London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Residents Survey 2011 · 2018-05-23 · London Borough of...

Cover Page

Research

Report

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Residents Survey 2011

Prepared for: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Residents

Survey 2011

Prepared for: London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Prepared by: BMG Research

December 2011

Produced by BMG Research

© Bostock Marketing Group Ltd, 2011

www.bmgresearch.co.uk

Project: 8530

Registered in England No. 2841970

Registered office:

7 Holt Court North

Heneage Street West

Aston Science Park

Birmingham

B7 4AX

UK

Tel: +44 (0) 121 3336006

UK VAT Registration No. 580 6606 32

Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Member No: B4626

Market Research Society Company Partner

ESOMAR Member (The World Association of Research Professionals)

British Quality Foundation Member

Market Research Quality Standards Association

ISO 9001/2000; The International quality mark for organisational excellence

ISO 9001/2008; The provision of Market Research services which incorporates ISO 20252/2006

Investors in People Standard - Certificate No. WMQC 0614

Interviewer Quality Control Scheme (IQCS) Member Company

Registered under the Data Protection Act - Registration No: Z5081943

The; Market Research Society Code of Conduct

The BMG Research logo is a trade mark of Bostock Marketing Group Ltd

Table of Contents

1 Key Findings 2011 ......................................................................................................... 1

2 Trends over time ............................................................................................................ 3

2.1 National Indicator (NI) Summary ............................................................................. 3

2.2 Comparisons on wider measures ............................................................................ 4

3 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Background and method ......................................................................................... 5

3.2 Report contents ...................................................................................................... 5

3.3 Data reporting ......................................................................................................... 6

4 Views on the local area .................................................................................................. 7

4.1 Local priorities ......................................................................................................... 7

4.1.1 Younger respondents ....................................................................................... 8

4.1.2 Older respondents ........................................................................................... 8

4.1.3 Families ........................................................................................................... 8

4.1.4 Homeowners.................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Areas for improvement ............................................................................................ 9

4.2.1 Female respondents ...................................................................................... 10

4.2.2 Age of respondents ........................................................................................ 10

4.2.3 Families ......................................................................................................... 10

4.2.4 Ethnicity ......................................................................................................... 10

4.3 Mapping priorities and improvements.................................................................... 11

4.4 Overall satisfaction with the local area (NI 5) ........................................................ 13

4.5 Neighbourhood belonging (NI 2) ........................................................................... 14

4.6 Satisfaction with the home as a place to live ......................................................... 14

5 Local public services .................................................................................................... 16

5.1 Satisfaction with public services ............................................................................ 16

5.2 Overall satisfaction with the council ...................................................................... 17

6 Local decision making and involvement ....................................................................... 18

6.1 Influence on local decision making (NI 4) .............................................................. 18

6.2 Helping out (NI 6) .................................................................................................. 19

6.3 Getting involved (NI 3) .......................................................................................... 20

6.4 Communicating with the Council ........................................................................... 21


7 Respect and cohesion.................................................................................................. 22

7.1 Cohesion (NI 1 and NI 23) .................................................................................... 22

7.2 Support for older people (NI 139) .......................................................................... 24

7.3 Satisfaction of those aged 65 or over with home and neighbourhood as a place to

live (NI 138) ..................................................................................................................... 24

8 Community safety ........................................................................................................ 25

8.1 Safety in the local area ......................................................................................... 25

9 Anti-social behaviour .................................................................................................... 26

9.1 Perceptions of anti-social behaviour (NI 17; NI 41; NI 42) ..................................... 26

9.2 The response of local services to ASB (NI 27; NI 21) ............................................ 27

10 Health services ......................................................................................................... 31

10.1 Use of health services ........................................................................................... 31

10.2 Health and wellbeing (NI 119) ............................................................................... 33

10.2.1 Levels of smoking .......................................................................................... 33

11 Respondent profile – weighted ................................................................................. 34

12 Appendix One – Definitions of National Indicators .................................................... 39

13 Appendix Two – Questionnaire ................................................................................. 40

Key Findings 2011

1

1 Key Findings 2011

Respondents feel that the most important factors in making somewhere a good

place to live are the level of crime, clean streets, and health services. Issues

which are considered to be in most need of improvement are the level of crime,

followed closely by road and pavement repairs, then activities for teenagers,

clean streets and job prospects.

Around two thirds of respondents are satisfied overall with their local area as a

place to live.

Just over two fifths of respondents report feeling a strong sense of belonging to

their immediate neighbourhood, and this tends to increase with age.

More than three quarters are satisfied with their home as a place to live.

In terms of universal services, respondents are most satisfied with local bus

services, refuse collection and libraries. However, around half are dissatisfied

with road and pavement repairs, activities for teenagers and facilities for young

people.

Just over half of respondent express satisfaction with the way the council runs

things.

Nearly four in ten respondents agree that they can influence local decision

making.

Although the majority of respondents have not been involved with any

volunteering work in the past year (seven in ten), around one in eight volunteer at

least monthly.

Around one in eight respondents have participated in civic activities/groups in the

past 12 months.

Letter is the preferred method in which the majority of residents would like the

council to communicate with them.

Just over half of respondents agree that their local area is a place where people

from different backgrounds get on well together; just under half disagree.

Amongst BME respondents nearly three quarters agree that their local area is a

place where people from different backgrounds get on well together.

Nearly six in ten respondents feel that there is a problem in the local area with

people not treating each other with respect and consideration.

A quarter of respondents feel that older people in the area are able to get the

support they need to continue to live at home, while the majority (six in ten) don’t

know.

During the day around seven in ten respondents feel safe outside. At night this

proportion falls to around a third.

The majority of respondents feel that anti-social behaviour issues are fairly

unproblematic in their local area. The issue which is perceived to be most

problematic across all areas is teenagers hanging around the streets.

Approaching two fifths agree the police and other local public services seek

people’s views on anti-social behaviour (ASB) issues, while nearly a third

disagrees.


2

A third agrees that police and other local public services deal with ASB issues

successfully and just over a quarter disagree.

In terms of local health services, respondents that have used these services are

most satisfied with their dentist, followed by their GP.

Around seven in ten consider their health in general to be good.

Trends over time

3

2 Trends over time

2.1 National Indicator (NI) Summary

The 2011 Place Survey provided eighteen national indicators for local authorities.

These indicators are shown below, including scores dating from the 2006/7 BVPI

Survey to the current Residents’ Survey.

2006/7 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11

NI1: % of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area

48 49 56 52

NI2: % of people who feel that they belong to their neighbourhood

- 45 46 43

NI3: Civic participation in the local area - 13 11 12

NI4: % of people who feel they can influence decisions in their locality

39 37 36 38

NI5: Overall / general satisfaction with local area 48 57 54 64

NI6: Participation in regular volunteering - 16 15 13

NI17: Perceptions of anti-social behaviour - 39 40 30

NI21: Dealing with local concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime issues by the local council and police

- 30 26 33

NI23: Perceptions that people in the area treat one another with respect and consideration

74 59 56 58

NI27: Understanding of local concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime issues by the local council and police

- 32 30 37

NI41: Perceptions of drunk or rowdy behaviour as a problem

36 46 46 40

NI42: Perceptions of drug use or drug dealing as a problem

61 52 50 46

NI119: Self-reported measure of people’s overall health and well-being

- 70 71 69

NI138: Satisfaction of people over 65 with both home and neighbourhood

- 63 59 71

NI139: The extent to which older people receive the support they need to live independently

- 29 30 24


4

2.2 Comparisons on wider measures

The table below shows scores that were not National Indicators in the 2011 Place

Survey but nevertheless provide a useful picture of trends over time on a number of

key measures.

2006/7 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11

% overall satisfaction with the way the authority runs things

55 49 52 53

% satisfied with local area as a place to live 48 57 54 64

% satisfied with public transport information 58 57 58 65

% satisfied with local bus service 69 68 67 77

% satisfied with sports and leisure facilities 56 52 54 66

% satisfied with libraries 67 64 71 73

% satisfied with museums/galleries 29 31 30 28

% satisfied with theatres/concert halls 34 36 36 34

% satisfied with parks and open spaces 66 67 66 70

% who feel level of crime needs to be improved 61 49 46 42

% agree can influence decisions affecting local area

39 37 36 38

Introduction

5

3 Introduction

3.1 Background and method

This report summarises the results of the 2011 London Borough of Barking and

Dagenham (LBBD) Residents Survey, which was carried out in September 2011 via

self-completion postal questionnaire.

The target population for the survey was the adult population (18+) of LBBD and the

sample was drawn from the Postcode Address File (PAF) sample frame, on the same

basis as that supplied by the Audit Commission for the original Place Survey in 2008.

A random sample of 4,000 was used in this survey, plus an additional mailing of 1,500,

after it became clear that response rates had declined somewhat since the Place

Survey and BMG would need to boost the total number of responses to achieve the

target 1,100.

In total 1,208 completed useable questionnaires were returned, which, excluding 55

addresses that were not found, represents an adjusted response rate of 22%. On an

observed statistic of 50%, a sample size of 1,208 is subject to a maximum confidence

interval of +/-2.82 at the 95% level of confidence.

3.2 Report contents

This report contains a written summary of the findings of the 2011 Residents’ Survey.

In most instances, respondents who answered ‘don’t know’ or who did not answer the

relevant question have been excluded from the sample, resulting in a reduced

unweighted sample base. The title of each table or graph will state whether data has

been run on all responses or if certain responses have been removed (valid responses

only).

Results have been presented rounded to 0 decimal places, which may mean that

some totals exceed 100%. This also has implications for the appearance of summary

percentages; for example, if 25.4% of respondents are very satisfied and 30.3% of

respondents are fairly satisfied, these figures are rounded down to 25% and 30%

respectively. However, the sum of these two responses is 55.7% which is rounded up

to 56%, whereas the individual rounded responses suggest this total should be 55%.

This explains any instances of where summary text does not match a graph or table it

is referring to.

All data included in this report has been weighted. Weighting is a statistical technique

used to counteract the deviations that occur in survey samples against the population

as a whole. In this case, weighting has been used to ensure that the sample used here

corresponds to the overall population of LBBD.

The weighting process was carried out in line with the 2008 guidance received from

the Audit Commission, using the variables household size, age, gender and ethnicity in

order to provide a sample that is representative of LBBD.

It should be noted that the total sample includes only 26 respondents who are aged

18-24 years old. A sample base of this size is not considered large enough to be


6

representative of all 18-24 year olds in LBBD; therefore in analysis of respondent

subgroups references to this age group have generally been avoided.

Statistically significant differences between subgroups at the 95% level of confidence

are noted in the text.

3.3 Data reporting

A separate data report is available, containing cross-tabulations by the following:

Age;

Gender;

Tenure of home;

Number of children in household;

Economic activity/employment status;

Disability status;

Ethnicity;

Overall satisfaction with local area;

Overall satisfaction with council;

Religion.

Views on the local area

7

4 Views on the local area

4.1 Local priorities

Residents were asked which of the issues below they would say are most important in

making somewhere a good place to live. More than half of those providing a valid

response think that the level of crime (58%) is important, followed by clean streets

(50%) and health services (43%), as the second and third most mentioned aspects. A

third of residents consider affordable decent housing important (34%), while more than

a quarter think job prospects (28%) and public transport (27%) are amongst the most

important aspects in making somewhere a good place to live.

Figure 1: Q1. Most important factors in making somewhere a good place to live (valid responses only)

Unweighted sample base = 924

58%

50%

43%

34%

28%

27%

25%

24%

22%

20%

19%

18%

17%

17%

13%

11%

11%

10%

7%

6%

5%

4%

3%

The level of crime

Clean streets

Health services

Affordable decent housing

Job prospects

Public transport

Activities for teenagers

Education provision

Getting on with your neighbours

Road and pavement repairs

Parks and open spaces

Facilities for young children

Shopping facilities

Wage levels and local cost of living

Access to nature

Activities for over 60s

Sports and leisure facilities

Cultural facilities (e.g. libraries, museums)

Race relations

The level of traffic congestion

Community activities

Getting involved in your neighbourhood

The level of pollution


8

Issues that are most likely to be chosen as important vary amongst subgroups of

respondents as outlined below.

4.1.1 Younger respondents

Younger respondents (those aged 25 to 44) are more likely than others to mention the

following:

Facilities for young children (26% compared to 18% of the total sample).

4.1.2 Older respondents

Older respondents (aged 65 and over) are more likely to cite the following:

Health services (57% compared to 43% total sample);

Road and pavement repairs (33% compared to 20%);

Activities for over 60s (26% compared to 11%).

4.1.3 Families

Unsurprisingly, education provision is particularly important to those with children in

their household (36% compared to 18% of those without children). Families are also

more likely than respondents without children to mention activities for teenagers (32%)

and facilities for young children (31%).

4.1.4 Homeowners

Those who own their home are more likely than others to mention the following:

The level of crime (66% compared to 58% of the total sample);

Public transport (32% compared to 27%).


9

4.2 Areas for improvement

Respondents were then asked which issues are in most need of improvement in their

local area. For this and all other relevant questions, the local area was defined as the

area within 15-20 minutes walking distance from the respondent’s home.

The most common response was the level of crime (42%), followed closely by road

and pavement repairs (41%), then activities for teenagers (38%), clean streets (36%)

and job prospects (34%). Very few respondents considered ‘getting on with your

neighbours’ (6%) and ‘getting involved in your neighbourhood’ (6%) to be in need of

improvement.

Figure 2: Q2. Things that most need improving in the local area (valid responses only)


42%

41%

38%

36%

34%

22%

21%

21%

21%

19%

16%

14%

12%

12%

12%

11%

11%

10%

10%

9%

8%

6%

6%

The level of crime



Clean streets

Job prospects

Facilities for young children

The level of traffic congestion


Wage levels and local cost of living

Health services

Shopping facilities

Community activities


Race relations

Education provision

Public transport

Sports and leisure facilities

The level of pollution

Activities for over 60s


Access to nature

Getting on with your neighbours

Getting involved in your neighbourhood


10

Respondents’ views regarding the issues that most need improving vary amongst

subgroups of respondents as outlined below.

4.2.1 Female respondents

Female respondents were more likely than males to mention job prospects (38%

compared to 28% of male residents) and shopping facilities (20%; 12%) as being in

need of improvement.

4.2.2 Age of respondents

Respondents aged 45-64 years were more likely than other age groups to mention job

prospects (40% compared to 34% of the total sample). Whilst older respondents

(those aged 65+) are more likely to report activities for over 60s as being in need of

improvement (21% compared to 10% of the total sample).

4.2.3 Families

Amongst households with children the proportion that considers education provision in

need of improvement increases to a fifth (19%, compared with 12% amongst the total

sample).

4.2.4 Ethnicity

White respondents are significantly more likely than BME respondents to consider

road and pavement repairs to be in need of improvement (46%; 29%), while education

provision is mentioned significantly more by BME respondents (27%) than by White

respondents (7%).


11

4.3 Mapping priorities and improvements

Figure 3 overleaf plots the factors that respondents deem as most important against

the factors that are described as in most need of improvement. This will provide the

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham with further evidence in deciding where to

focus policies and resources.

Mo

st

ne

ed

s im

pro

vin

g

Calls for improvement

Critical areas for improvement

Maintain Effort

Maintain Strength

Most important

Issues that are regarded as both important and as most in need of improvement are:

The level of crime;

Clean streets;

Job prospects;

Activities for teenagers.


12

Figure 3: Most important issues compared to priorities for improvement (all respondents)

Sample base = 1208

Figure 4: Key for Figure 3 above

The level of crime A Shopping facilities M

Clean streets B Wage levels and local cost of living N

Health services C Access to nature O

Affordable decent housing D Sports and leisure facilities P

Job prospects E Activities for over 60s Q

Public transport F


R

Activities for teenagers G Race relations S

Education provision H The level of traffic congestion T

Getting on with your neighbours I Community activities U

Road and pavement repairs J

Getting involved in your neighbourhood V

Parks and open spaces K The level of pollution W

Facilities for young children L

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O P

Q

R S

T

U

V

W

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Mo

st

need

s

imp

rovin

g

Most important


13

4.4 Overall satisfaction with the local area (NI 5)

All respondents were asked to indicate how satisfied they are with their local area as a

place to live.

Two thirds of those who provided a valid response are satisfied with their local area as

a place to live (NI 5: 64%), although most of these are fairly (54%) rather than very

(10%) satisfied. A quarter of respondents are dissatisfied (25%).

Figure 5: Q3. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live (valid responses only)


Dissatisfaction with their area as a place to live increases to a third amongst residents

aged 45-64 years (32%)

10%

54%

12%

16%

9%

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither

Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied


14

4.5 Neighbourhood belonging (NI 2)

Respondents were asked how strongly they feel they belong to their immediate

neighbourhood.

Around four in ten of those providing a valid response (NI 2: 43%) feel they belong to

their immediate neighbourhood. However, three in ten feel they do not belong to their

neighbourhood very strongly (34%), and nearly one in four (23%) said they do not feel

a strong sense of belonging at all.

Figure 6: Q5. How strongly do you feel you belong to your immediate neighbourhood (valid responses only)


Older respondents are more likely to feel a strong sense of belonging to their

immediate neighbourhood (53% of those aged over 65, compared to 43% of those

aged 45-64 and 39% of those aged 25-44).

There is a link between overall satisfaction with the local area and feeling a sense of

belonging. The majority (53%) of those who are satisfied with their local area also feel

a strong sense of belonging to the immediate neighbourhood; of those who are

dissatisfied with the local area, only 21% feel a strong sense of belonging.

4.6 Satisfaction with the home as a place to live

More than three quarters of those providing a valid response (78%) are satisfied with

their home as a place to live, including 31% of respondents who are very satisfied.

Around one in seven (14%) express dissatisfaction with their home.

10%

32%

34%

23%

Very strongly

Fairly strongly

Not very strongly

Not at all strongly


15

Figure 7: Q4. Satisfaction with the home as a place to live (valid responses only)


Although most respondents are happy with their home, older age groups are especially

likely to be satisfied (89% of those aged 65 and over compared with 79% of those

aged 25-44 and 76% of those aged 45-64).

Looking at responses by tenure, home owners are significantly more likely to be

satisfied (87%) than those in social housing (69%) or those with other arrangements

(67%).

31%

47%

7%

8%

6%

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither

Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied


16

5 Local public services

5.1 Satisfaction with public services

Respondents were asked to indicate their satisfaction in relation to a number of public

services. All of those who provided a valid response are included in the analysis.

Around three quarters of respondents are satisfied with local bus services (77%),

refuse collection (75%) and libraries (73%). Around two thirds or more are satisfied

with parks and open spaces (70%), doorstep recycling (69%), local tips / household

waste recycling centres (67%), sport/leisure facilities (66%) and local transport

information (65%). However, around half are dissatisfied with road and pavement

repairs (52%), activities for teenagers (50%) and facilities for young people (46%).

Figure 8: Q6. Satisfaction with universal services (valid responses only)

Sample bases vary

11%

16%

9%

17%

15%

15%

15%

11%

16%

38%

26%

39%

52%

26%

25%

46%

50%

11%

9%

18%

13%

16%

19%

19%

24%

25%

13%

35%

26%

13%

39%

46%

28%

33%

77%

75%

73%

70%

69%

67%

66%

65%

59%

49%

39%

35%

35%

34%

28%

26%

18%

Local bus services

Refuse collection

Libraries


Doorstep recycling

Local tips/Household waste recycling centres

Sport/leisure facilities

Local transport information

Education provision

Keeping public land clear of litter and refuse

Social care



Theatres

Museums

Facilities for young people


Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied

Local public services

17

5.2 Overall satisfaction with the council

Respondents were asked how satisfied they are with the way the council runs things.

Of those providing a valid response, just over half (53%) are satisfied with the way that

the council runs things, while over a fifth are dissatisfied (22%) and a quarter provided

a neutral response (25%).

Figure 9: Q7. Satisfaction with the way the council runs things (valid responses only)


Satisfaction with the way the council runs things is strongly linked to satisfaction with

the local area. Amongst those satisfied with their local area 69% are satisfied with the

way the council runs things, compared with just 23% of respondents dissatisfied with

their local area. Amongst those dissatisfied with their local area 58% are also

dissatisfied with the way the Council runs things.

Satisfaction with the way the council runs things is higher amongst older respondents

(66% of those aged 65+ are satisfied, compared with 53% of the total sample).

Dissatisfaction with the way the council runs things is higher amongst respondents

with a disability (32%) than amongst those who do not have a disability (21%).

8%

45%

25%

14%

8%

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither

Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied


18

6 Local decision making and involvement

6.1 Influence on local decision making (NI 4)

The Government aims to build communities where individuals are empowered to make

a difference to their own lives and to the area in which they live. Respondents were

asked whether they agree or disagree that they can influence decisions in their local

area.

The majority of those providing a valid response (62%) disagree that they can

influence local decision making. Just under four in ten (NI 4: 38%) agree.

Figure 10: Q8. Influence on local decision making (valid responses only)


Families with children in the household are more likely than those without children to

agree that they can influence local decision making (44%; 33%).

9%

29%

38%

23%

Definitely agree

Tend to agree

Tend to disagree

Definitely disagree

Local decision making and involvement

19

6.2 Helping out (NI 6)

Local government has an important role to play in creating a culture in which

individuals are able to contribute to their communities by volunteering. To assess the

level of volunteering in Barking and Dagenham, respondents were asked to think

about any group(s), club(s) or organisation(s) that they had been involved with during

the last 12 months.

One in five (20%) of those providing a valid response have given unpaid help to

groups, clubs or organisations in the last 12 months, and one in ten have given unpaid

help but as an individual rather than a group (10%). Seven in ten respondents (70%)

have not given any unpaid help during the last 12 months.

The proportion of respondents participating regularly in voluntary activities i.e. at least

once a month in the past 12 months is 13%, which is indicator NI 6 (NI 6: 13%).

Figure 11: Q10. Provision of unpaid help in the last 12 months (valid responses only)


9%

4%

7%

10%

70%

At least once a week

Less than once a week but at least once a month

Less often

I give unpaid help as an individual only and not through groups(s), club(s) or organisation(s)

I have not given any unpaid help at all over the last 12 months


20

6.3 Getting involved (NI 3)

Civic participation is one of the principal means by which individuals exercise and

increase their empowerment for the benefit of the locality. Given the benefits of

resident involvement, respondents were asked to indicate whether in the last 12

months they have been involved with any of seven different types of decision making

groups.

Very few respondents have been involved with any of these groups over the past 12

months (88% have had no involvement). Among those who have been involved, the

most common type of involvement was being a member of another group making

decisions on services in the local community (5%).

Figure 12: Q9. In the last 12 months have you…? (valid responses only)


Around one in ten respondents state that they have taken part in at least one of the

above activities above in the last 12 months, which is indicator NI 3 (NI 3: 11.8%).

1%

4%

4%

4%

3%

4%

5%

88%

Been a local councillor (for the local authority, town or parish)

Been a member of a group making decisions on local health, social care or education services

Been a member of a decision-making group set up to regenerate the local area

Been a member of a decision-making group set up to tackle local crime problems

Been a member of a tenants' group decision-making committee

Been a member of a group making decisions on local services for young people

Been a member of another group making decisions on services in the local community

None of the above

Local decision making and involvement

21

6.4 Communicating with the Council

In 2011, respondents were also asked which methods they would most prefer the

council to use to inform them, or communicate with them, about issues that may affect

them.

The majority said they would most prefer to be contacted by letter (60%), whilst around

one in ten said they would prefer a face to face visit (11%) or a local newspaper /

magazine (11%). Fewer respondents mentioned any other methods, and less than

0.5% mentioned text messages as their preferred method of contact.

Figure 13: Q20. Which methods respondents would prefer the council to use to inform them or communicate with them (Valid responses only)

Sample base: 1103

60%

11%

11%

7%

6%

2%

1%

<0.5%

By letter

Face to face visit

Local newspaper/ magazine

By email/Internet

Leaflets/posters

Via Residents/Tenants groups and forums

By telephone call

Text message


22

7 Respect and cohesion

This section reports respondents’ views about issues of community cohesion.

7.1 Cohesion (NI 1 and NI 23)

As a measure of community cohesion, respondents were asked to what extent they

agree or disagree that their local area is a place where people from different

backgrounds get on well together.

Considering all responses, just 1% of respondents feel that there are too few people in

the area to answer this question, while 1% feel that in their area people are all from the

same background. For further analysis, these and any others not providing a valid

response have been removed.

Among those providing a valid response, just over half agree that the local area is a

place where people from different backgrounds get on well together (NI 1: 52%), and

most of these answered that they tend to agree rather than definitely agree. Half of

respondents (48%) disagree with the statement.

Figure 14: Q11. The extent to which respondents agree or disagree that people from different backgrounds get on well together (valid responses only)


Amongst BME respondents agreement that the local area is a place where people

from different backgrounds get on well together is significantly higher, at 72%,

compared with 46% amongst white respondents.

Responses also differ by religion; agreement that the local area is a place where

people from different backgrounds get on well together is highest amongst Muslim

respondents at 65%, compared with 39% amongst Christians, 41% amongst other

religions and just 26% amongst those with no religion.

18%

29%

42%

10%

Definitely disagree

Tend to disagree

Tend to agree

Definitely agree

Respect and cohesion

23

Over half of those providing a valid response feel there is a problem in their local area

with people not treating one another with respect and consideration (NI 23 58%).

Around a quarter of respondents (26%) feel this issue is a very big problem. Just one

in ten feels that this is not a problem at all in their local area (9%).

Figure 15: Q12. The extent to which respondents feel there is a problem with people not treating each other with respect and consideration in their area (valid responses only)


Respondents aged under 65 years of age are more likely to feel there is a problem in

their local area with people not treating one another with respect and consideration

(62%; 45% of respondents aged 65+).

Respondents with a disability are more likely than those who do not have a disability to

think this is a problem in their local area (72%; 56%), as are white respondents (62%)

compared with BME respondents (46%).

26%

33%

33%

9%

A very big problem

A fairly big problem

Not a very big problem

Not a problem at all


24

7.2 Support for older people (NI 139)

In terms of support for older people, respondents were asked whether they feel that

older people in their local area are able to get services and support they need, in order

to continue to live at home for as long as they want to. This includes help or support

from public, private or voluntary services, or support from family, friends and the wider

community.

A quarter of those providing a valid response feel such support is available to older

people in their area (NI 139: 24%). Around one in six respondents do not feel that

support is available (15%), but the most frequent response is ‘don’t know’, provided by

six in ten respondents (61%).

Figure 16: Q13. Whether respondents feel that older people in the area are able to get the support they need to continue to live at home (valid responses only)


Respondents aged 65 and over are more likely than younger respondents to agree

that older people in the area do get the support they need to continue to live at home

(41%, compared with 20% of those aged 25-64 years).

7.3 Satisfaction of those aged 65 or over with home and neighbourhood

as a place to live (NI 138)

The other indicator relating to older age groups is NI 138, which measures satisfaction

of those aged over 65 years with the overall quality of their home and neighbourhood.

Just over seven in ten older respondents are satisfied with these aspects (NI 70.9%).

Yes 24%

No 15%

Don't know 61%

Community safety

25

8 Community safety

8.1 Safety in the local area

In order to assess perceptions of neighbourhood safety, respondents were asked to

indicate on a five point scale how safe they feel in their local area during the day and

after dark.

During the day, almost three-quarters of those providing a valid response (71%) report

feeling safe. At night this proportion falls to around a third (35%), with half (51%)

reporting that they feel unsafe after dark.

Figure 17: Q14/Q15. How safe or unsafe respondents feel when outside during the day and when outside after dark (valid responses only)

Unweighted sample bases in parenthesis

Male respondents are more likely than female respondents to report feeling safe after

dark (42%; 29%), while during the day there is virtually no difference (71% and 70%

respectively).

By age 45-64 year olds are most likely to feel unsafe during the day (27%, compared

with 11% of 25-44 year olds and 18% of 65+ year olds), while after dark those aged 45

and over are more likely than younger respondents to feel unsafe (59% of 45-64 year

olds and 56% of 65+ year olds, compared with 42% of 25-44 year olds).

Respondents with a disability are more likely to feel unsafe after dark (69%) and during

the day (33%) than compared with respondents that do not have a disability (47% and

15% respectively).

17%

53%

11%

15%

4%

4%

32%

14%

29%

22%

Very safe

Fairly safe

Neither

Fairly unsafe

Very unsafe

During the day [1181] After dark [1145]


26

9 Anti-social behaviour

Anti-social behaviour (ASB) is a high profile national priority for Government. Local

authorities are the key partner in tackling ASB and have statutory duties to enforce

ASB legislation. Several questions in the Place Survey explore the issue of anti-social

behaviour, and these questions inform three National Indicators.

9.1 Perceptions of anti-social behaviour (NI 17; NI 41; NI 42)

In order to explore perceptions of local anti-social behaviour issues, respondents were

asked about seven ASB issues, in terms of how much of a problem there is with each

issue in their local area.

The biggest problem area is teenagers hanging around the streets, considered a

problem by over half (58%) of those providing a valid response. Around half of

respondents perceive problems with rubbish or litter lying around (52%), people using

or dealing drugs (46%), or vandalism/graffiti (45%). Two in five said there were

problems with people being drunk or rowdy (40%), and fewer said there are problems

with noisy neighbours or loud parties (30%), or with people abandoned or burnt out

cars (14%).

Figure 18: Q16. Seriousness of various anti-social behaviour issues (valid responses only)

Sample bases vary

11%

23%

13%

19%

20%

33%

50%

31%

31%

35%

36%

40%

37%

36%

31%

22%

29%

24%

22%

19%

8%

27%

24%

22%

21%

18%

11%

7%

Teenagers hanging around the streets

People using or dealing drugs

Rubbish or litter lying around

Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles

People being drunk or rowdy in public places

Noisy neighbours or loud parties

Abandoned or burnt out cars

Not a problem at all Not a very big problem

A fairly big problem A very big problem

Anti-social behaviour

27

The 2011 data on perceptions of anti-social behaviour informs three national

indicators:

Around three in ten respondents perceive a high level of anti-social behaviour in

their local area (NI 17: 29.9%). This proportion combines the responses each

respondent gives across all seven aspects of anti-social behaviour, scoring them

to provide a total out of 21. The percentage represents the proportion of

respondents who score 11 or over on this basis, which is regarded as a high

perception of ASB.

Two fifths of respondents feel that drunk or rowdy behaviour is a very or fairly big

problem in the local area (NI 41: 40.1%); this is an indicator in its own right

because local authorities are responsible for licensing of premises and for

securing and designing environments that reduce the likelihood of drunk and

rowdy behaviour.

Approaching half of respondents feel that drug use or drug dealing is a very or

fairly big problem in the area (NI 42: 46.0%). This national indicator will provide

data to assess how well local authorities, working together with a wide range of

partners including the Police, health partners and others, are tackling this issue.

9.2 The response of local services to ASB (NI 27; NI 21)

Respondents were asked to consider the action that is being taken to tackle these

sorts of anti-social behaviour issues in their local area. Responses provide a proxy

measure of public confidence in the ability of local agencies to tackle community safety

issues that matter to local people (i.e. a measure of Neighbourhood Policing in the

widest sense).

Respondents were asked the extent to which they agree that police and other local

public services seek people’s views about these issues. Approaching two fifths of

respondents agree with this statement (NI 27: 36.8%), but around a third (31%)

disagree.


28

Figure 19: Q17. Agreement that police and other local public services seek people’s views about these issues in the local area (valid responses only)


14%

23%

18%

23%

8%

15%

Strongly agree

Tend to agree

Neither

Tend to disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know

Anti-social behaviour

29

Respondents were also asked about the extent to which they agree that local police

and other public services are successfully dealing with these issues. Responses are

shown in Figure 28.

A third of respondents agree that police and other local public services are

successfully dealing with ASB issues (NI 21: 32.5%), whilst just over a quarter (28%)

disagree.

Figure 20: Q18. Agreement that police and other local public services are successfully dealing with these issues in the local area (valid responses only)


7%

26%

22%

20%

8%

17%

Strongly agree

Tend to agree

Neither

Tend to disagree

Strongly disagree

Don't know


30

For the 2011 survey, respondents were also asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they

are with the way the police and local council have dealt with antisocial behaviour

specifically.

Close to two in five (38%) said they are satisfied, however around a quarter (26%)

were ambivalent, and a further quarter (25%) said they were dissatisfied.

Figure 21: Q19. Satisfaction with the way the police and local council have dealt with antisocial behaviour (Valid responses only)

Sample base: 1192

8%

30%

26%

15%

10%

13%

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither

Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Don't know

Health services

31

10 Health services

10.1 Use of health services

Respondents were asked whether they have used a number of health services in the

past 12 months.

The vast majority (89%) have used their GP service, whilst over half (54%) have used

the local dentist.

In terms of hospitals, close to half (48%) say they have used a local hospital generally,

whilst around half (53%) have used Queens Hospital and two in five (37%) have used

King George’s hospital.

Figure 22: Q22. Whether respondents have used each of these services in the last 12 months (All respondents)

Sample base: 1208

Respondents were also asked how satisfied they are with the above services. The

chart overleaf shows satisfaction with each service amongst respondents who have

used them in the past 12 months and who provided a valid response.

Users were most satisfied with their local dentist (85%), followed by their GP (82%)

and least likely to be satisfied with Queens Hospital (65% satisfied).

89%

54%

53%

48%

37%

GP (family doctor)

Your local dentist

Queens Hospital

Local hospitals

King George's Hospital


32

Figure 23. Q21. Overall satisfaction with health services provided by the public service providers listed below (Where used service in past 12 months and provided a valid response)

Sample bases in parentheses

7%

13%

17%

16%

28%

7%

6%

10%

11%

7%

85%

82%

74%

73%

65%

Your local dentist [629]

GP [1090]

King George's Hospital [441]

Local hospitals [534]

Queens Hospital [608]

Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied

Health services

33

10.2 Health and wellbeing (NI 119)

The final indicator derived from the Place Survey is NI 119, which is a self-reported

measure of health and well being. Respondents were asked to consider their overall

health on a five point scale ranging from very good to very bad.

Seven in ten respondents describe their health as good (NI 119: 69%), whilst a quarter

(24%) describe it as fair. Less than one in ten (7%) report their health as bad or very

bad.

Figure 24: Q25. How is your health in general (valid responses only)


Younger respondents are more likely to describe their health as good (82% of those

aged 25-44). Health is described as good by six in ten (61%) of those aged 46-64,

and around half (46%) of those aged over 65.

10.2.1 Levels of smoking

Respondents were also asked whether they are a smoker. Close to one in five of

those providing a valid response (19%) said they were.

This figure was higher amongst the 45-64 years age group (25%), and amongst

respondents living in social housing (32%). Respondents with a disability were more

likely than those without a disability to smoke (29%; 17%).

29%

40%

24%

7%

1%

Very good

Good

Fair

Bad

Very bad


34

11 Respondent profile – weighted

Figure 25: Respondent profile based on valid responses only i.e. excluding ‘not provided’ and ‘prefer not to say’

Sample base 1208

Q23. Are you male or female?

Male 48%

Female 52%

Sample base 1132

Q24. Age on last birthday

18 - 24 5%

25 - 34 27%

35 - 44 18%

45 - 54 23%

55 - 64 13%

65+ 14%

Respondent profile – weighted

35

Sample base 1175

Q27. In which of these ways does your household occupy your current accommodation?

Owned outright 19%

Buying on mortgage 36%

Rent from council 26%

Rent from Housing Association/ Trust 5%

Rented from private landlord 14%

Other 1%

Sample base 1130

Q28. How many children aged 17 or under are living here?

None 61%

One 17%

Two 15%

Three 6%

Four 1%

More than four <0.5%

Sample base 1055

Q29. And how many adults aged 18 or over are living here?

One 21%

Two 44%

Three 20%

Four 10%

More than four 5%


36

Sample base 1135

Q30. Which of these activities best describes what you are doing at present?

Employee in full-time job (30 hours plus per week) 41%

Employee in part-time job (under 30 hours per week) 11%

Self-employed full or part-time 6%

On a government supported training programme (e.g. Modern Apprenticeship/ Training for Work) <0.5%

Full-time education at school, college or university 2%

Unemployed and available for work 7%

Permanently sick/disabled 7%

Wholly retired from work 17%

Looking after the home 6%

Doing something else 2%

Sample base 1079

Q32. Do you consider yourself to be disabled?

Yes 13%

No 87%

Respondent profile – weighted

37

Sample base 206

Q32a IF YES: In what way(s)?

Visual impairment 15%

Speech impairment 3%

Restricted mobility 58%

Learning difficulty 9%

Mental health issues 21%

Wheelchair user 10%

Hearing impairment 15%

Other hidden impairment 13%

Sample base 199

Q33. Does this disability limit your activities in any way?

Yes 85%

No 15%

Sample base 1051

Q34. What is your sexual orientation?

Heterosexual (straight) 98%

Lesbian <0.5%

Gay man 1%

Bisexual 1%

Other <0.5%

Sample base 974

Q35. Do you identify, or have you ever identified, as ‘Transgender’?

Yes 2%

No 98%


38

Sample base 1171

Q36. To which of these groups do you consider you belong to?

White - British 65%

White - Irish 1%

White – any other White background 12%

Mixed – White and Black Caribbean <0.5%

Mixed – White and Black African <0.5%

Mixed – Any other Mixed Background <0.5%

Black or Black British - Caribbean 2%

Black or Black British - African 7%

Black or Black British - Any other Black background <0.5%

Asian or Asian British - Indian 4%

Asian or Asian British - Pakistani 2%

Asian or Asian British - Bangladeshi 4%

Chinese <0.5%

Asian or Asian British – Any other Asian background 1%

Other ethnic group <0.5%

Sample base 1141

Q37. What is your faith?

None 20%

Christian (all denominations) 64%

Buddhist <0.5%

Hindu 2%

Jewish 1%

Muslim 9%

Sikh 2%

Any other religion 1%

Appendix One – Definitions of National Indicators

39

12 Appendix One – Definitions of National Indicators

The following table provides a summary of how each ‘National Indicator’ figure has been

calculated. It identifies whether each uses valid responses and what this means (i.e.

removing don’t knows, just removing ‘not provided’).

Question

number Description

NI1: % agree people from different backgrounds

get on well together in their local area Q11

Remove don’t knows, too few and

all the same background and not

provided

NI2: % of people who feel that they belong to their

neighbourhood Q5

Remove don’t knows and not

provided

NI3: Civic participation in the local area - % who

have taken part in at least one activity in the last 12

months

Q9 All Remove not provided

NI4: % of people who feel they can influence

decisions in their locality Q8


provided

NI5: Overall / general satisfaction with local area Q3 Remove don’t knows and not

provided

NI6: Participation in regular volunteering - % saying

they volunteer at least once a month Q10


provided

NI17: Perceptions of anti-social behaviour - % of

total sample saying at least one of the issues at

Q16 is a very / fairly big problem

Q16 No opinion counts as zero

NI21: % agree Council and police are dealing with

local concerns about anti-social behaviour and

crime issues

Q18 Include don’t knows, remove not

provided

NI23: % say there is a problem with people in the

area treating one another with respect and

consideration

Q12 Remove don’t knows and not

provided

NI27: % agree council and police understanding

local concerns about anti-social behaviour and

crime issues

Q17 Include don’t knows, remove NP

NI41: % say drunk or rowdy behaviour is a problem Q16g Remove not provided and no

opinion and invalid response

NI42: % say drug use or drug dealing is a problem Q16e Remove not provided and no

opinion and invalid response

NI119: % say health is good Q25 Remove not provided

NI138: % of over 65s very / fairly satisfied with both

home and neighbourhood

Q3 and

Q4 for

65yrs+

Remove not provided

NI139: The extent to which older people receive the

support they need to live independently Q13

Include don’t knows, exclude not

provided


40

13 Appendix Two – Questionnaire

Appendix Two – Questionnaire

41


42


43


44


45


46


47

Because people matter, we listen.

With some 20 years’ experience, BMG Research has established a strong reputation for delivering high quality research and consultancy.

Our business is about understanding people; because they matter. Finding out what they really need; from the type of information they use to the type of services they require. In short, finding out about the kind of world people want to live in tomorrow.

BMG serves both the social public sector and the commercial private sector, providing market and customer insight which is vital in the development of plans, the support of campaigns and the evaluation of performance.

Innovation and development is very much at the heart of our business, and considerable attention is paid to the utilisation of technologies such as portals and information systems to ensure that market and customer intelligence is widely shared.

Date post:	04-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

London Borough of Barking & Dagenham Residents Survey 2011 · 2018-05-23 · London Borough of...

Documents