Ipsos MORI Local. Ben Page PEOPLE, PERCEPTIONS AND PLACE. Chief Executive, Ipsos MORI

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

What salary will a typical first-time buyer need in 2020?

LOCAL AUTHORITY SOCIAL SERVICES LETTER. 10 December 2007

London s Poverty Profile 2011

How much reserves have they got?

UK in Version 1 Internal Use Only. Ben Page, Chief Executive, Ipsos

Marmot Indicators 2015 A preliminary summary with graphs

RESIDENTS PERCEPTION SURVEY. Autumn 2016 HEADLINE SUMMARY

Intelligence Briefing English Indices of Deprivation 2010 A London perspective. June 2011

Cordis Briefing April 2016

A VISION FOR STARTING UP, NOT SHUTTING DOWN

FOCUSONLONDON 2011 POVERTY:THEHIDDENCITY

About the author. About the Education Policy Institute

Still Too Poor to Pay Council Tax Support in London /18 Update

What can cities learn from Labour Market Intelligence? Paul Bivand Lovedeep Vaid

Local Government Pension Scheme (England and Wales) Actuarial valuation as at 31 March 2013 Report on data used for experience analysis

The poisoned chalice. What replacing CTB means for local authorities in England. Peter Kenway

00: WOMEN SAVE 17% MORE IN PROPORTION TO THEIR EARNINGS

South Lakeland District Council - Quality of Life Survey 2014 Summary report

The Landline Tax and other unnecessary costs on London households and businesses using fixed line broadband services

Household Interim Projections, 2011 to 2021, England

Department for Work and Pensions Ground Floor, Caxton House, Tothill Street, London SW1H 9NA. All Housing Benefit staff.

Data Management and Analysis Group. Child Poverty in London Income and Labour Market Indicators

Local authority direct provision of housing: round table

Report on the results of auditors work 2015/16. Local government bodies

Household income distribution estimates: The example of Pay to Stay impacts in Local Authority areas in two English regions

HITTING THE POOREST PLACES HARDEST

The Impacts of Welfare Reform

On your own now: the risks of unsuitable accommodation for older teenagers

National Flood Risk Assessment Key facts. Environment Agency 1 NaFRA 2005 Key Facts

This is Havering LONDON BOROUGH OF HAVERING. A Demographic and Socio-economic Profile. Some Key Facts and Figures. Version 3.4 (March, 2018) HAVERING

Help to Buy: ISA (Issue 3)

ONS population projections England

Understanding household income poverty at small area level

Age UK Waltham Forest Profile: Deprivation in Waltham Forest 08/01/2013

The Impacts of Welfare Reform

HelptoBuy:ISA(Issue3)

The Housing Revenue Account Self-financing Determinations. Consultation

Two Islingtons: Understanding the problem

Inequalities in Britain Danny Dorling and Bethan Thomas

2016 Statistical Profile. (December 2016 Update) Durham City Major Centre. Altogether better. Durham. Durham Area Action Partnership

Local Authority Pop per ha CTI factor

HelptoBuy:ISA(Issue3)

LONDON RESIDENTIAL REVIEW BREXIT AND THE PRIME LONDON PROPERTY MARKET AUTUMN 2016

2017 Statistical Profile. County Durham. Altogether better. Durham

Skills for Health: Skills and Labour Market Intelligence Briefing for London, 2010

Policy paper GDPR in Local Government

London labour market projections 2017

Notes to help you fill in the Residential Support Scheme (RSS) application

Auditing the Accounts 2013/14. Local government bodies EMBARGOED UNTIL THURSDAY 11 DECEMBER 2014

Children's social work workforce census, year ending 30 September 2017

Citizen Survey CRA Report. November North. Dundee City Council 21 City Square Dundee DD1 3BY

Countryside Properties plc Analyst Update

EBDOG. National School Delivery Cost Benchmarking Primary, Secondary & SEN Schools. February 2018

2015 No. 755 PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS, ENGLAND AND WALES. The Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2015

The Peabody Index. Tracking the financial experiences of London s social housing tenants. Scott Corfe

A survey of adult visitors to public libraries in England and Wales July 2017

London s Poverty Profile

Page 2

A Minimum Income Standard for London

Responsible Investment in LGPS. Research and review of the pension fund s investment strategy statements (England and Wales) April 2019

Ageing across the UK. By James Bayliss and Frances Sly, Office for National Statistics. Introduction. Abstract

THE UNEVEN IMPACT OF WELFARE REFORM

Report: Demographic change and housing wealth. Key points:

LOW INCOME LONDONERS AND WELFARE REFORM A DATA LED INVESTIGATION INTO THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF POVERTY

Report on the results of auditors work 2015/16: NHS bodies

Public Sector Exit Payments: response to the consultation

Natural capital accounts for public green space in London OCTOBER

INCOMEANDSPENDINGATHOME

Deprivation in East Sussex Indices of Deprivation 2007

Quarter 4: Clinical Trials where the Date Site Selected occurred in the last 12 months to 31/03/2017

STILL TOO POOR TO PAY

Proposal on the provision of magistrates and county court services in London

Proposal for asset pooling in the LGPS 15 July 2016

Housing Market Report

Children and Young People s Mental Health Services Baselining Report

What do the coming business rates changes mean for cities?

Estimation of the National Car Ownership Model for Great Britain

2014 Customer Satisfaction Survey For South Liverpool Homes. Chris Elliott Vicki Harris

Child poverty in Lewisham A briefing for London s councillors. Autumn 2018

Peter Timmins Assistant Executive Director (Finance) Wendy Poole Head of Risk Management and Audit Services

Part 1: Freedom of Information Request

Housing market. Forecasts

Annual CIL Update 2015

Profiting from Parking

Mortgages at their most affordable for a decade

Manchester Jewish Housing Association : A study of the housing needs of the Jewish communities in Greater Manchester : Executive summary

The Impact of Welfare Reform in Kingston

Joint Negotiating Committee for Youth and Community Workers

Urban Audit 4 Final Country Report: United Kingdom

The local and regional impact of the UK's welfare reforms

Indices of Multiple Deprivation: 2000, 2004 and 2007

ALMO Board member remuneration survey 2010

Fairness in Primary Care Procurement Measures of Under-Doctoredness: Sensitivity Analysis and Trends. CHE Research Paper 35

Business rates: maximising the growth incentive across the country

Characteristics of children in need in England: Data quality and uses

EBDOG. National School Delivery Cost Benchmarking Primary, Secondary & SEN Schools. February 2016

Arun District Council Strategic Housing Market Assessment Validation

All people - Economically active - Unemployed London

All people - Economically active - Unemployed London

Transcription:

Ipsos MORI Local PEOPLE, PERCEPTIONS AND PLACE Ben Page Chief Executive, Ipsos MORI

It s making the news

And we are of course, all Localists now.

[We propose] giving local communities the Who power said to drive this? real improvements in everything from the way their neighbourhoods are policed to the way that community assets are used. I believe it will help to build the vibrant local democracies on which our society and our public services depend. Newly empowered councils... through a new 'general power of competence' will be able to do literally whatever they like as long as it's legal - creating solutions to local problems without getting permission from the centre. We need to take control away from central government, where bureaucrats and ministers are in charge, and give it to local government, people and communities.

The Place Survey shows some real success in local areas

We re happier with where we live Q Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live? Average District Mets & Unitaries LB Inner London Outer London 85% Satisfaction 80% 75% 70% 65% 77% 75% 71% 70% 69% 66% 2006 2008 Year surveyed 82% 80% 80% 77% 75% 73% Base: Place Survey 2008/09 (352 local authorities), BVPI 2006 and 2003 (387 local authorities) Source: Ipsos MORI

ASB is still going down Q Thinking about this local area, how much of a problem do you think each of the following are 7 strand ASB index Average District Mets & Unitaries LB Inner London Outer London 45% 45% 42% 43% 41% Problem 35% 25% 15% 36% 38% 29% 28% 30% 27% 26% 27% 21% 23% 23% 20% 19% 2003 Year surveyed 2006 2008 Base: Place Survey 2008/09 (352 local authorities), BVPI 2006 and 2003 (387 local authorities) Source: Ipsos MORI

Particularly drugs Q Thinking about this local area, how much of a problem do you think each of the following are People using or dealing drugs? Average District Mets & Unitaries LB Inner London Outer London Problem 65% 55% 45% 35% 25% 60% 63% 60% 61% 60% 50% 45% 42% 46% 44% 43% 38% 36% 35% 33% 31% 29% 2003 Year surveyed 2006 2008 Base: Place Survey 2008/09 (352 local authorities), BVPI 2006 and 2003 (387 local authorities) Source: Ipsos MORI

and the terror of teenagers declining Q Thinking about this local area, how much of a problem do you think each of the following are Teenagers hanging around the streets? Average District Mets & Unitaries LB Inner London Outer London 65% Problem 55% 45% 63% 60% 61% 60% 56% 59% 61% 57% 56% 56% 55% 57% 50% 49% 48% 48% 45% 40% 35% 2003 Year surveyed 2006 2008 Base: Place Survey 2008/09 (352 local authorities), BVPI 2006 and 2003 (387 local authorities) Source: Ipsos MORI

BUT local authorities getting none of the credit

Satisfaction with Council is down Q How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way your local council runs things? Average District Mets & Unitaries LB Inner London Outer London Satisfaction 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 56% 57% 55% 55% 55% 54% 52% 53% 52% 51% 51% 50% 56% 49% 46% 46% 45% 42% 35% 2003 Year surveyed 2006 2008 Base: Place Survey 2008/09 (352 local authorities), BVPI 2006 and 2003 (387 local authorities) BVPI 2003 Inner London mean excludes Islington, Newham and Tower Hamlets, BVPI 2003 Outer London mean excludes Croydon Source: Ipsos MORI

because people don t know what s happening? Q Overall, how well informed do you feel you are kept about local public services? % Informed All council average 38% Districts 41% Mets & Unitaries London boroughs 37% 37% Inner London 40% Outer London 36% Base: Place Survey 2008/09 (131 local authorities: 59 district councils, 33 London boroughs, 25 Metropolitan districts and 14 unitary authorities) Source: Ipsos MORI

For example, rubbish or litter lying around is less of a problem Q Thinking about this local area, how much of a problem do you think each of the following are rubbish or litter lying around? Average District Mets & Unitaries LB Inner London Outer London 65% Problem 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 59% 61% 56% 53% 52% 54% 50% 47% 48% 44% 45% 41% 45% 44% 39% 42% 39% 32% 2003 Year surveyed 2006 2008 Base: Place Survey 2008/09 (131 local authorities), BVPI 2006 and 2003 (387 local authorities) Source: Ipsos MORI

BUT satisfaction with the council on this has fallen Q How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following services provided or supported by your local authority? keeping public land clear of litter and refuse Average District Mets & Unitaries LB Inner London Outer London 80% Satisfaction 70% 60% 50% 63% 60% 56% 55% 52% 51% 69% 67% 65% 63% 63% 59% 58% 57% 54% 40% 2003 Year surveyed 2006 2008 *2006 question wording: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that the local authority has kept this land clear of litter and refuse. Base: Place Survey 2008/09 (352 local authorities), BVPI 2006 and 2003 (387 local authorities) Source: Ipsos MORI

Place Survey covers more than just councils

Satisfaction with local police forces similar to that of councils Q Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with each of the following public services in your local area? Your local police force % Satisfied Average 47% In Districts 45% In Mets & Unitaries In London boroughs Inner London Outer London 49% 49% 50% 50% Base: Place Survey 2008/09 (121 local authorities: 49 district councils, 33 London boroughs, 25 Metropolitan districts and 14 unitary authorities) Source: Ipsos MORI

Local agencies doing badly on the new single confidence measure Q And how much would you agree or disagree that the police and other local public services are successfully dealing with these issues [anti-social behaviour and crime] in your local area? % Agree Average In Districts In Mets & Unitaries 26% 26% 27% In London boroughs 29% Inner London 31% Outer London 29% Base: Place Survey 2008/09 (352 local authorities: 201 district councils, 33 London boroughs, 36 Metropolitan districts and 55 unitary authorities) Source: Ipsos MORI

GPs better rated, but London stands out Q Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with each of the following public services in your local area? Your GP % Satisfied Average In Districts In Mets & Unitaries 75% 77% 80% In London boroughs Inner London Outer London 67% 69% 70% Base: Place Survey 2008/09 (121 local authorities: 49 district councils, 33 London boroughs, 25 Metropolitan districts and 14 unitary authorities) Source: Ipsos MORI

even dentists better rated than councils Q Please indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with each of the following public services in your local area? Your local dentist % Satisfied Average In Districts In Mets & Unitaries In London boroughs Inner London Outer London 54% 56% 53% 47% 40% 51% Base: Place Survey 2008/09 (121 local authorities: 49 district councils, 33 London boroughs, 25 Metropolitan districts and 14 unitary authorities) Source: Ipsos MORI

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics? Two key points: - understand what is driving these perceptions both what is in your control and what is not - look more carefully at local neighbourhoods within authorities

The Perils of Perception much is beyond your control. For example overall quality of life can nearly all be explained by just five background factors

Very strong relationship with deprivation Satisfaction with local area 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% Ribble Valley Hart Rushmoor South Hams Thurrock Westminster Slough Barrow in Furness Barking and Dagenham R 2 = 54% Kingston upon Hull Hackney Liverpool Newham 50% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 IMD Base: All valid responses, 323 local authorities, Place Survey 2008/09 Source: Ipsos MORI

but even very simple measures like proportion of dependent children 100% 95% Richmond upon Thames R 2 = 49% City R of London 90% 85% Milton Keynes Satisfaction 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% Hackney Newham Barking and Dagenham Sandwell Ashfield Boston South Holland 40% 50% 60% 70% No dependent children Base: All valid responses, 323 local authorities, Place Survey 2008/09 Source: Ipsos MORI

In fact we can explain 82% of variation in quality of life knowing only Degree level or higher qualifications Households living in homes with 0.5 people or fewer per room IMD Proportion under 21 Geographic region NE happy, London unhappy

We can accurately predict quality of life knowing only these factors Actual satisfaction 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% Newham Knowsley Kingston upon Hull Thurrock R 2 = 77% Ribble Valley Forest Heath South Hams R South Cambs 55% 50% Barking & Dagenham 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Predicted satisfaction Base: All valid responses, 323 local authorities, Place Survey 2008/09 Source: Ipsos MORI

The Ipsos MORI Area Challenge Index: Who s most universally challenged?

Area Challenge index Looking across all measures, what are the background factors that are largely beyond the control of local services that are most related to perceptions? Identified seven domains which when combined generate a score form 1 to 100 for each local authority: The Indices of Multiple Deprivation Ethnic diversity (the level of ethnic fractionalisation) Young people Population churn Physical living conditions Urbanity Region

Area Challenge index The five most and least challenged metropolitan and unitary authorities Most challenged Least challenged Manchester 72 Isle of Wight 29 Blackburn with Darwen 72 North Lincolnshire 28 Birmingham 72 East Riding of Yorkshire 20 Leicester 71 Herefordshire County 20 Luton 70 Rutland 14

Area Challenge index The five most and least challenged London boroughs Most challenged Least challenged Newham Kensington and 100 50 Chelsea Hackney 88 Richmond 48 Tower Hamlets 86 Bromley 47 Barking and Dagenham 81 Havering 46 Haringey 78 City of London 38

Area Challenge index The five most and least challenged districts Most challenged Least challenged* Oxford Castle Morpeth 61 7 Burnley 60 South Shropshire 6 Hastings 59 Tynedale 6 Preston 56 Alnwick 1 Pendle 56 Teesdale 1 *All five of the least challenged districts are now part of new unitary authorities

But there are things you can do Quality of life heavily impacted by - sense of belonging - ASB, respect and liveability - services provided by key agencies like the council and police

Local public services really matter to a sense of place Positive drivers Belong to immediate neighbourhood Satisfaction with the way the local council runs things 15% 14% -6% Negative drivers People not treating each other with respect Safe to go out during the day Satisfied with parks and open spaces Safe to go out after dark Keeping public land clear of litter and refuse 11% 8% 7% 5% Satisfied with local area -6% -5% People using or dealing drugs Noisy neighbours or loud parties Local public services working to make the area cleaner and greener 5% -4% Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property Satisfied with local police force People from different backgrounds get on well together 5% 5% -4% Rubbish and litter lying around 38.7% of variation explained by model Source: Ipsos MORI

Importance of ASB can t be overstated 100% 90% Broadland South Hams Westminster R 2 = 83% Satisfaction 80% 70% 60% 50% Rossendale Hyndburn Thurrock Hackney Barking & Dagenham Tower Hamlets Newham 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% ASB R Base: All valid responses, 323 local authorities, Place Survey 2008/09 Source: Ipsos MORI

For councils, a few key visible services matter most - and informing and listening

Drivers of satisfaction: The way the Council run things Positive drivers Overall satisfaction with local area Overall, well informed about local public services Satisfied with refuse collection Treated with respect by local public services Keeping public land clear of litter and refuse Residents can influence decisions Well informed about how your council tax is spent Local public services treat all types of people fairly Local public services act on the concerns of local residents Satisfied with your local police force 11% 10% 10% 10% 9% 8% 6% 6% 6% 5% Satisfied with council -4% Negative drivers Owner occupied tenure Successfully deal with issues Local public services working to make the area cleaner and greener Satisfied with local bus service 5% 5% 5% 45.7% of variation explained by model Source: Ipsos MORI

No councils that communicate well are poorly rated overall Broadland 75% Kensington & Chelsea Westminster Wandsworth R 2 = 52% City of London R Satisfaction 65% 55% 45% Epping Forest Hammersmith & Fulham Gedling North Norfolk Rother 35% 25% Rochdale 25% 35% 45% 55% 65% Informed Base: All valid responses, 131 local authorities, Place Survey 2008 Source: Ipsos MORI

Council tax vs. satisfaction with council Satisfaction with council 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Wandsworth Westminster City of London Oldham Kensington & Chelsea Rushcliffe R 2 = 8% Richmond upon Thames R 0% 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 Average council tax per dwelling 1,500 1,600 1,700 Source: Ipsos MORI

On crime measures, it is a lot about respect and parenting

Drivers of ASB: understanding where to focus your efforts Positive drivers Negative drivers Safe to go out after dark 12% Keeping public land clear of litter and refuse Safe to go out during the day Parents take enough responsibility for the behaviour of children 11% 10% 9% Anti-social problems - 27% -6% -6% People not treating each other with respect Social/council renter Satisfied with local transport information 7% -5% Ethnicity - white Most need improving clean streets Successfully deal with issues 6% 42.1% of variation explained by model Source: Ipsos MORI

But can dig deeper into Place look at how views vary at more local levels within authorities Using new Ipsos MORI mapping tool: - key benefit is that doesn t rely on official geography - can see real patterns of perceptions in contour maps - identify hotspots of concern

So for example, cross-boundary areas of dissatisfaction with area are not missed

or dissatisfaction with council

Can compare responses on different questions to help target local actions Satisfaction with council Feelings of influence Chase Chase

Can show the importance of individual services? Satisfaction with GPs Whether public services treat you with respect

Who s outperforming the Area Challenge Index? We will soon produce full Frontiers tables for all English authorities initial analysis of c150 authorities suggests that following are outperformers : Satisfaction with Council Wandsworth: actual satisfaction 75%, model predicts 60% Satisfaction with area lots in the North East eg Sunderland, Gateshead and Middlesbrough Levels of cohesion Manchester: actual cohesion measure 74%, model predicts 65%

Conclusions Real challenges for local government in getting recognition for improvements UK public services are awash with data big issue is how we use it to improve quality of life especially as money runs out Over to you!

Thank you ben.page@ipsos.com