---

Round 4 Beacon Council Scheme: Baseline Data(Final revised report)

User/Public Satisfaction with Service Delivery: Overall and Theme Specific Performance

Briefing Paper prepared for The Beacon Council Advisory Panel/ODPM

December 2002

Contents

Introduction *

Part One: Methodology *

Local Studies: BVPI data *

Other Local Studies *

National Data for Overall and Themed Performance *

Guidance on Data Analysis *

Further Reading *

Overview *

Part Two: Overall Performance of Local Government *

1. Overall satisfaction with how an authority is running an area *

2. Value for Money *

3. Overall quality of services *

4. Satisfaction with Handling of Complaints *

5. Well informed *

6. How have residents been consulted? *

7. Community leadership role *

Part Three: The BVPI Dataset *

The General Surveys *

Corporate Health (BV3 and BV4) *

Litter and Waste services (BV89 and BV90) *

Public Transport (BV103 and BV104) *

Cultural and Recreational Services (BV119) *

The Tenants’ Survey *

The Benefits Survey (BV80) *

The Planning Survey (BV111) *

The Libraries Survey (BV118) *

Part Four: Round 4 Themes *

1. Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services *

2. Community Cohesion *

3. Removing barriers to work *

4. Social Inclusion through ICT *

5. Supporting the Rural Economy *

6. Tackling Homelessness *

7. Transforming Secondary Education *

8. Quality of the Built Environment *

9. Rethinking Construction *

10. Street and Highway Works *

11. Evaluation of general performance data *

12. Evaluation of non BVPI general performance data *

13. Methodological evaluation *

14. Themed evaluations *

Introduction

The Beacon Council Scheme is now in its fourth year. It aims to "identify the best performing councils who can act as centres of excellence from which other councils can learn". All local authorities in England are invited to prepare bids for Beacon Status. Ten themes were identified for 2003-2004 under which councils will be invited to submit their applications.

The closing date for applications is 26 September 2002. This will be followed by a detailed selection process, prior to the announcement of the successful applications in April 2003.

The selection of Beacon Councils will be made by ministers, on the basis of advice from the Independent Advisory Panel on Beacon Councils and other relevant information.

Applicant councils have been invited to show evidence that they have taken steps to evaluate user satisfaction. This applies both to the overall performance of the authority (all authorities were obliged to carry out residents’ surveys to collect the new user satisfaction Best Value Performance Indicators in autumn 2000) and to the theme(s) on which it is applying for Beacon Status.

In order to help the Beacon Council Advisory Panel assess the relevance and validity of the survey research submitted, ODPM has commissioned MORI Local Government Research to prepare a briefing paper outlining the scope of salient research carried out recently. There are two principal objectives to this exercise:

• To inform the Advisory Panel of the range of survey research available, so as to provide some context to the submission of local authority survey data;
• To establish, where appropriate, national baselines against which survey data of applicant councils can be benchmarked to judge evidence of good practice.

If authorities submit survey data which cannot be compared with national baselines (eg due to differences in methodology), MORI will offer advice to the Panel on how applicant councils are using survey evidence to improve their services, and will look for evidence of improving trends within the council over time, where appropriate.

Applicant councils may also find it useful to look at the templates and guidance to evaluating user satisfaction data used by MORI in Round 2 and Round 3 applications. These can be found at:

http://www.local-regions.odpm.gov.uk/beacon/index.htm.

Authorities should note, however, that the templates will be updated in Round 4.

This report, which was first published in July 2002, has been amended in December 2002 to include an appended section on the evaluation of applications to the Beacon Council Scheme

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all the authorities, organisations and individuals who have provided survey data for this exercise. In particular, we would like to thank Matt Carter, and Hannah Cromarty at ODPM for their help and advice in scoping the project.

Part One: Methodology

Below we detail the approach undertaken to collate relevant survey data on the overall performance of local authorities and on each of the ten themes. This methodology was developed in consultation with colleagues at ODPM.

Local Studies: BVPI data

All English local authorities were requested to carry out representative surveys of residents and service users to collate BVPIs. Depending on the status of the authority, a number of different BVPI surveys were undertaken: general, benefits, housing, libraries, planning, and social services.

MORI will use the general BVPI survey as the principal national baseline in the evaluation of overall performance. While there are some issues surrounding the comparability of BVPI survey data from authority to authority – e.g. differences in methodology and response rate - aggregated data from these BVPI surveys should provide the most useful comparative datasource, for the following reasons:

• This will be the most recent survey dataset for many authorities;
• It was designed to allow comparisons between authorities;
• It covers a range of service areas, as well as providing "corporate health" measures, thereby providing a framework for looking at overall performance;

The ODPM has audited and edited the data that have been submitted by local authorities. This is now available on the ODPM website (http://www.local-regions.odpm.gov.uk/bestvalue/indicators/indicatorsindex.htm). It will be used as the principal source of comparative data for use in the assessment of general performance.

Authorities have also been advised that they can include with their application another general performance survey if they believe this is useful supplementary information. Data from these surveys can be compared with local studies from the MORI benchmarking database and from other national studies.

Other Local Studies

Where appropriate – for some key overall performance measures – we have included data from MORI’s benchmarking database of studies for local authorities. This should not be considered exhaustive as it is limited to MORI clients, but does provide context to the national studies.

National Data for Overall and Themed Performance

We also contacted the following individuals to try to establish national baselines with which an applicant’s survey data can be compared or which provides salient background information:

• Relevant Government policy officials, panel specialists and researchers for each theme on the Beacon Advisory Panel;
• Central government researchers.

In addition, the data-trawl also included an internet search for relevant data, focusing on academic institutions and organisations who may have commissioned relevant survey research. A list of organisations we contacted and whose websites we searched is shown overleaf.

 

Audit Commission	LARIA
Bartlett School of Planning	Local Government Association (LGA)
British Association for International and Comparative Education	Mental Health Foundation
British Educational Research Association	National Centre for Education Studies
Carnegie	National Centre for Social Research
Centre for Economic and Social Exclusion	National Health Care for the Homeless Council
Centre for the Rural Economy, University of Newcastle upon Tyne	NFER
CERUK	Office of National Statistics
Commission for Architecture & the Built Environment (CABE)	OFSTED
Commission for Racial Equality (CRE)	Richard Rogers Partnership
Construction Industry Information Group (CIIG)	Royal Institute of British Architects
Construction Industry Research & Information Association (CIRIA)	Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
CRISIS	Scottish Executive
DEFRA	Shelter
DfES	The Countryside Agency
Disability Rights Commission (DRC)	The Education Network
DoH	The Royal Agriculture College, School of Rural Economy and Land Management
Economic and Social Research Council	Trades Union Congress (TUC)
Education Design Group	Union of Construction, Allied Trades & Technicians (UCATT)
Health Development Agency	Urban Design Alliance
Home Office	Urban Design Group
Homeless Link	YMCA
International Archive of Education	York University
Joseph Rowntree Foundation

National Survey Data

The following lists the main national surveys which were included in the baselines. In general, national studies carried out since 1997 have been considered. However, where no suitable studies since 1997 exist, we have occasionally used data from earlier studies. We have tried to include data which is relevant to the precise scope of each theme. However, for some themes which have a very specific focus or where conducting research is very problematic, for example homelessness, no survey data has been discovered which is entirely relevant. We have chosen to include survey data which can add some context to the theme as background data, where appropriate.

Study		Reason for inclusion
Mental Health of children/adolescents in GB Report (1999, based on survey)		Quantitative survey of parents, children and teachers, relevant to child and adolescent mental health services theme
People’s Panel (1998-2000)		Nationally representative, includes data on overall performance
Surveys of Best Value Pilot Surveys (1998 and 2000)		Representative of pilot areas, includes data on overall performance
A Decade of Change (1999)		Nationally representative, includes data on overall performance
Survey of English Housing (1997/1998) and (1999/2000)		Nationally representative, includes data on overall performance
Citizen’s Charter Unit (1997)		Quantitative survey of local authority complainants relevant to overall performance
Local Government Association (1998)		Nationally representative, includes background data on overall performance
British Social Attitudes (1998)		Nationally representative, includes background data on overall performance
Best Value Performance Indicator Surveys (2000/2001)		Comparative data on overall performance, housing service, benefits service, planning service and library service collected by every authority
Schools’ Views of their LEA (2001)		National survey of schools consisting of data on LEA performance, relevant to transforming secondary education theme
Housing Forum survey (2000/1)		Nationally representative, includes data on quality of construction and on built environment theme
MORI Technology Tracker (on-going)		Nationally representative, includes data on usage of technology, relevant to social inclusion through ICT theme
ONS Internet Access study (on-going)		Nationally representative, includes data on usage of technology, relevant to social inclusion through ICT theme
British Crime Survey (2000)		Nationally representative, relevant to community cohesion theme
Public Attitudes to Architecture & the Built Environment survey (2002)		Nationally representative, relevant to built environment theme
Young People and ICT Report (2001, based on survey)		Nationally representative of children aged 5 to 18, relevant to social inclusion through ICT theme
Home Office Citizenship Survey (2001)		Nationally representative, relevant to community cohesion theme
Britain Beyond Rhetoric: delivering equality and social justice survey (2002)		Nationally representative, relevant to community cohesion theme
General Household Survey (2000/1)		Nationally representative of private households, relevant to community cohesion theme
ICT Access and Use Report (2001, based on survey)		Relevant to social inclusion through ICT theme
Labour Force Survey 2001		Nationally representative (UK) includes data relevant to removing barriers to work theme
Public Attitudes to Transport (2002)		Relevant to street and highway works theme

 

Technical Details

Below we give brief technical details of the main surveys that have been included in the national baselines.

• Local General BVPI surveys – all English authorities carried out representative surveys of their residents, via in-home or postal methodologies, using random probability sampling. The recommended minimum sample size was 1,100 per authority.
• Local Benefit BVPI surveys – all English authorities with responsibility for housing and council tax benefit carried out a survey of a randomly selected sample of benefits claimants. The recommended minimum sample size was 625 per authority.
• Local Housing BVPI surveys – all English authorities with responsibility for council owned housing stock carried out a survey of a randomly selected sample of people on the authority’s tenant houses address list.
• Local Planning BVPI surveys – all English authorities with responsibility for planning services carried out a survey of a randomly selected sample of planning applicants. The recommended minimum sample size was 400 per authority.
• Local Library BVPI surveys –all English authorities with responsibility for libraries carried out a survey of a randomly selected sample of library visitors to the authorities’ static libraries. The minimum sample size was 1,100 visitors.
• People’s Panel (1998 and 2000) – c5,000 adults recruited in-home to take part in on-going research, representative of UK as a whole, random probability sampling, recruited by MORI on behalf of the Cabinet Office. Further ‘waves’ of research have been carried out with a sample of the panel over the last two years.
• Survey of Best Value pilot authorities (1998 and 2000) – c2,500 adults living in Best Value pilot authorities, interviewed in-home using random probability sampling, carried out by MORI on behalf of Warwick Business School/DTLR. The sample is representative of those living in pilot authorities rather than of England and Wales as a whole, although the demographic profile is similar.
• A Decade of Change (1999) – c2,000 adults interviewed in-home using random probability sampling, carried out by the National Centre for Social Research on behalf of DETR. The sample is representative of English adults.
• British Crime Survey (2000) - 19,411 adults interviewed in-home using random probability sampling, carried out by the National Centre for Social Research on behalf of the Home Office. The sample is representative of adults in England and Wales and includes booster of ethnic minorities.
• Complaints Handling (1997) - c500 complainants from a sample of authorities interviewed in home, carried out by MORI on behalf of the Citizen’s Charter Unit.
• Survey of English Housing (referred to in this report as SEH) (1997-8 and 1999-2000). Interviews with c20,000 adults interviewed in home using random probability sampling, carried out by ONS on behalf of DETR.
• British Social Attitudes (1998 and 2000), nationally representative surveys of c3,000 adults, using random probability sampling, carried out by the National Centre for Social Research.
• Labour Force Survey (2001) a continuous, representative, survey of the labour market, with about 140,000 respondents taking part each quarter. Initial interviews are carried out in-home with subsequent interviews carried out by telephone by ONS.
• Schools’ Views of their LEA (2001) carried out by the Audit Commission on behalf of OFSTED. All schools in the 97 LEAs that were inspected between autumn term 1999 and summer term 2001 were sent a questionnaire. A total of 9,708 responses were received, a response rate of 79%.
• The Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in Great Britain report (1999) – based on a survey conducted by ONS on behalf of the DoH, the Scottish Health Executive and the National Assembly for Wales among parents, children and teachers. A total of 10,438 individuals interviewed, using a sample drawn from Child Benefit Records held by the Child Benefit Centre.
• Housing Forum survey (2000/1) – c.10,000 owners of newly built homes interviewed by MORI across Great Britain by telephone. The sample is representative of new home owners, but not of adults as a whole.
• MORI Technology Tracker study (on-going) – c.4,000 interviews with adults aged 15+ aggregated monthly from the MORI Omnibus survey. The MORI Omnibus is a bi-monthly representative quota survey of c2,000 adults aged 15+, in c190 sampling points throughout Britain. Interviews are conducted in home.
• Public Attitudes to Architecture & the Built Environment survey (2002) – a quota sample of 1,018 adults interviewed by MORI on behalf of CABE across the country with an additional ‘booster’ of 50 interviews among ethnic minorities. The sample is representative of adults in England.
• Young People and ICT report (2001) – based on interviews with 1,748 children between the ages of 5 and 18 (and their parents) across the country on behalf of the DfES, using random probability sampling. The sample is representative of children in England.
• Home Office Citizenship Survey (2001) – 10,015 adults living in private households interviewed in-home using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) across England and Wales, with an additional ‘booster’ of 5,460 interviews among ethnic minorities. The sample is representative of adults in England and Wales.
• Britain Beyond Rhetoric: delivering equality and social justice (2002) – a quota survey of 822 adults interviewed by MORI in-home across Great Britain on behalf of the CRE, including additional ‘booster’ interviews among ethnic minorities. The sample is representative of adults in Great Britain.
• General Household Survey: Social Capital Module (2000/1) – randomly-selected interviews among 7,857 private households in Great Britain by ONS using a mixture of CAPI (computer-assisted personal interviewing) and CATI (computer-assisted telephone interviewing). The base size for the General Household Survey as a whole is 8,221.
• ICT Access and Use report (2001) – based on interviews with c.4,000 adults across the country on behalf of the DfES.
• Public Attitudes to Transport (2002) – a quota survey of 1,725 adults interviewed by MORI in-home across England on behalf of CfIT. The sample is representative of adults in England.

In addition to these national studies, as mentioned earlier, we have included many studies carried out by individual local authorities (1997-2002) which are in MORI’s benchmarking database. These studies are typically carried out in-home, using quota sampling within Enumeration Districts. Each study is representative of the commissioning local authority.

Evaluating Data Against National Baselines

Data included in this report can be classified into two categories: user satisfaction data (e.g. satisfaction with how an authority is running an area) and background ‘scene-setting’ data.

As highlighted in the Application Brochure, Beacon Councils must be able to show excellence in a theme as well as good general performance. User satisfaction data is a measure of performance, and therefore provides the opportunity for applicant authorities to benchmark their standards against each other.

Evaluating General Performance: BVPI Data

As mentioned earlier, an authority’s user satisfaction general performance data will be evaluated principally from an analysis of the BVPI data from the general survey.

Evaluating Other Survey Data

When an authority submits other survey data as part of its application for Beacon Status – either under general performance or a particular theme - MORI will evaluate the results it submitted against the baselines we have established, where available. Where possible we will offer our advice as to what may be considered evidence of excellence in the context of the specific themes, as well as good overall performance.

Where more than one relevant national baseline has been found, we will compare an applicant authority’s rating with the national baseline which most closely approximates to the authority’s data, taking into account methodology, question wording and answer scales.

If it is not possible to benchmark an authority’s survey data against national baselines, MORI will offer advice to the Panel on how councils are using survey evidence to improve their services, and will look for evidence of improving trends within the council over time.

Background Data

The net change in the number of businesses that have registered or deregistered for VAT, included in this report in the Supporting the Rural Economy theme, is one example of background data that the Advisory Panel may find useful. It can be interesting and worthwhile to compare data submitted by an authority against this type of national data: to understand, in this instance, whether business activity in the local area appears to be increasing or decreasing. However, it is not possible to evaluate background data in terms of good or excellent performance as we can with user satisfaction data.

 

Guidance on Data Analysis

It is important to be cautious when comparing findings from two or more different surveys if they are not designed to be fully comparable at the outset. Throughout this report, we have highlighted instances where particular care should be taken due to differences in methodology or definitions. It is important, when evaluating data submitted by applicant local authorities, to bear in mind the issues listed below, which may be at least as responsible for differences in survey findings as ‘real’ differences between the views of different local communities. MORI will offer advice on how valid a comparison is between an applicant’s survey data and national baselines when we carry out individual evaluations.

• Question wording: even seemingly slight differences in question wording can affect answers given.
• Answer scales: levels of satisfaction will be different if measured via a four-point scale (very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, very dissatisfied) or a five-point scale that includes a mid-point (very satisfied, fairly satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, fairly dissatisfied, very dissatisfied).
• Questionnaire order: we have found in a number of studies for local authorities recently that local residents give a very different overall rating of their local authority if asked at the beginning, middle or end of the questionnaire. This is particularly pertinent when comparing data on the overall performance of local authorities – in many national studies, for instance the Best Value Pilots Evaluation studies of 1998 and 2000, the overall satisfaction question is asked at the beginning of the interview; in the General BVPI surveys authorities were required to include this question at the end of the questionnaire – this may well have affected the answers given.
• Methodology: a random face-to-face survey may yield very different answers to a self-completion postal survey, even with the same random probability sampling methodology. This may be due to higher response rates to postal surveys among certain demographic sub-groups (typically older and in higher socio-economic grades). As with questionnaire order, this may explain some of the differences in findings on overall satisfaction with authorities between national, face-to-face surveys, and General BVPI surveys, which were mostly conducted using a self-selecting postal methodology. There can also be differences between telephone surveys and those conducted using other methodologies.
• Demographic profiles: generally, results tend to be most positive in areas where there is a high proportion of residents in higher socio-economic grades. Care should be taken in comparing results between authorities with very different population profiles. A recent MORI Social Research Institute paper has demonstrated that deprivation levels is one of the key drivers of levels of overall satisfaction with a local authority’s performance.
• Users vs non-users: a study measuring satisfaction with, for example, recycling will give very different results based on residents as a whole compared with those who use the service. This is particularly important when considering some of the findings of the General BVPI surveys.
• Seasonality: the time of year the study is carried out may impact on the survey findings (for example, satisfaction with road gritting measured in July or January).
• External factors: analysing nationally representative MORI studies over recent years, we find satisfaction with local government is often correlated with other factors: satisfaction with central government, sense of economic well being and satisfaction with personal quality of life.

Net Measures

Throughout the report, reference is made to "net" figures. These represent the balance of opinion on attitudinal questions. In the case of a "net satisfaction" figure, this represents the percentage satisfied on a particular issue or service, less the percentage dissatisfied.

For example, if a service records 40% satisfied and 25% dissatisfied, the "net satisfaction" figure is +15 points. If 40% are satisfied and 35% dissatisfied, the "net" figure is +5 points. "Net satisfaction" measures are useful summary variables as:

• They provide a single figure summary;
• They take into account levels of both satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Some caution needs to be taken when analysing "net" figures, as they do not take into account the proportion who are neutral or undecided. For example, a service which records a "net" satisfaction of +10 could have results of either (55% satisfied and 45% dissatisfied) or (10% satisfied, 0% dissatisfied and 90% don’t know). For this reason, we have included data tables which show levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction as well as "net measures". In our evaluations, we will compare the per cent satisfied submitted by an authority with the most appropriate national baseline.

Further Reading

Some sections of this report include suggested further reading. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but details some relevant studies that have been suggested to us.

 

Overview

On the performance of local authorities as a whole and on some of the ten themes, there is a large amount of qualitative and quantitative data available from research among the general public, service users and a variety of stakeholder groups. However, for only some of these have we found national baseline data, which are relevant in the sense that local authorities may have asked similar questions using a comparable methodology. Our findings are shown below.

Theme	Reliable National Baseline?	Opportunity to benchmark authorities?
Overall Performance of Local Government	Many	Yes
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services	Some	Possibly
Community Cohesion	Many	Yes
Removing Barriers to Work	No	No
Social Inclusion through ICT	Many	Yes
Supporting the Rural Economy	No	No
Tackling Homelessness	No	No
Transforming Secondary Education	Some	Possibly
Quality of the Built Environment	Some	Possibly
Rethinking Construction	Some	Possibly
Street and Highway Works	Some	Possibly

 

 

 

Part Two: Overall Performance of Local Government

Within the three broad banners of leadership, performance management and democratic and community engagement, seven performance measures have been established:

• satisfaction with how a council is running things/the area;
• value for money;
• how well informed residents feel they are kept;
• satisfaction with complaints handling;
• overall quality of services;
• how residents have been consulted;
• community leadership.

Many of these issues lend themselves well to quantitative survey research. The following table illustrates the extent of survey data collected by local authorities.

Issue	Reliable National Baseline?	Number of LA studies	Consistency of question wording
How a council is running things/the area	Yes	Many	Mainly consistent
Value for money	Yes	Many	Mainly consistent
Well informed	Yes	Many	Mainly consistent
Satisfaction with complaints handling	Yes	Many	Mainly consistent
Overall quality of services	Yes	Many	Mainly consistent
Have residents been consulted	Yes	Some	Different question wordings
Community leadership	Few	Few	Different question wordings

In addition, in 2000/2001 all local authorities in England were required to undertake surveys of their residents, using two of the performance indicators above (how a council is running things and satisfaction with complaints handling). They were also required to establish satisfaction with the range of services they provide. Full details of the BVPI surveys and what they show us about the overall performance of local government are discussed in the next section. The seven performance indicators referred to above are now discussed in turn.

1. Overall satisfaction with how an authority is running an area

This is a key performance measure, and most authorities should have some survey data on this issue, in addition to the data they will have collected from the statutory BVPI surveys. Some take the view that they do not ‘run the area’ as such, and prefer to ask residents whether they are ‘doing a good job overall’, or break down their performance into component parts, e.g. satisfaction with the way they provide services, with the way they represent their community etc.

Satisfaction with local government – using these national performance measures - has fallen over recent years. The deterioration in net satisfaction from 1998-2000 (emboldened in the first two columns of the table below) is confirmed by a number of regular MORI Omnibus national tracking studies as well as studies for different individual authorities. The higher level of satisfaction recorded by National Centre and Survey of English Housing may be due mainly to different answer scales used.

This question is also asked in local authorities’ BVPI General surveys; the aggregated results of all respondents is shown below.

Satisfaction with quality of local council/running an area/running things
(Bases)	People’s Panel 1998 England (4,380)	People’s Panel 2000 England tracking (923)	People’s Panel 2000 England (923)	Best Value 1998 Pilots (2,488)	Best Value 2000   (2,515)	Nat Centre 1999 England (2,074)	SEH 1999-2000² England (18,000)	BVPI 2000/ 2001 England (538,992)
Very satisfied	8	7	5	8	7	5	9	10
(Fairly) satisfied	44	43	50	46	45	67	59	55
Neither/nor	27	23	23	17	19	N/a	N/a	23
(Fairly) dissatisfied	12	16	14	17	17	22	17	9
Very dissatisfied	5	7	6	8	8	4	10	3
Don’t know	3	4	2	4	4	2	6	N/a
Satisfied	52	50	55	54	52	72	67	65
Dissatisfied	17	23	20	25	25	26	27	12
Net satisfied	+35	+27	+35	+29	+27	+46	+40	+53

 

 

The following table shows satisfaction with local authorities analysed by authority type, based firstly on the National Centre’s 1999 survey of more than 2000 residents, secondly from MORI’s 2000 survey of Best Value authorities, thirdly from aggregated findings of the BVPI surveys and finally aggregating individual results for different authorities.

The National Centre study measures satisfaction using a four point scale (very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied and very dissatisfied), while the Best Value, BVPI and individual studies shown below use a five point scale (very satisfied, fairly satisfied, neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, fairly dissatisfied, very dissatisfied).

As is shown below, single-tier authorities are less well rated than two-tier. This may be linked to demographics: evidence suggests that those in higher socio-economic grades (who live more in two-tier areas) typically rate their authority more highly than others.

Satisfaction with authority running an area/running things
	Very/ Satisfied	Very/ Dissatisfied	Net
National Centre 1999 (4-point scale)
Overall	72	26	+46
County Council	74	20	+54
District Council	76	22	+54
Mets	65	33	+32
Unitaries	69	29	+40
London Boroughs	69	28	+41
	Very/fairly satisfied	Very/fairly dissatisfied	Net
Best Value Pilots 2000 (5 point scale)
Overall	52	25	+27
County Council	53	21	+32
District Council	60	19	+41
Mets	38	38	0
Unitaries	52	27	+25
London Boroughs	59	19	+40
BVPI surveys 2000/2001 (5 point scale)
Overall	65	12	+53
County Council	63	10	+53
District Council	68	11	+57
Mets	63	16	+47
Unitaries	62	13	+49
London Boroughs	54	21	+33
Local Authority Studies (5-point scale)
Mean Overall (121 studies)	61	18	+43
Median Counties (19 studies)	62	13	+49
Median Districts (46 studies)	66	13	+53
Median Unitaries (21 studies)	58	18	+40
Median London Boroughs (20 studies)	58	23	+35

 

 

2. Value for Money

Many residents are unaware of the financial constraints under which local authorities operate, including the extent to which expenditure is funded by Council Tax, Business Rates and Central Government funding. In two-tier authorities, residents are often unfamiliar with the relative proportions spent by County and District Councils. Despite a widespread lack of awareness, perceived value for money can be considered another key performance indicator, as it correlates strongly with overall satisfaction with how an authority is run.

The following table provides national benchmarking data on perceived value for money. The question wording is slightly different in each case.

Value for Money
	Best Value 1998 (Pilots)	Best Value 2000 (Pilots)	Nat Centre 1999 (England)	SEH 1999 - 2000 (England)
(Bases)	(2488)	(2515)	(2074)	(c18,000)
Agree strongly/very good	3	3	1	4
Tend to agree/good	37	34	32	33
Neither	21	24	32	25
Tend to disagree/poor	24	23	25	23
Strongly disagree/very poor	9	10	5	9
Don’t know	6	6	4	6
Agree/good	40	37	33	37
Disagree/poor	33	33	30	32
Net agree/net good	+7	+4	+3	+5

 

 

Analysing the different baseline measures shown in the table below suggests evidence of good performance on this measure would be a positive ‘net rating’ for London Boroughs and Metropolitan authorities, and a ‘net rating’ of around +10 for a two-tier authority.

Value for Money
	Very/good value	Very/poor value	Net good
National Centre 1999
Overall	33	30	+3
Two-tier	36	28	+8
Mets	35	30	+5
Unitaries	28	33	-5
London Boroughs	30	33	-3
	Agree strongly/ Tend to	Disagree strongly/ tend to	Net agree
Best Value Pilots 2000
Overall	37	33	+4
County Council	38	36	+2
District Council	43	28	+15
Mets	28	43	-15
Unitaries	39	30	+9
London Boroughs	38	24	+14
Local Authority Studies
Mean Overall (95 studies)	41	28	+13
Median Counties (18 studies)	39	29	+10
Median Districts (36 studies)	42	26	+16
Median Mets (13 studies)	40	33	+7
Median – Unitaries (18 studies)	45	28	+17

 

3. Overall quality of services

Ratings of individual services provided by local authorities vary dramatically from service to service (some of these are highlighted under the individual themes later in this report). The following table shows an overall measure of the quality of services provided by local authorities, against which applications for Beacon Status can be benchmarked. It should be borne in mind that some residents will wrongly attribute services to local authorities when they make this overall judgement.

Q To what extent do you agree or disagree that xxx Council provides good quality services overall?
	Best Value 1998 (2488)	Best Value 2000 (2515)		SEH 1999-2000 (c18,000)
	%	%		%
Strongly agree	6	5		8
Tend to agree	58	57		54
Neither agree nor disagree	16	18		19
Tend to disagree	13	13		13
Strongly disagree	4	5		4
Don’t know	3	3		3
Agree	64	62		62
Disagree	17	17		17
Net agree	+47	+45		+45

 

 

 

There is notable variation by authority type, as is shown in the table below, with two-tier authorities tending to be better rated and Metropolitan areas, in particular, generally less well regarded.

Good Quality of Services Overall
	Agree strongly/ Tend to	Disagree strongly/ tend to	Net Agree
Best Value Pilots 2000
Overall	62	17	+45
County Council	66	13	+53
District Council	68	11	+57
Mets	53	25	+28
Unitaries	63	19	+44
London Boroughs	57	19	+38
	Agree strongly /tend to	Disagree strongly /tend to	Net Agree
Local Authority Studies
Mean Overall (102 studies)	63	15	+48
Median Counties (17 studies)	63	13	+50
Median Districts (44 studies)	68	11	+57
Median Unitaries (19 studies)	65	14	+51
Source: MORI

 

 

4. Satisfaction with Handling of Complaints

There are two national benchmarking surveys of complaints handling: the 1998 survey of Best Value pilot authorities and more detailed work carried out by MORI on behalf of the Citizen’s Charter Unit (CCU). In addition, there is the question asked by local authorities in their General BVPI surveys.

The definition of a ‘complainant’ is key. Many residents will consider they have made a complaint when they have called to report a problem such as missed refuse collection, whereas authorities may carry out survey research among people whose complaint has been recorded formally; a far smaller proportion. Interestingly, the table below, which gives results based on self-defined complainants (Best Value and BVPIs) and on those whose complaint has reached Stages 1, 2 or 3 of a formal procedure (Citizen’s Charter Unit), suggests there is little difference in satisfaction with the final outcome.

The BVPI results for this question will be used in our evaluation of general performance.

Satisfaction with final outcome of complaint
(Bases)	Best Value 1998 (327)	Best Value 2000 (316)	BVPIs 2000/2001 (103,630)	CCU 1997 (556)
Very satisfied	16	15	18	15
Fairly satisfied	21	20	22	18
Neither	5	8	9	8
Fairly dissatisfied	13	14	22	14
Very dissatisfied	43	38	29	41
Don’t know	3	4	N/a	5
Satisfied	37	36	40	33
Dissatisfied	56	52	51	55
Net satisfied	-19	-16	-11	-22
Source: MORI

 

There is little difference in complainants’ satisfaction with the final outcome of their complaint and with the process, i.e. the way it was handled.

Satisfaction with Complaints
(Bases)	Final Outcome CCU 1997 (556)	Handling of Complaint CCU 1997 (556)
Very satisfied	15	13
Fairly satisfied	18	16
Neither	8	13
Fairly dissatisfied	14	16
Very dissatisfied	41	38
Don’t know	5	3
Satisfied	33	29
Dissatisfied	55	54
Net satisfied	-22	-25
Source: MORI

As highlighted by the data in the previous tables, the majority of complainants are critical of local authority complaints handling. This therefore provides a benchmark for making comparisons across authorities.

5. Well informed

Research has shown that how well informed residents feel they are kept about the activities of local authorities is a key driver of overall satisfaction with a local authority’s performance. It can also help to build a sense of engagement with the local community.

Q How well informed do you think the council keeps residents about the services and benefits it provides?
	People’s Panel 1998	People’s Panel 2000	Best Value 1998	Best Value 2000	SEH¹ 1999-2000
	England	England
(Bases)	(4380)	(923)	(2488)	(2515)	(c18,000)
Very well informed/Very well	9	7	7	6	11
Fairly well informed/Fairly well	42	45	38	37	47
Limited amount of information/ Not very well	29	26	30	32	28
Does not tell us much at all/Not at all well	16	19	20	20	9
Don’t know	5	3	5	4	5
Very/fairly	51	52	45	43	58
Limited/not much at all	45	45	50	53	37
Net informed	+6	+7	-5	-10	+21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relatively large difference between SEH and others probably due to different answer scales.

The National Centre’s survey ‘Local Government: A Decade of Change’ illustrates that residents feel considerably less well informed about financial matters than about the services they provide, which also holds true in the Best Value survey of pilot authorities.

Analysis of National Centre data, the survey of Best Value pilot authorities and individual local authority studies show that counties are worst rated on information provision and London boroughs best. This underlines the need to compare similar authorities.

How well informed respondents feel the council keeps them about services and financial matters, by type of council
	Local council: Services	Local council: Finance	County Council: Services	County Council: Finance
(Bases)	(2074)	(2074)	(1016)	(1016)
Very well	13	8	3	2
Fairly well	45	31	23	17
Not very well	32	40	49	47
Not at all well	9	18	21	29
Don’t know	1	3	4	4
Very/fairly well	58	39	26	19
Not very/not at all well	41	58	70	76
Source: National Centre 1999

Informed About Services/Benefits
	Very/fairly	Limited/not much at all	Net informed
Best Value Pilots: 2000
Overall	43	53	-10
County Council	44	54	-10
District Council	53	43	+10
Mets	30	65	-35
Unitaries	43	53	-10
London Boroughs	48	44	+4
Local Authority Studies
Mean Overall (108 studies)	48	48	0
Median Counties (15 studies)	40	54	-14
Median Districts (20 studies)	51	45	+6
Median Unitaries (20 studies)	50	44	+6
Median London Boroughs (18 studies)	49	45	+4
Source: MORI

6. How have residents been consulted?

A key requirement of the modernising agenda is for local authorities to try to engage better with the local communities they serve. In terms of public satisfaction, this is a problematic area. Many studies, including the Best Value pilot surveys, show residents who are dissatisfied with their authority’s current performance are more likely to seek greater involvement in what their authority does. In the Best Value pilot study 2000, 21% would like to have more say in what the council does, rising to 35% of those who are currently dissatisfied with how it is running the area overall. A high proportion of residents who want further involvement may, therefore, be as much a reflection of perceived poor service provision as an authority’s success in revitalising local government and developing a two-way relationship with the community.

This does not, of course, negate the importance of an authority striving to engage with their communities, and making decisions based on support. The following national baseline is a useful measure of whether residents feel their authority has made an attempt to canvas their views.

Findings from the two surveys are broadly consistent and show that around two-thirds report that their local authority has made no formal attempt to consult with them.

Means of consultation in past year
(Bases)	Nat Centre 1999 (England) (2074)	Best Value 1998 (2488)		Best Value 2000 (2515)
	%	%		%
Postal Questionnaire	10		12		15
Survey like this one	4		7		12
Public meeting	11		9		8
Meeting with a councillor	3		3		2
Panel of residents	2		2		2
Meeting with staff from organisation	1		1		1
Citizens’ Jury	*		1		1
Meeting of group	2		2		2
Focus group	n/a		2		2
Other	1		2		2
None of these	70		67		63

 

 

The survey of Best Value pilots shows that London boroughs (at least those which are pilots) are using or promoting the mechanisms in the above table to consult with their local community.

 

Whether have been consulted in past year
	Best Value 2000
(Base)	(2,515)
Have been consulted by any of specific methods	%
All authority types	37
Counties	29
Districts	47
Mets	33
Unitaries	34
London Boroughs	48
Source: MORI

There is further evidence from two of the studies (Best Value and National Centre) on interest in different consultation initiatives, as well as which issues and services local residents would like to be more involved in, for example tackling crime, education and traffic/transport.

7. Community leadership role

This area of overall performance has proved difficult to define: below we detail some national contextual data on attitudes to local democracy.

Some data are available from individual authorities and from the recent Survey of English Housing which have some resonance with the broader theme of community leadership. These are shown below.

LOCAL AUTHORITY STUDIES
Q	To what extent do you agree with the following statement:
		Agree	Disagree	Net agree
		(%)	(%)	(%)
The Council does a good job caring for people like me/local people (mean of 16 studies)		41	25	+16
The Council is out of touch with people in… (mean of 11 studies)		37	32	+5
The Council is too remote and impersonal (mean of 102 studies)		40	29	+11
The Council rarely takes local residents’ views into consideration when making decisions which affect them (mean of 18 studies)		38	26	+12
Source: MORI

 

SURVEY OF ENGLISH HOUSING 1999-2000
Q	To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
		Agree	Disagree	Net agree
Base: c18,000 Head of Household/partner		(%)	(%)	(%)
The Council is too remote and impersonal		39	27	+12
The Council should try harder to find out what local people want		76	9	+67
The Council treats all types of people fairly		37	24	+13
The Council does not play an important part in improving the quality of life in the local area		33	39	-6
Source: Survey of English Housing 1999-2000

The following data published in British Social Attitudes 1999/2000 (National Centre for Social Research) shows that the majority are not interested in local politics, much less interested than they are in the national political scene.

Interest in Local Politics compared to Politics generally
	Interest in local politics	Interest in politics generally		Difference, local politics – politics generally
Bases:	(2071)	(3146)		(± )
A great deal/quite a lot	11	29		-18
Some	28	36		-8
Not very much/not at all	61	35		+26
Source: British Social Attitudes 1999/2000

 

An Omnibus survey of 1,067 adults conducted by MORI for Green Issues Communications Limited in April 2002, found some confusion among respondents as to whether there were in fact local elections in their area, confirming the lack of interest in local politics found in the British Social Attitudes survey. Three in ten did not know whether there were local elections in their area, 21% incorrectly thought there were elections in their local area when there were not, and 8% incorrectly thought there were not local elections in their area when there were.

Q	As far as you are aware, are there local elections in your area this May or not?
			Actual Elections in area
		Total	Yes	No
Base: All respondents aged 15+		(1,067) %	(550) %	(517) %
Yes, there is an election		49	76	21
No, there is not an election		20	8	33
Don’t know		31	17	47
Source: MORI/Green Issues Communications

Survey data consistently records a great deal of overclaim in terms of voting in the last local election; 60% said they voted in the 1998 survey of Best Value pilots. This may be due to people wanting to appear civic-minded, genuinely remembering incorrectly, or confusing local with general elections. The main reasons given for not voting by those who admit this are shown below. Data are taken from British Social Attitudes and survey of Best Value pilots.

Main reason for not voting in the last local election
	British Social Attitudes 1999/2000	Best Value Pilots 1998	Best Value Pilots 2000
Bases: All who say they did not vote in last local election	(937)	(828)	(943)
I was not interested in the election	18	15	16
I was too busy	17	21	15
There was no-one I wanted to vote for	11	11	8
I was away from home on election day	11	18	16
I deliberately decided not to vote	10	11	12
I was not registered to vote	8	8	8
I/Someone in my family was unwell	3	5	3
The polling station was too difficult to get to	2	1	2
Whether I vote makes no difference to council	N/a	9	14

 

Trust in local politicians is also low. More people say they would trust twelve ordinary local people chosen at random (a "jury") on local development issues than they would local councillors:

Who to trust on local development?
	Trust Councillors		Trust "jury"
Base:	(2071)		(2071)
Just about always	2		8
Most of the time	33		55
Only some of the time	45		27
Almost never	15		6
Source: British Social Attitudes, 1999/2000

In an Omnibus survey of around 2000 adults conducted by MORI for the Local Government Association in April 1998, people were presented with a number of suggestions which have been made to encourage people to vote in local elections. They were asked what difference, if any, each would make to their own voting behaviour. The most popular options were telephone voting and to have polling stations and supermarkets. It is worth noting, however, that survey research to measure predicted behaviour of this type is not always translated in practice. The experience of those authorities which piloted different mechanisms to boost electoral turn-out in the 2000 elections are obviously key.

Q	Most people do not vote in local council elections. I am going to read out a number of suggestions that have been made for encouraging people to vote in local elections. For each one, please tell me whether it would make you personally more or less likely to vote in the next Council elections or would it make no difference to you?
			More likely		Less likely	Make no difference	Don’t know
Base: 2017 adults aged 18+, 1998
Voting on Sunday, instead of Thursday		%	16		15	67	2
Voting by post		%	26		12	60	2
Voting for a directly elected Mayor who will run the Council		%	21		11	62	6
To have Polling Stations at the Supermarket		%	37		6	56	2
Extending the voting period, so that polling stations are open for more than one day		%	32		4	62	2
Voting on Saturday, instead of Thursday		%	22		8	67	2
Polling stations being open 24 hours		%	24		4	70	2
Voting from home using digital television or the Internet		%	26		10	61	4
Voting from work using digital television or the Internet		%	24		9	62	4
To have Polling Stations at Shopping Centres		%	38		4	56	2
To have Polling Stations at Train Stations		%	14		11	73	2
Voting from home using the telephone		%	40		7	50	2
				Source: MORI

 

 

Part Three: The BVPI Dataset

In 2000/2001 all English local authorities were required to carry out representative surveys of residents and service users to collect BVPIs. Each authority (where appropriate) had to undertake the following surveys:

• General survey of residents, covering satisfaction with and usage of core services, and overall satisfaction with the authority;
• Tenants survey, covering satisfaction with the overall service provided by the local authority landlord, and satisfaction with opportunities for tenant participation in housing management;
• Benefits survey of those whose claim for housing benefit and/or council tax benefit had been determined in two two-month sampling windows. The survey covered customer satisfaction with various aspects of the benefits service provided;
• Libraries survey of visitors to local authorities’ static libraries. This survey covered the proportion of people who found the books and the information they wanted, and overall satisfaction with reservations;
• Planning survey of planning applicants covering overall satisfaction with the planning service provided by local authorities.

The audited data for the core BVPIs collected in each of the four surveys is now publicly available – at:

www.local-regions.odpm.gov.uk/bestvalue/indicators/indicatorsindex.htm.

While there are some issues surrounding the comparability of data, the data from the BVPI surveys provide a valuable comparative data source because all authorities were required to submit relevant BVPI data and prescribed questions for the core BVPIs allow us to directly compare authorities’ performance.

Data from the BVPI surveys is analysed below, drawing on the published dataset and the two reports which have been written on the BVPI survey results.

The General Surveys

As part of the suite of BVPI surveys carried out in 2000/2001, all local authorities were required to carry out surveys of a randomly selected sample of residents to collect the core BVPI data. Although the DTLR’s guidance did not prescribe the method of data collection, the vast majority of authorities used a postal approach. The required sample size required by DTLR was 1,100 residents.

When interpreting results, it should be borne in mind that for each question in the General BVPI surveys, the DTLR requirement was that results should be based on all valid responses; therefore the base sizes will be slightly different for each answer within an authority’s individual survey.

Corporate Health (BV3 and BV4)

On the key corporate health measure around two-thirds of people nationally are satisfied with the overall performance of their local authority, with just over 10% dissatisfied. There is variation by type of local authority, with two-tier authorities recording higher levels of resident satisfaction than one-tier authorities, with London Boroughs recording the lowest ratings. This is relatively consistent with data from other national face-to-face surveys referred to in the chapter "overall performance of local government" (see page xx), where two-tier authorities were rated higher than one-tier ones.

BV3 – Satisfaction with the way the authority runs things
	England	County Councils	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary author-ities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(366)	(31)	(222)	(36)	(45)	(32)
Very satisfied	10	8	11	9	9	7
Fairly satisfied	55	55	57	54	53	47
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	23	28	22	22	24	25
Fairly dissatisfied	9	8	8	12	10	15
Very dissatisfied	3	2	3	4	3	6
Satisfied	65	63	68	63	62	54
Dissatisfied	12	10	11	16	13	21
Net satisfied	+53	+53	+57	+47	+49	+33
Source: ODPM

Satisfaction with complaints handling is the other key corporate health indicator collected in the first round of BVPI surveys. Consistent with other surveys conducted into the issue (Best Value Pilots Evaluation and MORI’s work for the Citizen’s Charter Unit), more complainants are dissatisfied with their authority’s handling of their complaint than are satisfied. This applies to England as a whole as well as the five different authority types. There is some notable variation across authority types; in London almost twice as many complainants are dissatisfied than are satisfied with the way their complaint was handled, whilst for District Councils the proportions who are satisfied and dissatisfied are similar.

BV4 – Satisfaction of those contacting the authority in the last 12 months with a complaint with the handling of those complaints
	England	County Councils	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs		Unitary author-ities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(358)	(31)	(216)	(36)	(43)		(32)
Very satisfied	18	16	20	16	17		13
Fairly satisfied	22	21	22	21	22		19
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	9	9	9	9	9		9
Fairly dissatisfied	22	24	21	22	22		23
Very dissatisfied	29	30	27	32	31		37
Satisfied	40	37	42	37	39		32
Dissatisfied	51	54	48	54	53		60
Net satisfied	-11	-17	-6	-17	-14		-28
Source: ODPM

Litter and Waste services (BV89 and BV90)

The core BVPI questionnaire devoted a relatively large amount of space to questions on litter and waste services provided by local authorities, collecting satisfaction data on keeping the land clear of litter and refuse, household waste collection, recycling services and civic amenity sites.

In England as a whole, three times as many people are satisfied (63%) with their authority’s fulfilment of its duty to keep land clear of litter and refuse than are dissatisfied (23%). There is significant variation by authority type. In the most urban areas (London Boroughs and Metropolitan Boroughs) satisfaction is lowest and dissatisfaction highest, whilst in the more rural areas (shire England), ratings of this service are higher.

BV89 – Satisfaction that the authority has fulfilled its duty to keep land clear of litter and refuse
	England	County Councils	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs		Unitary author-ities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(358)	(23)	(222)	(36)	(45)		(32)
Very satisfied	12	12	13	9	11		9
Fairly satisfied	51	56	54	45	47		44
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	14	18	14	13	15		14
Fairly dissatisfied	15	10	13	19	18		20
Very dissatisfied	8	4	7	14	10		13
Satisfied	63	68	67	54	58		53
Dissatisfied	23	14	20	33	28		33
Net satisfied	+40	+54	+47	+21	+30		+20
Source: ODPM

 

Satisfaction with household waste collection in England is higher than satisfaction with street cleaning. In the BVPI surveys, 85% nationally are satisfied with their household waste collection, whilst 6% are dissatisfied. Again, we can see variation between authority types, with satisfaction higher in District Council areas, but lower in more urban areas including London.

BV90a – Satisfaction with the Waste Collection service overall
	England	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary authorities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(332)	(219)	(36)	(45)	(32)
Very satisfied	40	43	39	38	25
Fairly satisfied	45	45	46	46	48
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	9	8	9	9	15
Fairly dissatisfied	4	3	5	4	9
Very dissatisfied	2	1	2	2	4
Satisfied	85	88	85	84	73
Dissatisfied	6	4	7	6	13
Net satisfied	+79	+84	+78	+78	+60
Source: ODPM

 

Ratings of the recycling service local authorities provide is lower than ratings of household waste collection. The majority of people in England are satisfied (65%) whilst less than one in five are dissatisfied (16%). Variation by authority type follows the familiar pattern, with London and Metropolitan authorities least well rated, and District Councils and Unitary Authorities performing best.

BV90b – Satisfaction with the provision of recycling facilities overall
	England	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary authorities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(332)	(220)	(36)	(45)	(31)
Very satisfied	22	24	19	23	16
Fairly satisfied	43	44	39	42	38
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	18	17	22	19	22
Fairly dissatisfied	10	10	11	10	14
Very dissatisfied	6	5	9	6	10
Satisfied	65	68	58	65	54
Dissatisfied	16	15	20	16	24
Net satisfied	+49	+53	+38	+49	+30
Source: ODPM

 

Satisfaction with civic amenity sites is high (in absolute terms) nationally, with seven in ten across England satisfied compared with just under one in ten (8%) dissatisfied. Ratings are very consistent across authority type, with the exception of London Boroughs where ratings of the service are lower. For both civic amenity sites and recycling services, the proportion of those saying they are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied is higher than for keeping the land clear of litter and refuse and household waste collection. Many of this group will be non-users of the site – an issue which applies less in relation to the other two services.

BV90c – Satisfaction with Civic Amenity Sites overall
	England	County Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary authorities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(140)	(30)	(36)	(44)	(30)
Very satisfied	24	26	28	25	17
Fairly satisfied	46	49	46	47	42
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	22	17	19	21	30
Fairly dissatisfied	5	5	4	5	7
Very dissatisfied	3	2	2	2	5
Satisfied	70	75	74	72	59
Dissatisfied	8	7	6	7	12
Net satisfied	+62	+68	+68	+65	+47
Source: ODPM

 

Public Transport (BV103 and BV104)

Across England, 47% of the population are satisfied with the provision of public transport information by their local authority, with 22% dissatisfied. Results are fairly consistent across authority type, although satisfaction is higher in Metropolitan Boroughs (53%).

Results for this indicator are based on the views of all residents, rather than users of the service. This helps to account for around three in ten of respondents being neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the service. Audit Commission estimates show that nationally 65% of users are satisfied with local public transport information provision, compared with 47% nationally.

BV103 – Satisfaction with the provision of public transport information overall
	England	County Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary authorities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(134)	(30)	(34)	(45)	(30)
Very satisfied	11	10	13	12	9
Fairly satisfied	36	34	40	34	37
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	31	33	27	31	31
Fairly dissatisfied	14	14	12	14	15
Very dissatisfied	8	9	7	9	9
Satisfied	47	44	53	46	46
Dissatisfied	22	23	19	23	24
Net satisfied	+25	+21	+34	+23	+22
Source: ODPM

 

Levels of satisfaction with local bus services are similar to those with public transport information. In England, half the population are satisfied with local bus services, and a quarter are dissatisfied. There is more variation by authority type than with public transport information, though the pattern is the same, with the highest regarded local bus services found in Metropolitan Boroughs.

As with public transport information, results are based on all respondents rather than just users. Audit Commission estimates, subject to the same caveats outlined above, show that nationally 57% of bus users are satisfied with the service, compared with 50% of the population overall.

BV104 – Satisfaction with local bus services overall
	England	County Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary authorities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(139)	(29)	(35)	(45)	(30)
Very satisfied	13	12	17	14	9
Fairly satisfied	37	34	41	36	39
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	25	27	22	26	24
Fairly dissatisfied	14	15	12	14	18
Very dissatisfied	11	12	8	11	11
Satisfied	50	46	58	50	48
Dissatisfied	25	27	20	25	29
Net satisfied	+25	+19	+38	+25	+19
Source: ODPM

 

Cultural and Recreational Services (BV119)

Just over half (54%) of people in England are satisfied with the overall cultural and recreational services provided by their local authority, with just under one in ten dissatisfied (9%). Results are fairly consistent across authority type, though satisfaction is lowest in London (49%). Over a third of respondents are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; as with public transport BVPIs this will (at least in part) reflect the fact that results are based on all respondents not users.

BV119 – Satisfaction with the authority’s culture and recreation services overall
	England	County Councils	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs		Unitary author-ities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(352)	(28)	(211)	(36)	(45)		(32)
Very satisfied	12	14	12	13	15		10
Fairly satisfied	42	44	42	42	42		39
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	37	35	37	36	35		38
Fairly dissatisfied	7	5	7	6	6		8
Very dissatisfied	2	2	2	2	2		3
Satisfied	54	58	54	55	57		49
Dissatisfied	9	7	9	8	8		11
Net satisfied	+45	+51	+45	+47	+49		+38
Source: ODPM

 

Specific Service Satisfaction Questions

In the General BVPI surveys, specific satisfaction questions were asked on the particular cultural and recreational services provided by local authorities – sports and leisure facilities, libraries, museums and galleries, theatres and concert halls and parks and open spaces. These are not reported on in the ODPM’s report on the BVPI topline findings, but will be published in full as part of the final report due to be published later in 2002.

Based on audited BVPI data now available on the ODPM website, MORI has analysed the proportion of respondents who are very or fairly satisfied with each of the particular cultural and recreational services provided by authorities. The same methodology used by ODPM has been used. The averages have been calculated by giving an equal weight to the results from each local authority to negate weighting effects produced by sample size variations. It should be noted that this published data only includes the proportions very or fairly satisfied, therefore some caution should be taken in interpreting satisfaction figures; a low satisfaction figure does not imply a high dissatisfaction figure – a high proportion could be neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

Just over half of people nationally are satisfied with the sports and leisure facilities provided by their local authority. There is little variation across authority type, though satisfaction is lowest in London and highest in Metropolitan Boroughs and Unitary Authority areas.

BV119 – Satisfaction with sports and leisure facilities
	England	County Councils	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs		Unitary author-ities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(361)	(16)	(233)	(36)	(43)		(33)
Very/fairly satisfied	53	53	53	57	57		47
Source: ODPM

 

Just under half of people nationally are satisfied with museums and galleries. As with sports and leisure facilities, results are fairly consistent by authority type, and the pattern of variation is the same. Satisfaction is lowest in London and highest in Metropolitan Borough and Unitary Authority areas.

BV119 – Satisfaction with museums and galleries
	England	County Councils	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs		Unitary author-ities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(263)	(21)	(138)	(33)	(40)		(31)
Very/fairly satisfied	48	49	48	53	53		39
Source: ODPM

Satisfaction levels with theatres and concert halls are similar to those with sports and leisure facilities, with just over half (51%) of people in England satisfied. The pattern of variation is the same as with sports and leisure facilities and with museums and galleries, with satisfaction lowest in London and highest in Unitary Authority areas.

BV119 – Satisfaction with theatres and concert halls
	England	County Councils	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs		Unitary author-ities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(247)	(11)	(139)	(32)	(41)		(24)
Very/fairly satisfied	51	51	50	53	57		43
Source: ODPM

 

Satisfaction levels with parks and open spaces are higher than with other cultural and recreational services. This is borne out by the General BVPI surveys, which found that almost two-thirds (63%) of people in England are satisfied. There is some variation by authority type – levels of satisfaction are lowest in District Council and Metropolitan Boroughs, whilst, unlike the other cultural and recreational services, satisfaction in London is above average.

BV119 – Satisfaction with parks and open spaces
	England	County Councils	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs		Unitary author-ities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(356)	(24)	(221)	(36)	(42)		(33)
Very/fairly satisfied	63	67	61	61	68		65
Source: ODPM

In the BVPI surveys, libraries were also among the most highly rated cultural and recreational services local authorities provide. Sixty-nine percent of people in England are satisfied, and satisfaction levels are fairly consistent across authority type.

BV119 - Satisfied with libraries
	England	County Council	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary authorities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(145)	(33)	(35)	(43)	(33)
Very satisfied	69	72	71	70	63
Source: ODPM

 

The Tenants’ Survey

As part of the suite of BVPI surveys carried out in 2000/2001, all local authorities with responsibility for council owned housing stock carried out a survey of a randomly selected sample of people on the authority’s tenant houses address list.

Local authorities with a housing stock of less than 200 dwellings were not required to undertake the survey. As Housing Associations and Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) are not Best Value authorities they were also exempt from carrying out the tenants survey.

Just over three-quarters (77%) of tenants are satisfied with the overall service provided by their landlord, with 12% dissatisfied. Results are fairly consistent across authority types, though tenant satisfaction is highest in District Council areas and lowest in London. Tenant dissatisfaction in London is twice the national average.

BV74 – Satisfaction with overall service provided by landlord
	England	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary authorities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(198)	(116)	(28)	(31)	(24)
Very satisfied	33	38	27	32	20
Fairly satisfied	44	43	46	45	43
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	12	11	12	12	15
Fairly dissatisfied	7	7	8	7	13
Very dissatisfied	5	5	6	4	10
Satisfied	77	81	73	77	63
Dissatisfied	12	12	14	11	23
Net satisfied	+65	+69	+59	+66	+40
Source: ODPM

 

Satisfaction with opportunities to participate in management and decision making in relation to housing services is lower than satisfaction with the overall service provided by the landlord, though levels of dissatisfaction are about the same. Around six in ten (61%) nationally are satisfied with one in ten (12%) dissatisfied. The pattern of variation by authority is similar to overall satisfaction with the landlord; satisfaction is highest in District Council areas, but lowest in London.

BV75 – Satisfaction with opportunities for participation in management and decision-making
	England	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary authorities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(199)	(116)	(28)	(31)	(24)
Very satisfied	22	25	17	21	15
Fairly satisfied	39	41	39	38	36
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	27	26	30	28	29
Fairly dissatisfied	7	5	9	8	12
Very dissatisfied	5	4	6	6	9
Satisfied	61	66	56	59	51
Dissatisfied	12	9	15	14	21
Net satisfied	+49	+57	+41	+45	+30
Source: ODPM

 

The Benefits Survey (BV80)

As part of the suite of BVPI surveys carried out in 2000/2001, all local authorities with responsibility for housing and council tax benefit carried out a survey of a randomly selected sample of benefits claimants who had made a new or renewal claim for housing or council tax benefit during either of two periods, each of two months in duration.

The survey asked about several aspects of the Benefits service – contact facilities at the Benefits Office, the service in the Benefits Office, the telephone service, the clarity of forms and leaflets, the staff in the Benefits Office and the time taken to receive a decision.

As with the General survey questions on cultural and recreational services, the ODPM report on the topline BVPI findings does not report on the results if full, but gives full results for three of the Benefits BVPI questions. The other three referred to here have been calculated by MORI from the audited BVPI dataset on the ODPM website, using the same principles for analysis as for the General survey.

Around eight in ten (79%) benefits claimants in England are satisfied with the facilities to get in touch with the Benefits Office, with one in ten dissatisfied. There is a fairly consistent pattern across authority types, though in London 69% are satisfied and 18% dissatisfied (nearly twice the national average).

BV80 - Satisfied overall with the facilities to get in touch with the benefits office
	England	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary authorities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(278)	(180)	(31)	(38)	(29)
Strongly agree	18	19	17	17	15
Agree	61	63	60	60	54
Neither agree nor disagree	11	10	11	12	13
Disagree	6	5	7	7	11
Strongly disagree	4	3	4	4	7
Agree	79	82	77	77	69
Disagree	10	8	11	11	18
Net agree	+69	+74	+66	+66	+51
Source: ODPM

As can be seen below, over half of benefits claimants are satisfied both with the service in the actual office (80%) and the telephone service (70%). Results are consistent across authority type, though London Boroughs are rated worse than other types of authority, particularly with regard to service over the telephone.

BV80 - Satisfied with the service in the actual office
	England	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary authorities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(325)	(221)	(34)	(38)	(32)
Strongly/ agree	80	82	79	79	68
Source: ODPM

BV80 - Satisfied with the telephone service
	England	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary authorities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(325)	(221)	(34)	(38)	(32)
Strongly/ agree	70	74	66	66	51
Source: ODPM

Around three in five (62%) of benefits claimants are satisfied with the clarity and understandability of the forms, leaflets and letters, and results are consistent across authority type.

BV80 - Satisfied with the clarity and understandability of the forms, leaflets and letters
	England	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary authorities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(324)	(220)	(34)	(38)	(32)
Strongly/ agree	62	62	61	61	60
Source: ODPM

Four in five benefits claimants nationally (82%) are satisfied with the staff in the benefits office, with 7% dissatisfied. As with the other Benefits survey indicators, results are consistent by authority type with the exception of London. Here dissatisfaction is twice the national average (13%).

BV80 - Satisfied with the staff in the benefits office
	England	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary authorities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(276)	(180)	(31)	(38)	(29)
Strongly agree	23	25	22	22	19
Agree	59	60	60	59	54
Neither agree nor disagree	10	10	11	11	14
Disagree	5	4	5	5	8
Strongly disagree	2	2	2	3	5
Agree	82	85	82	81	73
Disagree	7	6	7	8	13
Net agree	+75	+79	+75	+73	+60
Source: ODPM

 

Around two-thirds of claimants are satisfied with the amount of time it took to tell them whether their claim was successful (68%), with 22% dissatisfied. A relatively high proportion of claimants in London are dissatisfied with the time taken (31%), compared with England as a whole.

BV80 - Satisfied with the amount of time it took to tell them whether their claim was successful
	England	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary authorities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(276)	(179)	(31)	(37)	(29)
Strongly agree	14	14	14	13	12
Agree	54	56	53	53	47
Neither agree nor disagree	11	10	12	11	12
Disagree	12	11	12	14	17
Strongly disagree	10	9	9	10	14
Agree	68	70	67	66	59
Disagree	22	20	21	24	31
Net agree	+46	+50	+46	+42	+28
Source: ODPM

 

The Planning Survey (BV111)

As part of the suite of BVPI surveys carried out in 2000/2001, all local authorities with responsibility for planning services carried out a survey of a randomly selected sample of planning applicants who had made a planning application in the previous year.

In comparing the satisfaction by different types of authority, it should be borne in mind that County Councils only deal with minerals and waste planning applications. Their caseload is thus generally less than for other authorities and is also different (as other authorities will deal with householder extensions and major commercial applications).

Just over three-quarters of applicants (77%) are satisfied with the service provided by their authority in processing their application, with 13% dissatisfied. Satisfaction by authority type is relatively constant, though, as with many other BVPI indicators, satisfaction in London is lowest, where 67% are satisfied and 21% dissatisfied.

BV111 - Satisfaction with the service provided by the authority in processing application
	England	County Councils	District Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs		Unitary author-ities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(242)	(13)	(157)	(25)	(28)		(19)
Very satisfied	39	42	40	39	37		28
Fairly satisfied	38	40	38	38	39		39
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	10	9	9	11	10		12
Fairly dissatisfied	7	14	7	7	8		11
Very dissatisfied	6	13	5	5	6		10
Satisfied	77	82	78	77	76		67
Dissatisfied	13	27	12	12	14		21
Net satisfied	64	**	+66	+65	+62		+46
Source: ODPM

The Libraries Survey (BV118)

As part of the suite of BVPI surveys carried out in 2000/2001, all local authorities with responsibility for libraries carried out a survey of a randomly selected sample of library visitors to the authorities’ static libraries. The minimum sample size was 1,000 visitors.

Three in five (60%) of library visitors say they can find the books they want. There is little variation by authority type.

BV118 - % finding books they wanted
	Number of LAs	% successful
England	97	60
County Councils	21	57
Unitary authorities	31	59
Metropolitan Boroughs	26	62
London Boroughs	19	61
Source: ODPM

Four in five library visitors in England (81%) say they are satisfied with the way reservations are made. There is some variation by authority type with people in shire England being most satisfied, and satisfaction being lowest in London.

BV118 - Satisfied with the way reservations are made
	England	County Councils	Metro-politan Boroughs	Unitary authorities	London Boroughs
Base: All LAs	(58)	(10)	(19)	(17)	(12)
Very satisfied	81	88	84	84	66
Source: ODPM

 

Three-quarters of library visitors in England (76%) found the information they needed, and this was a consistent finding across authority types.

BV118 - % finding info they needed
	Number of LAs	% successful
Base:
England	100	76
County Councils	22	77
Unitary authorities	32	74
Metropolitan Boroughs	26	77
London Boroughs	20	75
Source: ODPM

 

 

Part Four: Round 4 Themes

This section of the report details national baselines with each of the eleven themes, where available. It also includes discussion covering some of the issues that arise from our trawl of the available data.

1. Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services

There is a wealth of quantitative data surrounding the topic of adults and mental health services, but little that focuses specifically on that of children and adolescents. There is, however, a survey conducted on behalf of the Department of Health, the Scottish Health Executive and the National Assembly for Wales by the Office for National Statistics in 1999, that provides data on the prevalence of mental health problems among children. These findings are outlined in the following tables.

Prevalence of any mental disorder by age and sex
	All	Boys	Girls
Base: All children aged 5 - 15	%	%	%
Total	10	11	8
5-10 years	8	10	6
11-15 years	11	13	10
Source: ONS/DoH Report on Mental Health of Children & Adolescents (1999)

Prevalence of any mental disorder by ethnicity
Base: All children aged 5 - 15	%
Total	10
White	10
Black	12
Indian	4
Pakistani/Bangladeshi	8
Source: ONS/DoH Report on Mental Health of Children & Adolescents (1999)

 

 

Prevalence of any mental disorder by family characteristics
Base: All children aged 5 - 15	%
Total	10
Children of lone parents	16
Children of married/cohabiting couples	8
Children of reconstituted families	15
Children of families with no step children	9
Children in two-children h’holds	8
Children in four-children h’holds	13
Children in five-children h’holds	18
Children of parents with no qualifications	15
Children of parents with at least a degree	6
Children in h’holds with gross weekly income of under £100	16
Children in h’holds with gross weekly income of £300-£399	9
Children in h’holds with gross weekly income of £500 or more	6
Source: ONS/DoH Report on Mental Health of Children & Adolescents (1999)

Prevalence of any mental disorder among those who experience different physical complaints
Base: All children aged 5 - 15	%
Total	10
Epilepsy	37
Difficulties with co-ordination	35
Soiling pants	31
Muscle disease or weakness	30
Speech or language problems	29
Bed wetting	23
Obesity	21
Stiffness/deformity of foot	21
Source: ONS/DoH Report on Mental Health of Children & Adolescents (1999)

 

Suggested Further Reading

The Audit Commission have published a report ‘Children in mind: Child and adolescent mental health services’ (September 1999) which studies the capabilities of health authorities to cater for mental health clients and the demographic characteristics of the clients requiring these services. See http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/publications/brcamhs.shtml.

Children and young people’s unit, DfES: ‘Tomorrow’s Future; Building a strategy for children and young people’ (March 2001). This report examines the current provision of social services available to young people including mental health services. See http://www.cypu.gov.uk/corporate/index.cfm

The Mental Health Foundation: ‘Hear me! Consulting with young people on mental health services’ (Sophie Laws 1998). This report draws together the findings from five projects funded by the Mental Health Foundation to experiment with methods of consulting with young people on mental health services. Essentially qualitative in nature. See http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk

The Mental Health Foundation: ‘Bright Futures – Promoting children and young people’s mental health’ (1999). Report that addresses the topic of young people and mental health in general, and seeks ways in which positive mental health can be promoted, strengthened and restored. This includes data from a wide range of sources, and contains extensive references for further reading. See http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk

 

2. Community Cohesion

There is a wealth of national data covering the issue of community cohesion. One of the main data sources is the annual Home Office British Crime Survey. The latest figures available are from the survey in 2000. The tables below detail the most recent findings:

Q. How often have you …
	% Once a month or more
Base: All (10,148)
… helped people directly	31
… attended groups	36
… helped groups or organisations	13
… served in a public capacity	2
… attended public meetings/participated in consultations	2
… worked with other people to tackle local issues	2
Proportion who participated in at least one of the above	56
Source: British Crime Survey (2000)

How worried are you about being subject to a physical attack because of your skin colour, ethnic origin or religion?
		1994	1996	1998	2000
Base: All those very/fairly worried		%	%	%	%
White		15	16	13	12
Black		48	46	51	51
Asian		61	59	63	60
Source: British Crime Survey (2000)

The recent 2001 Home Office Citizenship Survey also addresses the issues of social cohesion. Thus far the initial findings have been published, and the full report if expected to be published in September 2002. Some of the initial findings are set out below:

Q. How many people do you know in your neighbourhood?
	%
Base: All valid responses	(9,949)
Many	30
Some	32
A few	34
None	5
Source: 2001 Home Office Citizenship Survey

Q. How many people in your neighbourhood can you trust?
	%
Base: All valid responses	(9,441)
Many	40
Some	36
A few	22
None	2
Source: 2001 Home Office Citizenship Survey

The General Household Survey 2000, included as one of its components a Social Capital Module. The results have been published very recently and some of the results on civic engagement and neighbourliness are shown below:

Civic Engagement
	Well informed about local affairs	Feels civically engaged	Not civically engaged
Base: All respondents
Great Britain	59	18	16
North West	55	15	14
London	53	17	19
Wales	52	15	15
Scotland	56	18	16
South West	63	19	13
West Midlands	57	17	19
Yorkshire & the Humber	55	19	19
East Midlands	62	20	16
North East	57	14	19
Eastern	68	22	14
Merseyside	56	22	13
South East	67	20	11
Source: General Household Survey, 2000

Neighbourliness
	This is a place where neighbours look out for each other
Base: All respondents
Great Britain	73
North West	76
London	59
Wales	76
Scotland	74
South West	76
West Midlands	69
Yorkshire & the Humber	73
East Midlands	75
North East	80
Eastern	78
Merseyside	77
South East	73
Source: General Household Survey, 2000

 

 

Neighbourliness
	High score	Medium score	Low score
Base: All respondents
Great Britain	34	34	33
North West	39	31	30
London	21	35	45
Wales	43	30	27
Scotland	43	28	29
South West	40	32	28
West Midlands	30	32	38
Yorkshire & the Humber	33	37	30
East Midlands	33	35	32
North East	39	35	26
Eastern	33	35	32
Merseyside	36	38	26
South East	29	36	35
Source: General Household Survey, 2000

 

A recent survey on equality and social justice was conducted by MORI on behalf of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). Results from this survey relevant to this theme are outlined below:

Q. Taking everything into account, how would you describe your overall attitude towards the local area. Would you say you feel …
	National	Ethnic Minority	White
	%	%	%
Base:	(822)	(649)	(780)
… very proud of the local area	17	14	17
… fairly proud of the local area	58	51	57
… not very proud	16	23	17
… not at all proud	7	9	7
Don’t know	2	3	1
Source: MORI, 2002

Q. And how much community spirit, if any, would you say there is in this area?
	National	Ethnic Minority	White
	%	%	%
Base:	(822)	(649)	(780)
A great deal	10	9	10
A fair amount	44	49	44
Not very much	33	28	34
None at all	8	6	9
Don’t know	3	7	3
Source: MORI, 2002

Q. Overall, how involved do you feel in the local community? By local community I mean all the different people who live in this area.
	National	Ethnic Minority	White
	%	%	%
Base:	(822)	(649)	(780)
A great deal	5	10	5
A fair amount	26	35	26
Not very much	43	33	44
Not at all	25	19	24
Don’t know	1	2	1
Source: MORI, 2002

Q. Which two or three would you say you most identify with? (Prompted)
	National	Ethnic Minority	White
	%	%	%
Base:	(822)	(649)	(780)
This local area	45	57	44
This region	33	23	34
England/Wales/Scotland	39	9	41
Britain	45	42	45
Europe	10	6	10
The country(ies) of my family’s origin	10	46	9
None of these	*	1	*
Don’t know	1	3	1
Source: MORI, 2002

Q. Which two or three would you say you least identify with? (Prompted)
	National	Ethnic Minority	White
	%	%	%
Base:	(822)	(649)	(780)
This local area	7	4	7
This region	6	7	6
England/Wales/Scotland	13	26	12
Britain	7	9	6
Europe	64	53	65
The country(ies) of my family’s origin	4	8	4
None of these	16	12	16
Don’t know	5	15	5
Source: MORI, 2002

Q. Have you personally experienced any prejudice or discrimination because of your ethnic background, or not?
	National	Ethnic Minority	White
	%	%	%
Base:	(822)	(649)	(780)
Yes	14	39	12
No	85	56	87
Don’t know	1	5	1
Source: MORI, 2002

 

Suggested further reading:

CRE (Commission for Racial Equality) – ‘Survey on Race’ (2002). This is a quantitative survey among women looking at a range of equal opportunity issues such as racial integration and employment. See http://www.cre.gov.uk/publs/catalogue.html

LGA (Local Government Association) – ‘All together now? A survey of local authority approaches to social inclusion and anti-poverty’ (2001). This is a quantitative survey among local authorities looking at a range of initiatives aimed at tackling the issue of social exclusion.

DRC (Disability Rights Commission) – ‘Attitudes and Awareness Survey’ (2001). A quantitative survey among members of the public looking at disability rights.

Home Office – ‘Race equality in public services’ (2001). Report that discusses the role the Government is playing in promoting race equality in public services, and how far it is achieving its aims. Contains references to quantitative surveys – the British Crime Survey 2000/1, the Citizenship Survey 2001 and the People’s Panel.

Office for National Statistics (ONS) - ‘Living in Britain’ (2002). Report that looks at initial findings from the ‘General Household Survey’ (2000/1). The survey covers issues such as household composition, consumer durables, marriage and cohabitation, pensions, self-reported illness, use of health services, smoking and drinking. There is also a social capital module which covers social relationships, social support, formal and informal social networks, group membership, trust, reciprocity and community and civic engagement (not yet published).

 

 

3. Removing barriers to work

Much national survey data exists on the subject of removing barriers to work. The Department of Work and Pensions has commissioned studies among employers, families and jobseekers which look into the subject – details are included in the further reading section below. However, none of these specifically refer to the approach taken by local authorities in removing barriers to work.

In many of the regeneration areas across Britain that MORI has worked, survey data has been collected on the main reasons cited by those who are not working for not seeking employment. The national data on this is collected in the Labour Force Survey and is shown below, broken down by region (the other category includes "discouraged" workers:

Reasons for not seeking a job in the last 4 weeks
	Long-term sick	Looking after family/home	Students	Other
Base: All those wanting a job
Great Britain	36.6	30.9	12.1	18.6
North West	40.3	27.8	9.7	21.8
London	32.3	31.1	13.0	23.6
Wales	41.9	28.2	10.5	19.4
Scotland	39.7	26.2	11.4	22.7
South West	35.7	31.2	11.5	21.0
West Midlands	39.4	26.9	10.9	23.4
Yorkshire & the Humber	32.8	29.5	15.8	21.9
East Midlands	34.6	33.8	14.6	16.9
North East	43.3	25.8	14.2	16.7
Eastern	33.8	33.8	12.6	20.5
South East	28.8	37.4	9.9	23.5
Source: Labour Force Survey, December – February 2002

Suggested Further Reading

The Department of Work and Pensions has carried out a number of research studies of various groups, looking at barriers to work. None are directly relevant to the them, but provide detailed and interesting findings on the problems accessing the labour market faced by various groups in society. This list is not exhaustive.

McKay, S. - Low/Moderate - income Families in Britain: Work, Working Families' Tax Credit and Childcare in 2000 (Research Report No. 161, January 2002)

Metcalf, H., Anderson, T., and Rolfe, H. - Barriers to employment for offenders and ex-offenders (Research Report No. 155, December 2001)

Ashworth, K., Hartfree, Y., and Stephenson, A. - Well enough to work? (Research Report No. 145, July 2001)

 

 

4. Social Inclusion through ICT

There is a wealth of national data that covers both usage of ICT and the barriers that prevent usage.

Usage of ICT

MORI’s Technology Tracker survey (most recent wave - May, 2002) provides some benchmark figures on ICT usage, with data analysed by gender and social class. It illustrates the marked variation in usage between different groups within the population.

Q. Which of these, if any, do you personally use?
	Total	Male	Female	AB	C1	C2	DE
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Base: All valid responses	(4,045)	(1,802)	(2,243)	(644)	(1,208)	(911)	(1,282)
Mobile phone	72	76	69	79	76	73	62
SMS text messaging on mobile phone	38	41	36	41	41	39	33
PC – Desktop/laptop/other computer at home	46	53	39	67	54	40	23
PC – Desktop/laptop/other computer at work/place of study/elsewhere	28	34	22	48	37	19	9
Internet at home	39	46	32	62	45	34	17
Internet at work/place of study/elsewhere	25	32	19	44	33	17	7
E-mail	40	47	33	65	49	30	17
Interactive services through Digital TV	13	16	11	17	14	13	9
None of these	20	15	24	11	15	19	32
Don’t know	*	*	*	-	*	*	*
Desktop/laptop used anywhere	51	59	45	73	62	46	27
Internet used anywhere	46	53	39	70	55	40	21
Source: MORI, May 2002

 

ONS (Office for National Statistics) also tracks internet behaviour on an on-going basis:

Adults who have used the Internet
	Oct 2001	Feb 2002
	%	%
Base: All valid responses	(c.1,800)	(c.1,800)
All adults	53	56
16-24	87	82
25-44	69	74
45-54	58	58
55-64	37	41
65+	11	12
Male	55	58
Female	51	54
Source: ONS, 2000/1

The DfES recently conducted a survey on ICT usage. The results are shown below, with data analysed by lone parents and disabled groups:

Q. Which, if any, do you use nowadays? (Prompted)
	Total	Lone parents	Disabled groups
	%	%	%
Base: All valid responses	(4,039)	(403)	(976)
Mobile phone	64	72	52
PC / personal computer	44	38	32
CD ROM	35	24	24
Internet	30	22	19
WAP phone	1	1	1
Internet access via WAP phone	1	1	1
Source: DfES ICT Access and Use Report, 2001

 

The DfES commissioned a survey on the attitudes and experience of young people (aged 5 to 18), with regard to usage of ICT - both at home and at school. Results are shown below:

Usage of computers or the Internet in any location
	%
Base: All children	(1,748)
At home	75
At school	93
At another source	1
Total at home, at school or at another source	99
Source: DfES Young People and ICT Report, 2001

Barriers preventing the use of ICT

There are numerous barriers that Local Authorities need to overcome in order to create a digitally inclusive society. Some of these barriers are outlined below through results obtained as part of the two surveys commissioned by the DfES:

Reasons for not purchasing a computer
	Total	ABC1	C2	DE
	%	%	%	%
Base: Parents without computer/ laptop at home	(382)	(71)	(93)	(242)
Lack of money/cost of computer	75	60	67	83
No interest in getting one	12	21	9	11
Lack of experience with computers	8	6	9	7
Cost of software	5	3	3	6
Source: DfES Young People and ICT Report, 2001

Q. Here is a list of reasons other people have given for not using a computer. Please tell me which, if any, of the reasons apply to you? (Prompted)
	Total	16-34	35-54	55+	ABC1	C2DE
	%	%	%	%	%	%
Base: All non-users	(2,198)	(440)	(595)	(1,163)	(549)	(1,649)
I’m not interested in using computers	34	20	33	40	34	35
I have no need to use a computer	34	25	33	38	38	33
I cannot afford to buy a computer	29	48	33	21	18	34
I don’t know anything about computers	26	15	28	29	24	27
I do not know how to use one	22	13	23	25	22	22
I’m too old to start to use one	22	*	8	36	22	22
I do not know how to get started	17	10	19	18	15	18
I can do my work without one	16	14	20	14	20	14
Computers are far too complicated for me	14	8	13	16	11	15
I haven’t got the time to use one	11	15	15	7	13	9
I’d be scared to use a computer	6	3	6	7	7	5
Source: DfES ICT Access and Use Report, 2001

 

Reported barriers applying to current users who are restricted from using a computer more are set out below:

Factors restricting access to a computer at home
	Total	11-14	14-16	16-18
	%	%	%	%
Base: Those aged 11+ who use a computer at home	(654)	(266)	(220)	(168)
Share computer with someone else	22	23	21	21
Lack of time	16	14	17	17
Lack of access to the internet	9	10	10	8
Lack of interest	7	4	8	10
Price of equipment	7	5	7	11
Quality of software	7	8	6	8
Age of computer	7	7	7	8
Age of software	6	7	4	7
Price of software	5	4	5	8
Quality of computer	5	4	6	4
Lack of skills	5	5	5	4
No reason	44	42	45	44
Source: DfES Young People and ICT Report, 2001

Q. Here is a list of reasons other people have given for not using the Internet. Please tell me which, if any, of the reasons apply to you? (Prompted)
	Total	16-34	35-54	55+	ABC1	C2DE
	%	%	%	%	%	%
Base: All non-users	(2,659)	(582)	(810)	(1,267)	(748)	(1,911)
I’m not interested in using it	39	25	37	47	39	40
I don’t know anything about it	23	17	22	27	21	24
I cannot afford to buy the equipment	23	36	25	17	17	27
I do not know how to use it	19	15	20	20	17	20
It is too expensive to use	18	23	21	14	15	19
I’m too old to start to use it	16	*	4	29	14	16
I do not know how to get started	16	12	17	17	14	17
I can do my work without it	14	13	17	13	17	13
I haven’t got the time to use it	11	14	16	7	14	10
It sounds far too complicated for me	11	6	12	13	9	13
I’d be scared to use it	5	3	4	6	5	4
Source: DfES ICT Access and Use Report, 2001

Factors preventing more regular access to the Internet at home
	Total	11-14	14-16	16-18
	%	%	%	%
Base: Those aged 11+ who use the internet	(567)	(229)	(196)	(142)
Others at home wanting to use the Internet	25	22	28	25
Cost of telephone calls	24	18	32	25
Lack of time	20	19	18	24
Other people in the home wanting to access the Internet	19	18	23	17
Speed of connection/computer is too slow	14	11	10	22
Do not own a computer	8	11	8	6
Not allowed access by parents at home	7	8	6	8
Need to improve searching skills	5	5	4	6
Nothing	16	15	14	19
Source: DfES Young People and ICT Report, 2001

Barriers specific to computer usage in schools include:

Restrictions to using a computer more at school
	Total	11-14	14-16	16-18
	%	%	%	%
Base: Those aged 11+ who use a computer at school	(802)	(353)	(265)	(184)
Lack of time	45	45	47	43
Limited amount of computers	23	20	23	27
Share computers with other students	17	18	17	17
Lack of access to the Internet	8	7	7	12
Quality of software	7	7	7	7
Quality of computer	6	5	6	8
Age of software	6	5	5	8
Lack of interest	6	5	8	6
Internet filtering/blocking system	6	5	9	6
Teacher preference for more traditional methods	6	6	8	3
Age of computer	5	5	5	5
Nothing	18	21	13	21
Source: DfES Young People and ICT Report, 2001

 

The tracking study conducted by ONS also highlights barriers to Internet usage:

Reasons for not using the Internet
	Jan 2001	Feb 2002
Base: Adults who have never accessed the Internet (c.800)	%	%
Lack of interest	41	43
No need	14	17
Lack of confidence / skills	18	21
No computer or access	28	25
Cannot afford it	8	8
Feels too old	6	9
No time	4	5
Do not want to use	8	10
Have not got round to it yet	7	6
Poor opinion of the Internet	3	2
Health problems make it difficult	2	1
Other reasons	2	3
Source: ONS, 2000/1

Suggested further reading:

LGA (Local Government Association) – ‘All together now? A survey of local authority approaches to social inclusion and anti-poverty’ (2001). This is a quantitative survey among local authorities looking at a range of initiatives aimed at tackling the issue of social exclusion.

 

5. Supporting the Rural Economy

There is no national survey data available on the extent of community or business satisfaction with the outcomes of authorities’ efforts to support the rural economy.

However, there are non-survey measures which can be used to benchmark the performance of the economy at a local level. One is the percentage increase or decrease in the total number of VAT registered businesses in the area, a key indicator of private business activity. This data is collected in the Inter-Departmental Business Register and published by the Office for National Statistics. This is one of the Government’s fifteen Headline Rural Indicators set out in the White Paper "Our Countryside: The Future. A fair deal for rural England". It is also a pilot indicator being used by the Audit Commission in their Quality of Life Performance Indicators Project. As can be seen in the table below, in the 2000/2001 financial year, there was a slight net increase in company numbers of 0.5% in rural areas, compared with 0.45% nationwide.

VAT Registered Business Formation April 2000 – April 2001
	Rural	Urban	Total
Base: All respondents	%	%	%
New Business Registrations as a % of stock	9.43	12.47	11.43
New Business Deregistrations as a % of stock	8.93	12.05	10.98
Net change	+0.50	+0.43	+0.45
Source: ONS Inter-Departmental Business Register

The percentage increase or decrease in the number of local jobs is also an indicator of local economic performance. Data is available at local authority level from the Annual Business Enquiry collected by the Office for National Statistics. This is also a pilot indicator being used by the Audit Commission.

Percentage increase in local jobs, 1999 – 2000, by rurality
	% Increase
Base: All authorities in England
First quartile (80% - 100% rural wards)	+1.16
Second quartile (40% - 80% rural wards)	-0.32
Third quartile (4% - 40% rural wards)	+1.39
Fourth quartile (0% - 4% rural wards)	+1.92
Total	+1.26
Source: MORI

A note on methodology
The definition of rurality used above is derived from a classification developed for the Countryside Agency by ther Social Disadvantage Research Centre of the Department of Social POlicy and Social Work at Oxford University in 2000. The variables included in the ana;ysis were population density, economically active population, public transport to work, emplayment in agriculture / forestry / fishing / , employment in primary promotion (mining / energy / water) and ethnicity. Just under 4,100 of England's 8,414 wards (based on 1998 boundaries) were classified rural, representing 28% of England's population.

The unemployment rate in rural areas is also another proxy figure of local economic success that could be taken into account. The figures below show the proportion of working-age people in employment in rural areas compared with urban areas and the economy as a whole.

Proportion of Working-Age People in Employment
	Rural	Urban	Total
	%	%	%
End 2001	78%	72%	75%
Source: Countryside Agency

The infrastructure is a key factor in enabling local economic success. The Countryside Agency’s report "Rural Services in 2000" details the findings of a survey investigating levels of service provision in rural England. The Countryside Agency has carried out this survey in 1991, 1994 and 1997. As can be seen from the table below, 78.4% of households in rural England live within 4 km of a bank or building society.

Proportion of rural households within distance of a bank or building society
	0-2 km	2-4 km	4-8 km	>8 km
	%	%	%	%
England	58.1	20.3	18.3	3.3
East	48.2	22.1	26.1	3.6
East Midlands	51.2	22.5	22.5	5.8
North East	60.1	22.1	12.8	5.0
North West	66.1	22.7	9.5	1.8
South East	60.6	21.2	16.4	1.8
South West	63.2	18.0	16.0	2.8
West Midlands	54.4	21.3	20.3	4.0
Yorkshire and the Humber	59.4	16.1	20.1	4.4
Source: Countryside Agency

As can be seen from the table below, 27.6% of rural households in England live over 8km from a jobcentre.

Proportion of rural households within distance of a jobcentre
	0-4 km	4-8 km	8-12 km	> 12 km
	%	%	%	%
England	42.5	29.9	17.1	10.5
East	28.1	31.0	24.6	16.2
East Midlands	42.0	32.1	17.1	8.8
North East	45.8	31.4	11.2	11.6
North West	59.1	26.9	7.7	6.3
South East	34.6	35.0	20.1	10.3
South West	51.0	25.8	15.1	8.1
West Midlands	48.9	30.4	14.4	6.4
Yorkshire and the Humber	35.1	25.5	19.8	19.5
Source: Countryside Agency

 

As can be seen below, the overwhelming number of parishes lack either a general store or a small village shop.

Proportion of Parishes with general stores and small village shops
	General stores	Small village shops
	%	%
None	71	71
One	15	18
Two or more	13	10
Source: Countryside Agency

 

6. Tackling Homelessness

No national user satisfaction data on individuals who have experienced or are currently experiencing homelessness have been discovered. However research has been conducted into public attitudes towards the problem of homelessness and how this should be dealt with.

A national survey conducted by MORI on behalf of CRISIS - the UK charity for homeless people, examined the number of adults claiming to have known a homeless person or been homeless themselves. The survey also explored public opinions on how the government should tackle the issue.

Suggested further reading

Shelter - ‘Housing and Homelessness in England: the Facts’ (2001), and ‘Street Homelessness’ (2001). Shelter is a national campaigning charity for homeless and poorly housed people, and have published national statistical data on this area. These publications are recommended when assessing the scale of the homelessness in the UK. See http://www.shelter.org.uk/housing/factsheets/index.asp

The Centre for Housing Policy at York University have conducted qualitative research into the causes of homelessness ‘Breaking Down Barriers’ (2000) on behalf of Cymdeithas Caer LAs and the National Assembly for Wales. See http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/chp/wales.htm

‘National Inquiry into Youth Homelessness and Housing Need’ (1996) conducted by the Housing and Community Research Unit of Staffordshire University on behalf of YMCA. This is quantitative research into the demographic composition of the homeless population and reasons for homelessness and housing need. See www.staffs.ac.uk/schools/law/hcru/london.html and www.staffs.ac.uk/schools/law/hcru/glasgow.html

‘Helping People on low income secure private rented accommodation.’ (1996) published by the Centre for Housing Policy at the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. An evaluation of 161 schemes that provide help with finding reasonable quality accommodation.

 

7. Transforming Secondary Education

The main data source is the Audit Commission School Survey ‘Schools Views of their LEA’ (2001) in partnership with the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED). The survey was sent out to every school in each LEA and was completed by the headteacher in consultation with other staff and governors. The tables below shows different methods of support which the LEA provides to schools, which are rated on a five point scale from very good (1) to very poor (5). The tables show the average scores for each factor.

The LEA approach to school improvement
Q How do you rate the LEA in the following respects?
	Average for 1999/2000	Average for 2000/2001
Quality of data on pupil performance	2.31	2.20
Support to schools where there are concerns about performance	2.39	2.42
Consultation on the Education Development Plan	2.51	2.50
The clarity of its strategy for school improvement in the EDP	2.54	2.29
Source: Audit Commission School Survey

Planning and Communication
Q How do you rate the LEA in the following respects?
	Average for 1999/2000	Average for 2000/2001