A communication transmitted from Yi-An Huang, City Manager, relative to the 2023 Cambridge Resident Satisfaction Survey Results

Page 1 2023 Resident Opinion Survey Prepared for The City of Cambridge, MA November 1, 2023 Polity Research Consulting LLC

Page 2 Methodology Polity Research Consulting conducted a random telephone survey among 400 adult residents of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts between September 18th and September 23rd 2023. The sample was constructed to represent the adult population of the City—and was comprised of both landline and cell-phone households. the margin of error on the full, 400-member sample is ±4.90% at the mid-range of the 95% confidence interval. that is, when conducting 100 such surveys, 95 of them will yield results that fall—at worst—4.9 points on either side of a given percentage. When looking at smaller segments of the sample, the margins of error will increase. Executive Summary Of Key Findings All in all, the results of this survey point to a Cambridge resident population that is more positive about most City-related issues than we saw in 2022. Some of the highlights are: • 'Performance of City government' got the highest "excellent" rating (22%) in the history of the survey program—dating back to 2000. Moreover, almost seven in ten residents give either an “excellent” or “good” rating of City government performance (69%); • Most other key metrics are up—some significantly higher. For example, "Cambridge as a place to live" saw "excellent" ratings soar from 48% in 2022 to 56% today; • Preliminary "Gap Analysis" shows that the areas needing greatest attention are: "providing market housing that is affordable" (2.01 mean score gap between 'importance ' and 'performance'); affordable housing (i.e, subsidized) (1.61 mean score gap between 'importance ' and 'performance'); and the 'quality of the transportation system' (1.13 mean score gap between 'importance ' and 'performance'); • Not surprisingly, 'affordable' housing' still dominates the list as the most important issue the city needs to focus on (39% of open-ended responses). Public transportation is second at 7%; • Educational opportunities did show a drop in performance—going from 43% "excellent" in 2022 to 33% today—although the wording did differ on the two surveys); • Efforts to mitigate climate change and address equity issues also show relatively low "excellent" scores (9% and 16%, respectively); • The Fire and Library departments both show impressive increases in "excellent" ratings; • City of Cambridge communications are —by far—seen as the most "valuable" information source by respondents (53% "very valuable", 32% "somewhat valuable"); • Respondents most want the City to focus on public transportation options—like buses and subway (although the City's control over this issue is limited). What follows is a question-by-question analysis of the full survey results.

Page 3 City Performance Ratings As the chart shows, close to seven in ten residents (69%) give the city either “excellent” or “good” marks on the overall performance of city government in Cambridge—a 5-point increase from the 2022 score. Moreover, 22% now assign “excellent” ratings to overall performance—the highest level in the history of this survey program. Demographically, the tendency to assign “excellent” ratings to the city comes most often from: men, people aged 18-34, students, lower-income residents, residents with high school educations, renters, and residents of the West and East areas of Cambridge. “Poor” ratings are most likely to come from residents earning under $50-$100,000 a year, Hispanic residents, those with some college education, and longer-term residents.

Page 4 City Attribute Ratings Respondents were also asked to rate a range of city attributes. As the chart shows, almost six in ten respondents assign “excellent” ratings to their neighborhood being a safe place to live (59%), followed by the city overall as a place to live (56% excellent); the city as a welcoming place (48% excellent); Cambridge as a safe place to live (45% excellent); a sense of community (26% excellent—up five points from 2022); and overall performance of the city government (22% excellent—up one point from 2022).

Page 5 Importance/Performance Gap Analysis This year, respondents were asked to rate a listing of 12 aspects of the community on two separate scales—first a “1” to “5” importance scale and next a “1” to “5” performance scale. We then analyzed the mean score results to construct a Gap Analysis—showing areas that the City performs well on and areas that need improvements. First, here are the overall results to the importance ratings. As the chart shows, both affordable housing measures garner the highest percentages of “extremely important” ratings (65% “market” and 64% “subsidized”). Interestingly, the quality of the transportation system (at 64% “extremely” important) is next in line of importance. The importance list continues with: quality of public utility infrastructure (58% “extremely” important); safe streets and neighborhoods (54%); efforts to address equity and inclusion (52%); economic health (50%); efforts to address climate change (49%); opportunities in education/culture/arts (48%); quality of open space/recreation (45%); construction/preservation balance (42%); connection and engagement with the community (31%).

Page 6 Next, here are the overall results to the performance ratings. As the chart shows, quality of open space/recreation tops the performance list—with 37% assigning “excellent” ratings to the City. Opportunities in education/culture/arts finishes second on the list (33% “excellent” ratings). Next in succession on City performance are: quality of public utility infrastructure (26%); safe streets and neighborhoods (25%); quality of transportation system (18%); economic health (17%); efforts to address equity and inclusion (16%); engagement with the community (14%); construction/preservation balance (13%); subsidized affordable housing (9%); efforts to address climate change (9%); market affordable housing (7%).

Page 7 Next, we calculated the mean scores of all the importance/performance measures and matched them up with one another. We find that (not surprisingly) the two affordable housing measures show the biggest negative gaps between importance and performance (2.01 “market”, 1.61 “subsidized”). Interestingly, transportation system issues show the next biggest gap (1.13), followed by construction/preservation balance (0.76), equity efforts (0.70), climate change efforts (0.70); economic health (0.64); public utility infrastructure (0.59); resident engagement (0.49); safe streets (0.44); education/culture/arts (0.23); open space (0.10). The bottom line is that the community aspects at the top of the Gap Analysis “pyramid” are relatively important to residents and the City is performing well on them. Conversely, those on the bottom of the pyramid are relatively important to residents and the City is performing less well on them.

Page 8 Another way of looking at this issue is by use of a “perceptual map”—which plots the relative mean scores of the community aspects on a matrix of importance and performance. Aspects in the upper right-hand quadrant of the map represent areas where the City is performing well on important areas. Aspects in the lower right-hand quadrant represent those where the City performance needs improvement on issues that are important to residents. Again, the affordable housing issues are clearly in need of improved performance by the City— while transportation issues are also trending in a negative direction.

Page 9 Most Important Issues Needing City Attention Respondents were also asked to tell us—in their own words—what they think is the single most important issue that the City if Cambridge needs to focus on in the next two years. As the chart shows, affordable housing again tops the list—with almost four in ten of all responses (39%). Following far down the list are: public transportation (7%); climate change/environment (5%); education (5%); equality/equity (4%); city planning/construction (4%) and cost of living (4%).

Page 10 Frequency Of Activities Respondents were also asked to tell us how many times they had participated in activities in the city. As the chart shows, the percentage of residents who have ridden a bike more than 26 times stands at 30%—about the same as we saw in 2022 (29%). The percentage who say they have "never" attended a City Council meeting is now at 55%—exactly the same as we saw in 2022. And, the percentage of residents who have never contacted a Cambridge City Councilor is 60%.

Page 11 Ratings Of Specific City Services Respondents were also asked to rate a range of City services on a scale of “excellent” to “poor”. Since the 2022 survey, notable improvements in “excellent” scores occurred on: library services (up 11 points); fire department services (up 9 points); public information (up 4 points) and water/sewer services (up 3 points). In terms of overall “excellent” scores, the top six were: library (68%); Fire Department services (51%); garbage, compost and recycling (50%) and city parks and maintenance (35%).

Page 12 Resident Intentions And Recommendations This year, we asked respondents two questions that reflect their level of pride in the City of Cambridge. First, we gauged the likelihood that residents would “recommend” living in the city to some who asked them. As the table shows, fully six in ten residents (60%) are “very likely” to make that recommendation. Also, almost the same number (55%) say they are “very likely” to “remain in Cambridge for the next five years”.

Page 13 Transportation Options As the following chart indicates, Cambridge residents clearly see walking as the best way to get around the city—with more than half rating that option as “excellent” (52%). Bicycle riding is seen as the nest best option (30% “excellent”), followed by Taxi/Uber (18%), public bus or subway (16%) and driving (10%).

Page 14 And, when asked which single transportation option is the most important for the City to improve—public transportation far and away tops the list at 44%. Parking comes in second place at 14%, followed by bicycle infrastructure at 10% and roadway infrastructure at 10%.

Page 15 Lasty on transportation-related issues, we found overwhelming support (69%) for making permanent the City policy that replaced towing with a $50 fine with regard to street cleaning. The highest levels of support for making this policy permanent are in the Central (74%) and West (73%) sections of the city,

Page 16 Value Of Information Sources As the next chart shows, Cambridge residents find official city information sources (emails, mailers, city website) as the most valuable for their household (53% “very valuable”). Next on the valued information source list are: word of mouth (39% “very valuable); online or print newspapers (28%), social media (26%) and television/radio (25%).

Page 17 Polity Research Consulting, LLC 9 Bartlet Street, Suite 178 Andover, Massachusetts 01810 [phone removed] 2023 CITY OF CAMBRDIGE RESIDENT SURVEY PRC #5300—SEPTEMBER 2023 SOME PERCENTAGES MAY NOT TOTAL 100% DUE TO ROUNDING ERROR Interviewing dates: 9/18-9/23/2023; Sample size: N=400 Phone; MOE: ±4.90% ================================================================= To begin, on a scale of excellent, good, fair or poor, how would you rate each of the following quality of life aspects here in the City of Cambridge? SCALE: 1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 5. (Don’t know) 1. Cambridge as a place to live Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2023 56% 31 8 5 -- September 2022 48% 40 9 4 -- September 2020 50% 42 6 2 -- September 2018 49% 42 8 - - September 2016 54% 32 11 3 - September 2014 49% 43 6 2 - September 2012 62% 34 3 1 - September 2010 48% 42 8 1 1 September 2008 43% 49 7 2 - September 2006 41% 45 10 3 1 October 2004 42% 47 8 2 1 October 2002 42% 44 10 3 1 November 2000 39% 50 8 2 1 2. Your neighborhood as a place to live* *different wording Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2023 59% 28 8 5 1 September 2022 42% 45 9 4 - September 2020 47% 40 11 1 1 September 2018 45% 43 11 1 - September 2016 43% 48 6 3 -

Page 18 September 2014 37% 51 10 2 - September 2012 46% 43 10 - - September 2010 42% 43 14 - - September 2008 37% 46 14 3 - September 2006 36% 48 12 4 - October 2004 34% 51 12 3 - October 2002 32% 48 17 2 1 November 2000 36% 49 13 2 - 3. Cambridge as a safe place to live Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2023 45% 41 9 3 1 September 2022 39% 43 14 5 - September 2020 45% 44 9 -- 2 September 2018 38% 48 12 1 - September 2016 41% 37 18 3 - September 2014 34% 52 14 1 - September 2012 32% 51 15 1 - September 2010 25% 52 22 1 1 September 2008 17% 55 24 4 - September 2006 19% 54 22 3 1 October 2004 21% 58 17 3 1 October 2002 24% 52 19 4 1 November 2000 21% 62 15 1 1 4. A sense of community Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2023 26% 42 22 8 2 September 2022 21% 44 26 8 2 September 2020 18% 53 25 4 1 September 2018 21% 48 22 7 1 September 2016 20% 47 21 11 2 September 2014 27% 51 18 4 - September 2012 16% 55 27 1 1 September 2010 21% 49 25 3 1 September 2008 16% 46 30 5 2 September 2006 17% 47 30 3 3 October 2004 18% 52 24 4 2 October 2002 17% 45 29 6 3 November 2000 10% 52 31 5 2

Page 19 5. A place welcoming to all races, ethnicities, cultures, and identities* *slightly different wording Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2023 48% 35 12 3 2 September 2022 36% 40 18 4 3 September 2020 34% 43 19 2 2 September 2018 41% 37 18 3 - September 2016 38% 46 13 3 - September 2014 53% 35 9 2 - September 2012 44% 45 8 1 1 September 2010 42% 47 9 1 1 September 2008 38% 44 13 3 2 September 2006 37% 46 13 2 1 October 2004 37% 46 14 1 2 October 2002 33% 46 15 3 3 November 2000 32% 45 17 4 3 6. Overall performance of City government here in Cambridge Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2023 22% 47 19 9 2 September 2022 21% 43 21 11 4 September 2020 16% 50 24 4 6 September 2018 16% 47 25 5 6 September 2016 20% 48 20 4 8 September 2014 16% 57 17 8 2 September 2012 18% 57 17 2 6 September 2010 14% 53 16 5 11 September 2008 12% 58 21 3 6 September 2006 12% 50 24 7 7 October 2004 9% 51 23 6 11 October 2002 6% 45 27 8 14 November 2000 5% 46 26 5 18

Page 20 Please tell me how likely you’d be to do each of the following—very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely. SCALE: 1. Very likely 2. Somewhat likely 3. Somewhat unlikely 4. Very unlikely 5. (Don’t know) 1 2 3 4 5 7. Recommend living in Cambridge to someone who asks 60% 27 4 8 1 8. Remain in Cambridge for the next five years 55% 26 7 10 1 Next, on a scale of “1” to “5”, where “1” means “Not important at all” and “5” means “Extremely important”, please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Cambridge community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: Not important at all Extremely Important (Don’t Know) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Economic health (including jobs and workforce development) 2% 3 14 29 50 3 10. The balance between new construction and neighborhood preservation 7% 5 20 20 42 5 11. Quality of public utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm water) 3% 1 15 23 58 1 12. Quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus, subway) 3% 2 10 21 64 1 13. Safe streets and neighborhoods 1% 3 16 26 54 -- 14. Quality of open space, parks, and recreation opportunities 3% 2 18 32 45 -- 15. Opportunities in education, culture, and the arts 2% 3 16 29 48 1 16. Residents’ connection and engagement with their community 4% 6 23 37 31 1 17. Market housing that is affordable 6% 5 10 13 65 1 18. Affordable housing (that is, subsidized or income-restricted for low, moderate, and middle income families) 4% 4 13 14 64 1 19. Efforts to address climate change 5% 5 15 25 49 1

Page 21 Not important at all Extremely Important (Don’t Know) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 20. Efforts to address equity and inclusion, including racial and economic disparities 5% 4 12 25 52 1 21. And, what is the single most important issue the City of Cambridge should focus on in the coming two years? Affordable housing 39% Public transportation 7 Education 5 Climate change/environment 5 Cost of living 4 City planning/construction 4 Equality/Equity 4 Economy/jobs 3 Government transparency 3 Bike safety issues 3 Roads/Streets 3 Safety/Crime 2 Traffic 2 Parking 2 Community preservation 1 Parks 1 Nothing 1 Other 6 Don’t know/Refused 3 Now, using a “1” to “5” scale, where “1” means “poor” and “5” means “excellent”, please rate how well the City of Cambridge performs on each of these. Poor Excellent (Don’t Know) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6* *different scaling in 2023 22. Economic health (including jobs and workforce development) 2023 6% 3 27 36 17 12 Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2022 14% 39 26 11 10 September 2020 11% 48 27 5 9 September 2018 23% 45 16 8 8 September 2016 30% 35 25 7 4 September 2014 23% 53 16 3 5 September 2012 23% 53 17 1 7

Page 22 September 2010 13% 52 23 2 11 September 2008 10% 49 22 4 15 September 2006 8% 43 27 6 17 October 2004 8% 52 20 5 15 October 2002 9% 44 25 4 18 November 2000 12% 54 20 2 11 23. The balance between new construction and neighborhood preservation Poor Excellent (Don’t Know) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6* *different scaling in 2023 2023 11% 16 34 22 13 5 Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2022 7% 34 29 26 5 September 2020 8% 33 34 19 6 September 2018 9% 34 32 19 6 September 2016 14% 35 25 25 2 September 2014 10% 47 28 11 3 September 2012 18% 44 26 8 3 September 2010 11% 48 27 4 9 September 2008 10% 50 25 11 4 September 2006 6% 40 33 15 6 October 2004 7% 45 27 12 9 October 2002 8% 39 32 12 9 November 2000 5% 39 32 17 8 Poor Excellent (Don’t Know) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6* 24. Quality of public utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm water,) 2023 5% 6 25 36 26 2 25. Quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus, subway) 2023 10% 16 26 30 18 -- 26. Safe streets and neighborhoods 2023 5% 2 20 48 25 --

Page 23 27. Quality of open space, parks, and recreation opportunities* *different wording Poor Excellent (Don’t Know) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6* 2023 5% 3 15 39 37 1 Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2022 27% 43 22 7 2 September 2020 29% 47 19 4 1 September 2018 34% 48 13 2 2 September 2016 19% 41 33 6 - September 2014 28% 42 24 5 - September 2012 27% 41 28 2 2 September 2010 31% 43 20 5 1 September 2008 19% 52 24 5 - September 2006 22% 41 29 8 1 October 2004 15% 45 31 8 1 October 2002 13% 41 33 9 4 November 2000 10% 42 33 12 2 28. Opportunities in education, culture, and the arts *different wording 1 2 3 4 5 6* 2023 4% 3 19 39 33 2 Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2022 43% 38 13 4 3

Page 24 Poor Excellent (Don’t Know) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 29. Residents’ connection and engagement with their community 5% 12 36 30 14 3 30. Market housing that is affordable 30% 34 19 7 7 3 31. Affordable housing (that is, subsidized or income-restricted for low, moderate, and middle income families) *different wording 1 2 3 4 5 6* 2023 18% 24 27 14 9 7 Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2022 4% 10 28 55 4 September 2020 1% 10 33 50 6 September 2018 2% 17 29 47 6 September 2016 7% 12 26 52 4 September 2014 8% 20 44 26 2 September 2012 10% 22 35 23 9 September 2010 8% 18 40 22 11 September 2008 5% 19 38 30 8 September 2006 4% 11 32 44 9 October 2004 4% 11 29 50 6 October 2002 2% 12 24 54 8 November 2000 2% 7 24 63 4 32. Efforts to address climate change Poor Excellent (Don’t Know) 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 2023 6% 7 34 35 9 10 33. Efforts to address equity and inclusion, including racial and economic disparities 1 2 3 4 5 6 2023 5% 10 31 33 16 6

Page 25 Now, I’d like to read you a number of services provided by the City of Cambridge. For each one, please rate the quality of these services on a scale of excellent, good, fair or poor. SCALE: 1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 5. (Don’t know) 1 2 3 4 5 34. Police department Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2023 25% 46 19 6 4 September 2022 25% 42 18 6 10 September 2020 19% 44 22 5 10 September 2018 29% 52 10 4 5 September 2016 36% 42 16 1 5 September 2014 25% 52 15 4 5 September 2012 33% 38 16 2 10 September 2010 24% 52 11 3 11 September 2008 26% 53 13 4 3 September 2006 23% 53 14 3 7 October 2004 22% 56 10 2 10 October 2002 21% 54 10 3 12 November 2000 15% 58 15 2 9 35. Fire department Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2023 51% 38 4 1 6 September 2022 42% 44 5 -- 9 September 2020 36% 43 4 -- 16 September 2018 52% 36 3 -- 10 September 2016 55% 34 3 -- 7 September 2014 41% 52 1 -- 6 September 2012 47% 35 2 -- 16 September 2010 37% 40 2 1 19 September 2008 40% 48 3 -- 9 September 2006 36% 46 5 1 12 October 2004 31% 47 3 -- 19 October 2002 34% 46 2 -- 18 November 2000 24% 53 3 -- 19

Page 26 36. Libraries Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2023 68% 23 4 2 2 September 2022 57% 32 2 1 8 September 2020 53% 32 5 -- 10 September 2018 56% 34 2 1 8 September 2016 67% 24 3 - 6 September 2014 56% 39 1 - 5 September 2012 56% 32 3 - 8 September 2010 47% 38 3 - 12 September 2008 38% 39 6 1 16 September 2006 38% 38 6 2 16 October 2004 34% 43 6 - 17 October 2002 30% 44 4 - 22 November 2000 21% 54 9 1 16 37. Public health department Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) 2023 25% 41 15 7 13 38. City parks and park maintenance Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2023 35% 47 11 6 1 September 2022 37% 50 8 4 2 September 2020 37% 51 8 2 2 September 2018 39% 49 6 3 2 September 2016 36% 43 13 4 3 September 2014 33% 53 12 1 1 September 2012 36% 51 7 3 3 September 2010 28% 57 9 3 4 September 2008 27% 57 12 3 2 September 2006 29% 53 14 1 3 October 2004 23% 59 12 2 4 October 2002 22% 58 12 2 6 November 2000 17% 61 14 2 5

Page 27 39. Street cleaning and maintenance Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2023 29% 43 20 8 -- September 2022 28% 51 17 4 1 September 2020 29% 51 14 4 2 September 2018 20% 51 22 6 - September 2016 16% 47 28 9 - September 2014 20% 44 22 14 - September 2012 26% 46 18 10 - September 2010 19% 49 22 9 1 September 2008 13% 50 27 9 1 September 2006 13% 42 34 10 - October 2004 9% 48 30 12 1 October 2002 11% 50 28 10 1 November 2000 10% 53 27 8 1 40. Sidewalk maintenance Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2023 12% 39 34 14 1 September 2022 15% 45 27 12 2 September 2020 14% 44 31 8 3 September 2018 16% 47 28 7 1 September 2016 15% 40 29 15 1 September 2014 10% 47 34 8 1 September 2012 15% 51 23 9 1 September 2010 13% 51 26 9 1 September 2008 6% 48 34 11 1 September 2006 7% 44 35 11 3 October 2004 8% 42 34 14 2 October 2002 9% 41 32 15 3 November 2000 6% 47 30 16 1 41. Snow plowing Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2023 23% 47 21 7 2 September 2022 26% 47 21 6 1

Page 28 42. Water/sewer services Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2023 29% 52 12 4 3 September 2022 26% 50 18 4 3 September 2020 31% 51 11 1 6 September 2018 32% 55 6 2 5 September 2016 43% 43 3 5 5 September 2014 31% 57 8 1 3 September 2012 35% 53 6 1 6 September 2010 24% 50 11 2 12 September 2008 17% 57 13 5 8 September 2006 16% 61 12 3 8 October 2004 13% 60 14 4 9 October 2002 13% 58 16 3 10 November 2000 10% 66 15 3 6 43. Garbage, recycling and compost Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) 2023 50% 36 9 4 1 44. Public information Excellent Good Fair Poor (DK) September 2023 29% 40 23 6 2 September 2022 25% 54 15 4 2 September 2020 30% 53 13 2 2 September 2018 27% 49 17 4 3 September 2016 21% 58 14 5 2 September 2014 25% 58 12 3 2 September 2012 22% 55 14 2 7 September 2010 22% 56 14 1 6 September 2008 17% 58 15 2 7 September 2006 18% 59 13 3 6 October 2004 14% 58 17 3 8 October 2002 12% 55 20 4 9 November 2000 9% 59 22 4 7 45. As you may know, the City implemented a street cleaning pilot program that replaced towing associated with street cleaning with a $50 fine. Thinking about the current level of cleanliness of our streets, do you favor or oppose this pilot program becoming permanent? 1. Favor 69% 2. Oppose 21 3. (Don’t know) 10

Page 29 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or another household member done the following: (ROTATE Qs. 46-48) SCALE: 1. (Never) 2. (Once) 3. (Twice) 4. (3 to 12 times) 5. (13-26 times) 6. (More than 26 times) 8. (Don’t know/Refused) (Never) (Once) (Twice) (3-12 times) (13-26 times) (> 26 times) (DK/ Ref) 46. Attended a City Council meeting in person or watched it on TV or online September 2023 55% 15 10 14 1 4 1 September 2022 55% 14 10 17 3 2 1 September 2020 57% 13 10 13 1 3 2 September 2018 64% 6 7 18 1 4 - September 2016 59% 12 6 18 2 4 - September 2014 80% 10 3 7 - - - September 2012 79% 8 5 7 1 - 1 September 2010 76% 7 4 10 - 1 1 September 2008 77% 6 6 10 1 - - September 2006 78% 8 5 8 1 - - October 2004 77% 9 6 7 - 1 - October 2002 77% 9 6 6 - 1 1 November 2000 83% 9 3 4 - 1 1 (Never) (Once) (Twice) (3-12 times) (13-26 times) (> 26 times) (DK/ Ref) 47. Contacted a Cambridge City Councilor to express your opinion or seek services 60% 11 8 16 2 2 1 48. Ridden a bike in the City September 2023 46% 2 3 12 7 30 - September 2022 41% 3 6 15 7 29 - September 2020 37% 4 5 14 6 34 - September 2018 47% 2 4 11 6 30 -

Page 30 Please rate how valuable each of the following Cambridge-related information sources for your household—using a scale of very valuable, somewhat valuable, not very valuable or not valuable at all. [ROTATE LIST] SCALE: 1. Very valuable 2. Somewhat valuable 3. Not very valuable 4. Not valuable at all 5. (Don’t know) 1 2 3 4 5 49. Television/Radio 25% 29 15 30 1 50. City of Cambridge email updates, printed mailers, website 53% 35 4 7 1 51. Social media (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X [TWITTER], Nextdoor, Neighborhood listserv) 26% 32 12 28 2 52. Online or print newspapers (Boston Globe, Cambridge Day, Cambridge Chronicle) 28% 42 11 18 1 53. Word of Mouth 39% 41 10 9 1 On a scale of excellent, good, fair or poor, please rate the ease of getting around the city for each of the following transportation options. SCALE: 1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 5. (Don’t know) 1 2 3 4 5_ 54. Bicycle, electric bicycle, or scooter 30% 36 14 5 14 55. On foot 52% 32 11 4 1 56. Driving 10% 31 33 22 5 57. Taxi or ride hail (e.g. Uber/Lyft) 18% 39 25 9 8 58. Public transportation, like bus or subway 16% 34 35 13 2 59. As you continue to think about transportation options to get around Cambridge, which of the following do you think is the single most important option for the city to focus on improving over the next few years [READ 1-6]: 1. Bicycle infrastructure 10% 2. Pedestrian infrastructure 9 3. Roadway infrastructure 10 4. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure 9 5. Parking 14 6. Public transportation, like bus or subway 44 7. (All equally) 3 8. (Don’t know) 1

Page 31 Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are confidential and no identifying information will be shared. 60. Are there any children under the age of 18 living in your household? 1. Yes 28% 2. No 72 3. (Refused) -- 61. What is your gender identity? [DO NOT READ CATEGORIES] 1. Female/woman 48% 2. Male/man 48 3. Non-binary/gender non-conforming 1 4. Transgender—birth gender different from current gender -- 5. Cisgender—birth gender same as current gender -- 6. Other, SPECIFY______________________ 1 7. Refused 2 62. In which of the following categories is your age? 1. 18-24 12% 2. 25-34 20 3. 35-44 18 4. 45-54 14 5. 55-64 13 6. 65-74 15 7. 75 and over 5 8. (Refused) 2 63. How many years have you lived in Cambridge? 1. Less than 1 year 3% 2. 1.1 to 2 years 8 3. 2.1 to 5 years 13 4. 5.1 to 10 years 13 5. 10.1 to 20 years 23 6. 20.1 to 30 years 12 7. Over 30 years 17 8. All my life 10 9. (Refused) --

Page 32 64. What is the primary language you speak at home? [DO NOT READ] 01. (Amharic) 1% 02. (Arabic) 1 03. (Bengali) -- 04. (Chinese) 1 05. (English) 89 06. (Haitian Kreyol) -- 07. (Portuguese) 2 08. (Spanish) 2 09. (Other, SPECIFY__________________) 3 10. (Don’t know/Refused) 1 65. Do you own or rent your home? 1. Own 45% 2. Rent 55 3. (Other) -- 9. (Refused) -- 66. Which one of the following best describes the neighborhood of Cambridge you live in? [READ RESPONSES 01-13] 01. East Cambridge (Kendall Sq. northeast of Broadway) 9% 02. MIT/Area 2 4 03. Wellington/Harrington 5 04. The Port (Central Square north of Mass Ave) 9 05. CambridgePort 10 06. Mid-Cambridge 6 07. Riverside 5 08. Baldwin (formally Agassiz) 4 09. Neighborhood Nine 7 10. West Cambridge 8 11. North Cambridge 21 12. Cambridge Highlands 1 13. Strawberry Hill 4 14. (Other___________________) 3 15. (Don’t know/Not sure/Refused) 2

Page 33 67. Please tell me which of the following groups you identify with racially or ethnically: [READ RESPONSES 1-7, ACCEPT UP TO 3 RESPONSES] 1. Asian/East Indian 9% 2. Black/African American 16 3. Hawaiian/Pacific Islander -- 4. Hispanic/Latinx 11 5. Middle Eastern or North African 1 6. Native American/Alaskan -- 7. White/Caucasian 58 8. (Self-describe__________________________) 2 9. (Don’t know/Refused) 3 68. What is the highest level of education you have completed? [READ ALL GROUPS EXCEPT RESPONSE 7] 1. Less than High School/GED 1% 2. High School/GED 7 3. Some college, no degree 5 4. Associate degree or technical certificate 6 5. Bachelor’s degree 29 6. Graduate school, professional, or advanced studies; no degree 7 7. Graduate school, professional, or advanced degree 44 8. (Refused/Don’t know) 1 69. Which of the following best describes your current employment status? [READ ALL GROUPS EXCEPT RESPONSE 7] 1. Employed full-time 59% 2. Employed part-time 12 3. Student 5 4. Retired 17 5. Homemaker -- 6. Not employed 5 7. Other ________________ 1 8. (Refused/Don’t know) 1 70. How much do you anticipate your household’s total income before taxes will be for the current year? Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household. [READ ALL GROUPS EXCEPT RESPONSE 7] 1. Less than $25,000 6% 2. $25,000-$49,999 14 3. $50,000-$74,999 11 4. $75,000-$99,999 11 5. $100,000-$124,999 8 6. $125,000 or more 39 7. (Prefer not to answer) 12

Cambridge Resident Survey September 2023

2 • 'Performance of City government' got the highest "excellent" rating (22%) in the history of the survey program—dating back to 2000; • Most other key metrics are up—some significantly higher. For example, "Cambridge as a place to live" saw "excellent" ratings soar from 48% in 2022 to 56% today; • "Gap Analysis" shows that the areas needing greatest attention are: "providing market housing that is affordable" (2.01 mean score gap between 'importance ' and 'performance'); affordable housing (i.e., subsidized) (1.61 mean score gap between 'importance' and 'performance'); and the 'quality of the transportation system' (1.13 mean score gap between 'importance' and 'performance'); • Not surprisingly, 'affordable housing' still dominates the list as the most important issue the city needs to focus on (39% of open-ended responses). Public transportation is second at 7%; • Educational opportunities did show a drop in performance—going from 43% "excellent" in 2022 to 33% today—although the wording did differ on the two surveys); • Efforts to mitigate climate change and address equity issues also show relatively low "excellent" scores (9% and 16%, respectively); • The Fire and Library departments both show impressive increases in "excellent" ratings; • City of Cambridge communications are —by far—seen as the most "valuable" information source by respondents (53% "very valuable", 32% "somewhat valuable"); • Respondents most want the City to focus on public transportation options—like buses and subway (although the City's control over this issue is limited). Executive Summary

3 Please rate the following on a scale of excellent, good, fair, or poor. 22% 26% 45% 48% 56% 59% 47% 42% 41% 35% 31% 28% 19% 22% 9% 12% 8% 8% 9% 8% 3% 3% 5% 5% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Overall performance of City government in Cambridge A sense of community Cambridge as a safe place to live A place welcoming to all races, ethnicities, cultures, and identities* Cambridge as a place to live Your neighborhood as a place to live* Excellent Good Fair Poor (Don't know) *slightly different wording

4 Overall performance of City government here in Cambridge 51% 51% 60% 62% 70% 67% 75% 73% 68% 63% 66% 64% 69% 31% 35% 29% 31% 24% 21% 19% 25% 24% 31% 28% 32% 28% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Nov 2000 Oct 2002 Oct 2004 Sep 2006 Sep 2008 Sep 2010 Sep 2012 Sep 2014 Sep 2016 Sep 2018 Sep 2020 Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Excellent/Good Fair/Poor

5 Overall performance of City government here in Cambridge By Area 19% 24% 23% 22% 50% 47% 46% 47% 20% 18% 19% 19% 9% 8% 12% 9% 2% 3% 1% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Central Cambridge Eastern Cambridge Western Cambridge Total Excellent Good Fair Poor (Don't know)

6 Overall performance of City government here in Cambridge By Age 20% 23% 22% 24% 22% 47% 44% 52% 47% 47% 20% 23% 18% 16% 19% 10% 10% 5% 13% 9% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 65+ years old 55-64 years old 35-54 years old 18-34 years old Total Excellent Good Fair Poor (Don't know)

7 Overall performance of City government here in Cambridge By Income 22% 12% 34% 22% 51% 42% 48% 47% 16% 27% 12% 19% 7% 18% 5% 9% 3% 1% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% $100K + $50-$99K $0-$49K Total Excellent Good Fair Poor (Don't know)

8 Overall performance of City government here in Cambridge By Homeowner / Renter 25% 19% 22% 46% 49% 47% 20% 18% 19% 7% 13% 9% 3% 2% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Renter Homeowner Total Excellent Good Fair Poor (Don't know)

9 Please tell me how likely you’d be to do each of the following— very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely. 55% 60% 26% 27% 7% 4% 10% 8% 1% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Remain in Cambridge for the next five years Recommend living in Cambridge to someone who asks Very likely Somewhat likely Somewhat unlikely Very unlikely (Don't know)

10 How important is it for the Cambridge community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years: 31% 42% 45% 48% 49% 50% 52% 54% 58% 64% 64% 65% 37% 20% 32% 29% 25% 29% 25% 26% 23% 21% 14% 13% 23% 20% 18% 16% 15% 14% 12% 16% 15% 10% 13% 10% 6% 5% 2% 3% 5% 3% 4% 3% 1% 2% 4% 5% 4% 7% 3% 2% 5% 2% 5% 1% 3% 3% 4% 6% 1% 5% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Residents’ connection and engagement with their community The balance between new construction and neighborhood preservation Quality of open space, parks, and recreation opportunities Opportunities in education, culture, and the arts Efforts to address climate change Economic health (including jobs and workforce development) Efforts to address equity and inclusion, including racial and economic disparities Safe streets and neighborhoods Quality of public utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm water) Quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus, subway) Affordable housing (that is, subsidized or income-restricted for low, moderate,… Market housing that is affordable Extremely Important 4 3 2 Not important at all (Don't know)

11 Please rate how well the City of Cambridge performs on each of these. 7% 9% 9% 13% 14% 16% 17% 18% 25% 26% 33% 37% 7% 35% 14% 22% 30% 33% 36% 30% 48% 36% 39% 39% 19% 34% 27% 34% 36% 31% 27% 26% 20% 25% 19% 15% 34% 7% 24% 16% 12% 10% 3% 16% 2% 6% 3% 3% 30% 6% 18% 11% 5% 5% 6% 10% 5% 5% 4% 5% 3% 10% 7% 5% 3% 6% 12% 2% 2% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Market housing that is affordable Efforts to address climate change Affordable housing (that is, subsidized or income-restricted for low, moderate, and middle income families)* The balance between new construction and neighborhood preservation Residents’ connection and engagement with their community Efforts to address equity and inclusion, including racial and economic disparities Economic health (including jobs and workforce development) Quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus, subway) Safe streets and neighborhoods Quality of public utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm water.) Opportunities in education, culture, and the arts* Quality of open space, parks, and recreation opportunities* Excellent 4 3 2 Poor (Don't know) *slightly different wording

12 Importance/Performance Gap Ranking (higher number=greater attention needed) 2.01 1.61 1.13 0.76 0.70 0.70 0.64 0.59 0.49 0.44 0.23 0.10 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 Affordable Mkt. Housing Affordable Sub. Housing Transportation System Construction/Preservation Balance Equity Efforts Climate Change Efforts Economic Health Public Utility Infrastructure Resident Engagement Safe Streets Education Culture Open Space

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 5 13 Importance / Performance Perceptual Map Performance Importance Legend 1. Economic health 2. Construction./Preserv. balance 3. Utility infrastructure 4. Trans. System 5. Safe streets 6. Open space/Rec. 7. Educ./Cult./Arts 8. Community Engage. 9. Afford. Market Housing 10. Afford. Housing/Sub. 11. Climate Change 12. Equity/Inclus./Disparities 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

14 What is the single most important issue the City of Cambridge should focus on in the coming two years? 3% 6% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 7% 39% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Don’t know/Refused Other Nothing Community preservation Parks Safety/Crime Traffic Parking Economy/jobs Government transparency Bike safety issues Roads/Streets Cost of living City planning/construction Equality/Equity Education Climate change/environment Public transportation Affordable housing

15 Now, I’d like to read you a number of services provided by the City of Cambridge. For each one, please rate the quality of these services on a scale of excellent, good, fair or poor. 12% 23% 25% 25% 29% 29% 29% 35% 50% 51% 68% 39% 47% 46% 41% 40% 52% 43% 47% 36% 38% 23% 34% 21% 19% 15% 23% 12% 20% 11% 9% 4% 4% 14% 7% 6% 7% 6% 4% 8% 6% 4% 1% 2% 1% 2% 4% 13% 2% 3% 1% 1% 6% 2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Sidewalk maintainence Snow plowing Police department Public health department Public information Water/sewer services Street cleaning and maintenance City parks and park maintenance Garbage, recycling and compost Fire department Libraries Excellent Good Fair Poor (Don't know)

16 Police Department 73% 75% 78% 76% 79% 76% 71% 77% 78% 81% 63% 67% 71% 17% 13% 12% 17% 17% 14% 18% 19% 17% 14% 27% 24% 25% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Nov 2000 Oct 2002 Oct 2004 Sep 2006 Sep 2008 Sep 2010 Sep 2012 Sep 2014 Sep 2016 Sep 2018 Sep 2020 Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Excellent/Good Fair/Poor

17 Fire Department 77% 80% 78% 82% 88% 77% 82% 93% 89% 88% 79% 86% 89% 3% 2% 3% 6% 3% 3% 2% 1% 3% 3% 4% 5% 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Nov 2000 Oct 2002 Oct 2004 Sep 2006 Sep 2008 Sep 2010 Sep 2012 Sep 2014 Sep 2016 Sep 2018 Sep 2020 Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Excellent/Good Fair/Poor

18 Libraries 75% 74% 77% 76% 77% 85% 88% 95% 91% 90% 85% 90% 91% 10% 4% 6% 8% 7% 3% 3% 1% 3% 3% 5% 3% 6% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Nov 2000 Oct 2002 Oct 2004 Sep 2006 Sep 2008 Sep 2010 Sep 2012 Sep 2014 Sep 2016 Sep 2018 Sep 2020 Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Excellent/Good Fair/Poor

19 City parks and park maintenance 78% 80% 82% 82% 84% 85% 87% 86% 79% 88% 88% 87% 82% 16% 14% 14% 15% 15% 12% 10% 13% 17% 9% 10% 12% 17% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Nov 2000 Oct 2002 Oct 2004 Sep 2006 Sep 2008 Sep 2010 Sep 2012 Sep 2014 Sep 2016 Sep 2018 Sep 2020 Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Excellent/Good Fair/Poor

20 Street cleaning and maintenance* 63% 61% 57% 55% 63% 68% 72% 64% 63% 71% 80% 79% 72% 35% 38% 42% 44% 36% 31% 28% 36% 37% 28% 18% 21% 28% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Nov 2000 Oct 2002 Oct 2004 Sep 2006 Sep 2008 Sep 2010 Sep 2012 Sep 2014 Sep 2016 Sep 2018 Sep 2020 Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Excellent/Good Fair/Poor * new wording in 2020

21 Sidewalk maintenance 53% 50% 50% 51% 54% 64% 66% 57% 55% 63% 58% 60% 51% 46% 47% 48% 46% 45% 35% 32% 42% 44% 35% 39% 39% 48% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Nov 2000 Oct 2002 Oct 2004 Sep 2006 Sep 2008 Sep 2010 Sep 2012 Sep 2014 Sep 2016 Sep 2018 Sep 2020 Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Excellent/Good Fair/Poor

22 Snow plowing 73% 70% 27% 28% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Excellent/Good Fair/Poor

23 Water/sewer services 76% 71% 73% 77% 74% 74% 88% 88% 86% 87% 82% 76% 81% 18% 19% 18% 15% 18% 13% 7% 9% 8% 8% 12% 22% 16% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Nov 2000 Oct 2002 Oct 2004 Sep 2006 Sep 2008 Sep 2010 Sep 2012 Sep 2014 Sep 2016 Sep 2018 Sep 2020 Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Excellent/Good Fair/Poor

24 Public Information 68% 67% 72% 77% 75% 78% 77% 83% 79% 76% 83% 79% 69% 26% 24% 20% 16% 17% 15% 16% 15% 19% 21% 15% 19% 29% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Nov 2000 Oct 2002 Oct 2004 Sep 2006 Sep 2008 Sep 2010 Sep 2012 Sep 2014 Sep 2016 Sep 2018 Sep 2020 Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Excellent/Good Fair/Poor

25 As you may know, the City implemented a street cleaning pilot program that replaced towing associated with street cleaning with a $50 fine. Thinking about the current level of cleanliness of our streets, do you favor or oppose this pilot program becoming permanent? 10% 21% 69% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% (Don't know) Oppose Favor

26 In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or another household member done the following: 2% 4% 30% 2% 1% 7% 16% 14% 12% 19% 25% 5% 60% 55% 46% 1% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Contacted a Cambridge City Councilor to express your opinion or seek services Attended a City Council meeting in person or watched it on TV or online Ridden a bike in the City >26 times 13-26 times 3-12 times Once or twice Never Don't know/Refused

27 Times in the Last 12 Months: Attended a City Council meeting in person or watched it on TV or online 83% 77% 77% 78% 77% 76% 79% 80% 59% 64% 57% 55% 55% 12% 15% 15% 13% 12% 11% 13% 13% 18% 13% 23% 24% 25% 4% 6% 7% 8% 10% 10% 7% 7% 18% 18% 13% 17% 14% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 6% 5% 4% 5% 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Nov 2000 Oct 2002 Oct 2004 Sep 2006 Sep 2008 Sep 2010 Sep 2012 Sep 2014 Sep 2016 Sep 2018 Sep 2020 Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Never 1-2 times 3-12 times 13+

28 Times in the Last 12 Months: Ridden a bike in the City 47% 37% 41% 46% 6% 9% 9% 5% 11% 14% 15% 12% 36% 40% 36% 37% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Sep 2018 Sep 2020 Sep 2022 Sep 2023 Never 1-2 times 3-12 times 13+

29 Please rate how valuable each of the following Cambridge-related information sources for your household 25% 26% 28% 39% 53% 29% 32% 42% 41% 35% 15% 12% 11% 10% 4% 30% 28% 18% 9% 7% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Television/Radio Social media (Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X [TWITTER], Nextdoor, Neighborhood listserv) Online or print newspapers (Boston Globe, Cambridge Day, Cambridge Chronicle) Word of Mouth City of Cambridge email updates, printed mailers, website Very valuable Somewhat valuable Not very valuable Not valuable at all (Don't know)

30 On a scale of excellent, good, fair or poor, please rate the ease of getting around the city for each of the following transportation options. 10% 16% 18% 30% 52% 31% 34% 39% 36% 32% 33% 35% 25% 14% 11% 22% 13% 9% 5% 4% 5% 2% 8% 14% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Driving Public transportation, like bus or subway Taxi or ride hail (e.g. Uber/Lyft) Bicycle, electric bicycle, or scooter On foot Excellent Good Fair Poor (Don't know)

31 As you continue to think about transportation options to get around Cambridge, which of the following do you think is the single most important option for the city to focus on improving over the next few years? 1% 3% 44% 14% 9% 10% 9% 10% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% (Don’t know) (All equally) Public transportation, like bus or subway Parking Electric vehicle charging infrastructure Roadway infrastructure Pedestrian infrastructure Bicycle infrastructure

32 Demographics 2% 5% 15% 13% 14% 18% 20% 12% 2% 1% 1% 48% 48% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% (Refused) 75 and over 65-74 55-64 45-54 35-44 25-34 18-24 Refused Other Cisgender—birth gender same as current gender Transgender—birth gender different from current gender Non-binary/gender non-conforming Male/Man Female/Woman What is your gender identity? In which of the following categories is your age?

33 Demographics 55% 45% 10% 17% 12% 23% 13% 13% 8% 3% 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 (Refused) (Other) Rent Own (Refused) All my life Over 30 years 20.1-30 years 10.1-20 years 5.1-10 years 2.1-5 years 1.1-2 years Less than 1 year How many years have you lived in Cambridge? Do you own or rent your home?

34 Demographics 1% 3% 2% 2% 89% 1% 1% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% (Don’t know/Refused) (Other, SPECIFY) (Spanish) (Portuguese) (Haitian Kreyol) (English) (Chinese) (Bengali) (Arabic) (Amharic) What is the primary language you speak at home?

35 Demographics 2% 3% 1% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 9% 10% 21% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% (Don’t know/Not sure/Refused) (Other) Cambridge Highlands MIT/Area 2 Baldwin (formally Agassiz) Strawberry Hill Wellington/Harrington Riverside Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Nine West Cambridge East Cambridge (Kendall Sq. northeast of Broadway) The Port (Central Square north of Mass Ave) CambridgePort North Cambridge Which one of the following best describes the neighborhood of Cambridge you live in?

36 Demographics 12% 39% 8% 11% 11% 14% 6% 3% 2% 1% 9% 11% 16% 58% 72% 28% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% (Prefer not to answer) $125,000 and over $100,000-$124,999 $75-99,999 $50-74,999 $25-49,999 Less than $25,000 (Don’t know/Refused) (Self-describe) Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Native American/Alaskan Middle Eastern or North African Asian/East Indian Hispanic/Latinx Black/African-American White/Caucasian (Refused) No Yes Are there any children under the age of 18 living in your Income Ethnicity

37 Demographics 1% 44% 7% 29% 6% 5% 7% 1% 1% 1% 5% 17% 5% 12% 59% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% (Refused/Don’t know) Graduate school, professional, or advanced degree Graduate school, professional, or advanced studies; no degree Bachelor’s degree Associate degree or technical certificate Some college, no degree High School/GED Less than High School/GED (Refused/Don’t know) Other Not employed Homemaker Retired Student Employed part-time Employed full-time Employment Education

8001 Terrace Ave., Middleton, WI 53562 info.polco.us • [phone removed] Cambridge, MA Public Opinion Survey National Benchmark Comparisons October 2023

Detailed Benchmark Comparisons Comparison Data Polco/National Research Center (NRC)’s database of comparative resident opinion comprises resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 500 communities. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community; most communities conduct surveys every year or in alternating years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. Interpreting the Results Ratings are compared when there are at least five communities in which a similar question was asked. Where comparisons are available, four columns are provided in the table. The first column is Cambridge’s “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., “excellent” and “good,” “very safe” and “somewhat safe,” “essential” and “very important,” etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. The second column is the rank assigned to Cambridge’s rating among communities where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of communities that asked a similar question. The final column shows the comparison of Cambridge’s rating to the benchmark. In that final column, Cambridge’s results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. Being rated as “higher” or “lower” than the benchmark means that Cambridge’s average rating for a particular item was more than 10 points different than the benchmark. If a rating was “much higher” or “much lower,” then Cambridge’s average rating was more than 20 points different when compared to the benchmark.

National Benchmark Comparisons Table 1: Quality of Life Quality of Life Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Cambridge as a place to live 90% 170 355 Similar Recommend living in Cambridge to someone who asks 89% 120 309 Similar Remain in Cambridge for the next five years 85% 122 307 Similar Table 2: Governance Governance Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Public information 73% 144 310 Similar Table 3: Economy Economy Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Economic health (including jobs and workforce development) 59% 196 309 Similar

Table 4: Mobility Mobility Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus, subway) 48% 155 253 Similar Driving 42% 315 319 Much lower Public transportation, like bus or subway 53% 74 294 Similar On foot 87% 36 322 Higher Snow plowing 73% 141 260 Similar Sidewalk maintenance 52% 242 312 Similar Table 5: Community Design Community Design Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Your neighborhood as a place to live 89% 147 317 Similar Table 6: Utilities Utilities Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Quality of public utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm water) 63% 149 244 Similar Table 7: Safety Safety Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Cambridge as a safe place to live 90% 151 344 Similar Police department 76% 312 366 Similar Fire department 95% 206 333 Similar

Table 8: Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Quality of open space, parks, and recreation opportunities 78% 170 250 Similar City parks and park maintenance 84% 212 322 Similar Table 9: Health and Wellness Health and Wellness Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Public health department 77% 135 283 Similar Table 10: Education, Arts, and Culture Education, Arts, and Culture Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Opportunities in education, culture, and the arts 75% 105 306 Similar Libraries 94% 66 318 Similar Table 11: Inclusivity and Engagement Inclusivity and Engagement Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Residents’ connection and engagement with their community 46% 173 247 Similar A sense of community 71% 181 324 Similar A place welcoming to all races, ethnicities, cultures, and identities 86% 7 320 Higher

Table 12: Participation Participation Items Percent positive Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Contacted a Cambridge City Councilor to express your opinion or seek services 40% 2 295 Much higher Table 13: Focus Areas Importance Items Percent essential or very important Rank Number of communities in comparison Comparison to benchmark Economic health (including jobs and workforce development) 79% 67 284 Similar Quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus, subway) 86% 2 244 Much higher Quality of public utility infrastructure (water, sewer, storm water) 82% 29 244 Similar Quality of open space, parks, and recreation opportunities 77% 5 245 Higher Opportunities in education, culture, and the arts 79% 1 284 Much higher Residents’ connection and engagement with their community 67% 11 284 Higher