, 90815, 90805, 90810, 90822 San JoseCASan Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area San Benito County, CA; Santa Clara County, CA BoulderCOBoulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area Boulder County, CO BradentonFLSarasota-Bradenton-Venice, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Manatee County, FL; Sarasota County, FL MiamiFLMiami-Miami Beach-Kendall, FL Metropolitan Division Miami-Dade County, FL Palm BeachFLWest Palm Beach-Boca Raton-Boynton Beach, FL Metropolitan Division Palm Beach County, FL TallahasseeFLTallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area Gadsden County, FL; Jefferson County, FL; Leon County, FL; Wakulla County, FL ColumbusGA- AL Columbus, GA-AL Metropolitan Statistical Area Russell County, AL; Chattahoochee County, GA; Harris County, GA; Marion County, GA; Muscogee County, GA MaconGAMacon, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area Bibb County, GA; Crawford County, GA; Jones County, GA; Monroe County, GA; Twiggs County, GA MilledgevilleGAMilledgeville, GA Micropolitan Statistical Area Baldwin County, GA; Hancock County, GA Fort WayneINFort Wayne, IN Metropolitan Statistical Area Allen County, IN; Wells County, IN; Whitley County, IN Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

58. 57 Community Definitions (continued) CommunityStateGallup Recommended Survey Geography: CBSA (MSA/μSA)/CBSA Division GaryINGary, IN Metropolitan Division Jasper County, IN; Lake County, IN; Newton County, IN; Porter County, IN WichitaKSWichita, KS Metropolitan Statistical Area Butler County, KS; Harvey County, KS; Sedgwick County, KS; Sumner County, KS LexingtonKYLexington-Fayette, KY Metropolitan Statistical Area Bourbon County, KY; Clark County, KY; Fayette County, KY; Jessamine County, KY; Scott County, KY; Woodford County, KY DetroitMI Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area Lapeer County, MI; Livingston County, MI; Macomb County, MI; Oakland County, MI; St. Clair County, MI; Wayne County, MI DuluthMN Duluth, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Carlton County, MN; St. Louis County, MN; Douglas County, WI St. PaulMNMinneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area Anoka County, MN; Carver County, MN; Chisago County, MN; Dakota County, MN; Hennepin County, MN; Isanti County, MN; Ramsey County, MN; Scott County, MN; Sherburne County, MN; Washington County, MN; Wright County, MN; Pierce County, WI; St. Croix County, WI BiloxiMS Gulfport-Biloxi, MS Metropolitan Statistical Area Hancock County, MS; Harrison County, MS; Stone County, MS CharlotteNC Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Anson County, NC; Cabarrus County, NC; Gaston County, NC; Mecklenburg County, NC; Union County, NC; York County, SC Grand Forks ND Grand Forks, ND-MN Metropolitan Statistical Area Polk County, MN; Grand Forks County, ND Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.

59. 58 Community Definitions (continued) CommunityStateGallup Recommended Survey Geography: CBSA (MSA/μSA)/CBSA Division AkronOHAkron, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area Portage County, OH; Summit County, OH PhiladelphiaPAPhiladelphia, PA Metropolitan Division Bucks County, PA; Chester County, PA; Delaware County, PA; Montgomery County, PA; Philadelphia County, PA State College PAState College, PA Metropolitan Statistical Area Centre County, PA ColumbiaSCColumbia, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Calhoun County, SC; Fairfield County, SC; Kershaw County, SC; Lexington County, SC; Richland County, SC; Saluda County, SC Myrtle Beach SC Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach, SC Metropolitan Statistical Area Horry County, SC AberdeenSDAberdeen, SD Micropolitan Statistical Area Brown County, SD; Edmunds County, SD Copyright © 2009 Gallup, Inc. All rights reserved.