Can t get no Satisfaction? Towards a better understanding of Public Satisfaction. Andrew Collinge Head, Local Government Research Unit July 2007

Transcription

1 Can t get no Satisfaction? Towards a better understanding of Public Satisfaction Andrew Collinge Head, Local Government Research Unit July 2007

2 LG Performance: CPA and Resident Satisfaction A challenging environment Base: BVPI 2006 (387 local authorities) 2

3 A failure to impress Q When Tony Blair stands down at the of this month, do you think public services will be in a better state, a worse state or the same state as they were when he became Prime Minister 10 years ago? % Better % Same % Worse General public Ipsos MORI conference delegates Base: c700 interviews, interim data June

4 Lies, damn lies and statistics 4

5 Hospital waiting times have plummeted 400, , , ,000 Numbers waiting 6 months or more 200, , ,000 50, Source: Hospitals and NHS Performance, Department of Health,

6 70 but people don t believe it % who think waiting times are getting Same Longer (S) 2001 (W) 2002 (S) 2002 (W) 2003 (S) 2003 (W) Shorter 2004 (S) 2004 (w) 2005 (S) 2005 (W) 2006 (S) Base: All respondents (c. 1,000) 6

7 despite being positive about their own experience Q To what extent, if at all, do you agree or disagree with the following statements? The government has the right policies for the NHS The NHS is providing a good service nationally -41% % Disagree -31% % Agree 31% 47% (-10) (+16) My local NHS is providing me with a good service 18% 65% (+47) I was satisfied with my last visit to hospital 17% 79% (+62) Base: All respondents (1,031) 7

8 But generally expectations outstripping improvements? Q Thinking generally about what you expect of public services like local councils, schools, would you say they greatly exceed or slightly exceed your expectations, are about what you expect, fall slightly short or fall a long way short of your expectations? % Exceed % About what you expect % Fall short % Don t know Private sector Base: all respondents (1,502) (5,064) 8

9 Myriad of factors at play Satisfaction with the way local council runs things %Explained by Model = 47% Base: 1,105 British adults, fieldwork dates 8th January 12th February % 7% 7% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% -6% 5% 5% Satisfaction with participation in local decision making Satisfaction with the waste collection service overall Satisfied that land is clear of refuse Government running of country well Government should give more control to Councils Council efficient and well run Council provide good VFM Well informed about Council services Anti-social behaviour is a problem Satisfaction with housing services Satisfaction with planning services 9

10 We now expect more of government than we do of God We now expect more of government than we do of God Anne Widdecombe, November

11 Some of the reasons for perception gaps General lack of trust in government information Political views are important and influence ratings of national services more than ratings of personal experience The negative and sensationalist focus of the media 11

12 Take the post code lottery as an example 88 items 96 items 136 items about

13 Tracking BVPI Satisfaction Data over Time Q How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way your local council runs things? Satisfied (BV3) Year surveyed Average County LB District Base: BVPI 2006 (387 local authorities) 13

14 General rises in satisfaction with LG services Base: BVPI 2006 (387 local authorities) 14

15 General rises in satisfaction with LG services Satisfaction with cleanliness - 60% to 68% Satisfaction with recycling facilities - 68% to 70% Satisfaction with local tips 75% to 79% Satisfaction with sports/leisure facilities 54% to 58% Satisfaction with libraries 67% to 73% Satisfaction with parks and open spaces 71% to 73% Satisfaction with h/hold waste collection 84% to 79% Base: BVPI 2006 (387 local authorities) 15

16 Some councils hide their light under a bushel = Service Delivery Average = BV3 Gap (pp) (BV3-Av.) Base: BVPI 2006 (130 Ipsos MORI Single and Upper Tier authorities and District clients) 16

17 Some councils hide their light under a bushel Oldham Calderdale Blackpool Nottinghamshire Lincolnshire Blackburn with Darwen Bedfordshire Northamptonshire Doncaster Rochdale Rotherham = Service Delivery Average = BV3 40% 46% 50% 46% 46% 43% 43% 43% 45% 43% 46% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67% 65% 67% 71% 70% 70% Gap (pp) (BV3-Av.) % Base: BVPI 2006 (130 Ipsos MORI Single and Upper Tier authorities and District clients) 17

18 The Gap by Authority Type Average overall satisfaction (BV3) Service delivery average District County Unitary Metropolitan London 18

19 The Gap by Authority Type Average overall satisfaction (BV3) Service delivery average 68% 69% 70% 69% 56% 51% 51% 51% 63% 54% District County Unitary Metropolitan London 19

20 But what is the Broad Pattern? The London Case Study 20

21 Change in London: Poor Performers Bridging the Gap, but how? worst best Overall Satisfaction Cleanliness % % 73% 73% 42% 35% 34% 35% 32% 49% 41% 24% Hackney K&C Croydon K&C Gap Hackney W minster Haringey W minster Gap 21

22 Change in London: Poor Performers Bridging the Gap, but how? worst best Overall Satisfaction Cleanliness % % 73% 73% 42% 35% 34% 35% 32% 49% 41% 24% Hackney K&C Croydon K&C Gap Hackney W minster Haringey W minster Gap 22

23 Raising the Game on Cleanliness: the London Example Percentage point change in satisfaction that land is kept clear of litter/refuse 2003/4-2006/7 14%14%14%14%14%14%14% 15%15%16%16%16%16%16% 17% 18%19% 20%20%20%20% 21% 2% 6% 6% 4% 9% 9% 10%10%10%11% -4% Text here Text here Text here Text here Text here Text here 23

24 Money: the root of all evil? council tax to soar 300% in nice areas 24

25 Perceived VFM really matters.. Satisfaction with council (%) R 2 = Richmond Upon Thames Kensington & Chelsea City of London Wandsworth Value for Money (%) Base: BVPI 2006 (130 Single, Upper Tier and District Ipsos MORI client authorities) 25

26 Service Delivery Average (%) 90 Service Delivery Average and Value for Money among Ipsos MORI Local Authorities 80 Broxbourne R 2 = City of London Bedfordshire 70 Westminster Wandsworth Corby Haringey Value for Money (%) Base: BVPI 2006 (130 Single, Upper Tier and District Ipsos MORI client authorities) 26

27 But not Actual Council Tax! Satisfaction with council (%) 85 City of London 80 Wandsworth 75 Kensington & Chelsea Christchurch R 2 = Rushcliffe Westminster Northampton ,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Average Council Tax per Dwelling (%) Base: BVPI 2006 (353 Single, Upper Tier and District authorities) 27

28 What about the Engagement and Empowerment Agenda?

29 Opportunities for Participation do seem to matter.. Satisfaction with council (%) 80 Wandsworth Kensington & Chelsea Correlation = Bromley Westminster South Norfolk 60 Southwark 50 Corby 40 Hackney Northampton Oldham Satisfied with opportunities for participation (%) Base: BVPI 2006 (130 Single, Upper Tier and District Ipsos MORI client authorities) 29

30 But Feelings of Influence Low Q Do you agree or disagree that you can influence decisions affecting your local area? Green = above Herts district average Red = below Herts district average Definitely agree Strongly disagree 5% 23% Tend to 27% agree Tend to disagree 45% Net agree score = -36 Agree Disagree Three Rivers Watford Welwyn Hat Stevenage St Albans Herts average District Mean Hertsmere East Herts Dacorum Broxbourne North Herts Base: All residents expressing an opinion. Self-completion survey. Fieldwork: Sept. to Dec

31 Satisfaction with council (%) East Northants Blackburn with Darwen/Rochdale More evidence that a lack of influence matters less Northampton Kensington & Chelsea Wandsworth R 2 = Influence decisions affecting local area (%) Tower Hamlets City of London Base: BVPI 2006 (130 Single, Upper Tier and District Ipsos MORI client authorities) 31

32 Keeping people informed still seems to really matter.

33 Satisfaction and Feeling Informed Satisfaction with council (%) Correlation = Kensington & Chelsea City of London 70 Westminster 60 Bromley Bury South Bucks 50 Haringey 40 Oldham Bedfordshire Northampton Feel informed by Council about Services and Benefits it provides (%) Base: BVPI 2006 (130 Single, Upper Tier and District Ipsos MORI client authorities) 33

34 Information and Satisfaction: What do 162,418 People say? Q Overall, how well informed do you think your council keeps residents about the services and benefits it provides? 66% Very Satisfied Fairly satisfied 48% 42% 43% 22% 6% 2% 1% Very well informed Fairly well informed Not very well informed Base: BVPI 2006 (130 Single, Upper Tier and District Ipsos MORI client authorities) Not at all well informed 34

35 Measuring Peer Performance

36 The Frontiers Methodology Basis of analysis Official dataset for S&UT authorities and districts First stage to examine strength of relationships between overall satisfaction and range of variables IMD, ethnic fractionalisation, rurality, social grade (NS-Sec), work status, population churn Key variables identified through regression IMD routine occupations (NS-sec) e.g. salesman, nontechnical profession Average council tax Urban nature of area 36

37 Second Stage Stepwise multiple regression Finds the model which explains the most amount of variation in the % satisfied across all authorities Simulate satisfaction levels for various levels of each Produces predicted ranges of satisfaction for each authority Lower and upper (the frontier of performance) 37

38 Satisfaction with council (%) Metropolitan/Unitary County Rushcliffe Deprivation Score (IMD 2004) Base: BVPI 2006 (383 Single, Upper Tier and District local authorities) Deprivation matters but many outliers Northampton BC District London Borough N. Cornwall Burnley Correlation Knowsley LB Hackney Manchester Liverpool 38

39 Strongest relationship in Districts Satisfaction with council (%) Correlation Rushcliffe 70 N. Cornwall Mansfield 55 Wear Valley Hart Barrow in Furness Northampton BC Burnley District Deprivation Score (IMD 2004) Base: BVPI 2006 (239 District local authorities) 39

40 Extremes do best in Mets and Unitaries Satisfaction with council (%) 70 Poole Newcastle upon Tyne Transformed IMD Correlation Manchester Knowsley Liverpool Oldham Metropolitan/Unitary Deprivation Score (IMD 2004) Base: BVPI 2006 (82 Unitary and Metropolitan local authorities not including London Boroughs) 40

41 How much does ethnic diversity matter? Satisfaction with council (%) LB Richmond LB Camden 55 LB Brent LB Newham Bristol Metropolitan/Unitary District County London Borough Ethnic Fractionalisation Score Correlation 0.04 Base: BVPI 2006 (383 Single, Upper Tier and District local authorities) 41

42 But in London it stands out as most acute Satisfaction with council (%) 80 Correlation LB Richmond LB Brent LB Havering LB Croydon LB Newham London Borough Ethnic Fractionalisation Score Base: BVPI 2006 (29 London Boroughs) 42

43 Who is doing best.

44 District Councils OVER-PERFORMING = Predicted satisfaction = Actual satisfaction Perception gap (pp) UNDER-PERFORMING Base: All District authorities (238) 44

45 District Councils OVER-PERFORMING North Cornwall Nuneaton & B Worth Rushcliffe Canterbury Easington Blaby = Predicted satisfaction = Actual satisfaction 44% 52% 50% 53% 56% 57% 67% 65% 60% 66% 69% Perception gap (pp) 73% UNDER-PERFORMING Restormel Fylde Hart Northampton 50% 37% 47% 42% 50% 34% 58% 61% Base: All District authorities (238) 45

46 Metropolitan and Unitary Authorities OVER-PERFORMING Poole Newcastle-upon-Tyne = Predicted satisfaction = Actual satisfaction Gateshead West Berkshire Leicester 45% 50% 53% 51% 50% 55% 63% 64% 62% 60% Perception gap (pp) UNDER-PERFORMING Southend-on-Sea Oldham Bristol 52% 44% 51% 43% 50% 40% 50% 35% North Tyneside -8 Base: All Metropolitan and Unitary authorities (82)

47 London Boroughs OVER-PERFORMING City of London Kensington & Chelsea Wandsworth Westminster Richmond upon Thames = Predicted satisfaction = Actual satisfaction 48% 79% 46% 77% 47% 73% 47% 66% 55% 62% Perception gap (pp) UNDER-PERFORMING Hackney Hounslow Harrow Croydon Havering 49% 44% 49% 43% 49% 42% 51% 42% 57% 45% Base: All London Boroughs (33) 47

48 Conclusions Place matters but highly complex Other extraneous factors at play too Still no credit for improving services Elephant in the room is VFM Communications matter Relative importance of involvement and influence New regulatory regime demands we know more Ongoing challenge is being seen to matter 48

49 with service users, to using new deliberative forums or asking more of politicians themselves in leading debate, it is vital that fine words on people power do not become corroded Thank you by for constitutional listening dogma. We have a powerful opportunity for andrew.collinge@ipsos-mori.com change. The jury is out as to whether this can and will be grasped

50 to get out there are see what you are doing. In turn, my door will be open. We've got a real opportunity today. Let's seize it. Thank you for listening Thank you. HAZEL BLEARS

51 The Future and CAA LIKELY DIRECTION Single set of national outcome indicators (agreed through CSR) Small number of targets agreed with each area (35!) Focused on citizen outcomes and LSPs/LAAs OUR THOUGHTS Balance local needs (e.g. researching h-t-r communities effectively) with meaningful performance management Common methodology? Questions? Fieldwork period? Risk losing body of data growing in value 51

52 The New Political Landscape Meeting new challenges, without losing sight of the old, with less money; New politics of the family childhood, care, sustainable living; New politics of the community neighbourhoods, young people, policing and safety Trust and governance in a post-iraq world 52