Transcript Derbyshire Residents' Survey Presentation

Living in Derbyshire in 2002
Ben Page
Director
MORI Social Research Institute
10th December 2002
Introduction
 Regular series of robust tracking surveys
 Understand how views are changing
 What local priorities are
– and how they vary
 Views of Services
 How we communicate
 Based on
– 1,688 face-to-face interviews in home
– 10th August - 20th October 2002
– 228 sample points (EDs) across the County
What’s it like living in
Derbyshire?
72% agree they are proud
to live here!
Derbyshire as a Place to Live
 Level of overall satisfaction
with the area remains
unchanged from 1999
 Is it possible to find
a better place to
live?
Dissatisfied Satisfied
8
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (1,688)
Net Satisfied
88
+80
Yes - Move to...
Devon 2002
Northumberland 2001
Leicestershire 2001
West Sussex 1999
Suffolk 1999
Oxfordshire 2002
Staffordshire 1999
Surrey 1998
Bedfordshire 2001
Dorset 2000
Cornwall 1999
+86
Net Satisfied (+/-)
Derbyshire 1999
+86
+87
BV Pilots (CCs) 2000
+86
+86
Derbyshire 2002
Hertfordshire 1999
Kent 2001
Hampshire 1999
Nottinghamshire 2002
BV Pilots (All) 2000
Lancashire 2000
Base: MORI Norm Database (County Council Authorities)
+87
+86
+86
+86
+86
+84
+84
+84
+83
+83
+83
+81
+81
+80
+80
+79
+77
+72
+72
+69
Or Stay in Derbyshire…..
Net Satisfied (+/-)
Derbyshire Dales
South Derbyshire
+84
Amber Valley
+83
High Peak
+80
+94
North East Derbyshire
+82
31
Points
+82
Chesterfield
+81
Erewash
Bolsolver
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+ (Districts): 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (c.200)
+78
+63
Satisfaction with Area v Deprivation
Net satisfaction (+)
100
95
90
Derbyshire 1999/2002
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Average Deprivation Score (IMD 2000)
Base: MORI Norm Database (County Council Authorities)
50
55
60
Area Satisfaction & Deprivation By District
Net satisfaction (+)
100
Derbyshire Dales
95
Amber
Valley Derbyshire
90
South
Derbyshire
High Peak
Erewash
85
80
75
70
2002
Chesterfield
North East
Derbyshire
65
Bolsover
60
55
50
45
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Average Deprivation Score (IMD 2000)
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+ (Districts): 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (c.200)
55
60
How Can You Make
Derbyshire a Better Place
to Live?
Quality of Life - Ideal vs Needs Improving
50
Most need improving
locally
Activities for teenagers
40
Facilities for young children
Road/pavement repairs
Public transport
30
Low level crime
Low traffic
Clean streets
Housing
Community activities
Sports/leisure facs
Job prospects Shopping
Culture
Wages/cost of living
10
Low pollution
Education
20
Health services
Access to nature
Race relations Open spaces
0
0
10
20
30
40
Important generally
Base: 2,031 British adults 15+, 18-22 October 2001
50
60
The Derbyshire Picture
Most need improving locally (%)
Road & Pavement
40
Activities for
Repairs
35
Teenagers
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Low level of
crime
Pollution
Community Activities
Social
Facilities for young children
Ser:
Access to
Public Transport
vul
culture
child.
Clean Streets
Traffic congestion
Shopping facilities
Sports &
Affordable decent housing
Social
Leisure fac.
Job prospects
Ser: vul
Social Ser: elderly
Health Services
people
Sense of comm.
Education Provision
Wages
Race
Pleasant countryside
Open spaces
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Important generally (%)
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (1,688)
45
50
55
60
Context - Low Level of Crime
Most need improving locally (%)
55
Bolsover, Erewash & Chesterfield
are the least satisfied with the area
as a place to live
50
45
Bolsover
North East
Derbyshire
40
35
Low level
of crime
30
25
Erewash
Amber Valley
20
15
Derbyshire Dales
10
South
Derbyshire
High Peak
Chesterfield
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Important generally (%)
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+ (Districts): 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (c.200)
65
70
75
Context - Activities for Teenagers
Most need improving locally (%)
55
50
Derbyshire
Dales
45
North East
Derbyshire
Activities for
Teenagers
Erewash
40
Bolsover
35
Amber Valley
30
Chesterfield
High Peak
25
South
Derbyshire
20
15
10
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Important generally (%)
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+ (Districts): 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (c.200)
45
50
Context - Road & Pavement Repairs
Most need improving locally (%)
55
Erewash
50
Amber Valley
Road & Pavement
Repairs
45
40
South Derbyshire
35
Derbyshire
Dales
30
Bolsover
25
Chesterfield
North East
Derbyshire
20
15
10
High Peak
5
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
Important generally (%)
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+ (Districts): 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (c.200)
65
70
75
What do Residents Think
of You?
Derbyshire County Council
 Level of overall satisfaction
with the Council remains
unchanged from 1999
 This is a good
finding! Well done!
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
16
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (1,688)
Net Satisfied
63
+47
Derbyshire CC - Above the National
Average
Q How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way…. is running the
area?
60
Net satisfaction with Council (+)
Derbyshire
50
40
30
National
MORI Omnibus
20
10
0
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Base: All residents
Year surveyed
Let’s look at how government performs
Q
How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way… is
running/doing their job….?
% Net Satisfied
Derbyshire CC
47
Best Value Pilots in 2000
29
Average MORI local government
survey 1999-2000
25
Tony Blair, Nov 2002
The Government, Nov 2002
- 11
- 24
Satisfaction with County - by sub-group
 Net satisfied
Total
Age
47%
43%
16-24
25-34
35-54
55-64
65+
50%
45%
45%
53%
Area
46%
Urban
Rural
Satisfied
Dissatisfied
47%
54%
- 16%
The Way the Council is Running the Area
Net Satisfied (+/-)
Leicestershire 2001
Sunderland 2001
Dorset 2000
Staffordshire 1999
Surrey 1998
West Sussex 1999
Hertfordshire 1999
+57
+53
+62
+51
+53
Derbyshire 2002
Derbyshire 1999
Cornwall 1999
Buckinghamshire 2002
Northamptonshire 1999
Oxfordshire 2002
Nottinghamshire 1998
Lancashire 2000
County Durham 1999
Kent 2001
BV Pilots (CCs) 2000
BV Pilots (All) 2000
Bedfordshire 2001
Base: MORI Norm Database (County Council Authorities)
+62
+57
+53
+53
+51
+50
+48
+47
+47
+46
+43
+43
+42
+42
+40
+38
+32
+32
+27
+26
Image - Positive Statements
1999
2002
The quality of Council
services is good overall
County Councillors do their
best to serve the
community
Net Agree (+/-)
The County Council does a
good job for people like me
Derbyshire CC gives
residents good value for
money
County Councillors make a
real effort to listen to local
people
-10
0
10
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: 4 Sept-22 Oct
1999 (1,748), 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (1,688)
20
30
40
Overall Quality of Services
Net Agree (+/-)
+56
+54
+55
+66
Suffolk 1999
Nottinghamshire 1998
Buckinghamshire 1999
Staffordshire 1999
Dorset 2000
Hertfordshire 1999
Hampshire 1999
BV Pilots (CCs) 2000
West Sussex 1999
Cornwall 1999
BV Pilots (All) 2000
Oxfordshire 2002
Surrey 1998
Northamptonshire 1999
Lancashire 2000
Derbyshire 1999
Derbyshire 2002
Kent 2001
Bedfordshire 2001
Base: MORI Norm Database (County Council Authorities)
+56
+55
+54
+53
+53
+53
+53
+52
+48
+47
+45
+45
+44
+42
+41
+38
+30
+22
+66
Value for Money
Net Agree (+/-)
Suffolk 1999
Nottinghamshire 1998
Hertfordshire 1999
West Sussex 1999
Staffordshire 1999
Cornwall 1999
Derbyshire 1999
County Durham 1999
Hampshire 1999
Dorset 2000
Derbyshire 2002
+22
+16
+20
+22
+18
Surrey 1998
Northamptonshire 1999
BV Pilots (All) 2000
BV Pilots (CCs) 2000
Lancashire 2000
Oxfordshire 2002
-1
Kent 2001
-6
Bedfordshire 2001
Buckinghamshire 2002 -9
Base: MORI Norm Database (County Council Authorities)
+22
+22
+20
+18
+16
+13
+11
+11
+8
+7
+6
+6
+6
+4
+2
+2
+1
Image - Negative Comments
1999
2002
Derbyshire CC
services some areas
of the county better
than others
Net Agree (+/-)
Derbyshire CC is too
remote and impersonal
Derbyshire CC rarely
takes residents’ views
into account when
making decisions
which affect them
0
10
20
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: 4 Sept-22 Oct
1999 (1,748), 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (1,688)
30
40
50
60
Remote & Impersonal
Net Agree (+/-)
Suffolk 1999
BV Pilots (CCs) 2000
BV Pilots (All) 2000
Derbyshire 2002
West Sussex 1999
Cornwall 1999
Buckinghamshire 2002
Staffordshire 1999
Surrey 1998
Hampshire 1999
County Durham 1999
Derbyshire 1999
+17
+6
+18
+17
Hertfordshire 1999
Lancashire 2000
Dorset 2000
Carmarthenshire 1998
Oxfordshire 2002
Nottinghamshire 1998
Kent 2001
Bedfordshire 2001
Base: MORI Norm Database (County Council Authorities)
+6
+14
+16
+17
+17
+18
+20
+20
+20
+22
+22
+23
+24
+24
+25
+26
+28
+28
+33
+41
Have Services Improved?
Q
To what extent, if at all, do you think that Derbyshire
County Council Services have improved over the last two
years?
Don’t know Improved a lot
10% 4%
Got a lot worse
13%
Got a little
worse
4%
23%
9%
Stayed the same
50%
Improved
a little
27%
Net Improved +14
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (1,688)
Regional Government
Regional Government
 44% know “nothing at all” about proposals
 2% say they know a great deal…..
 39% in favour of devolution of power to regions
 35% favour an elected assembly
– 26% opposed
– rest haven’t a clue
 43% believe it would lead to increased bureaucracy
– only 10% disagree
Little Support for Abolishing Derbyshire
County Council
Q
Do you support or oppose Derbyshire County Council
being abolished in favour of an elected regional assembly
for the East Midlands?
Strongly support
16%
Don’t know
5%
Tend to support
19%
Strongly
oppose
11%
21% Neither/nor
18%
45%
Tend to oppose
27%
Net Support -29
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (1,688)
Reorganisation not popular…..
Q
Do you agree or disagree with abolishing the County and
your District to have a regional assembly for the East
Midlands?
Strongly agree
15%
Don’t know
3%
Tend to agree
19%
12%
18%
Strongly
disagree
Neither/nor
25%
48%
Tend to disagree
23%
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (1,688)
Support for greater regional powers
Q
Do you support or oppose giving greater powers of government
to regions in England?
Support (%)
Great Britain
England
North West
South West
Yorkshire & Humberside
North East
East Midlands
West Midlands
Eastern
South East
London
Wales
Scotland
36%
28%
Source: MORI/The Economist, March 1999 (c1,800 adults aged 15+)
Oppose (%)
30
47%
50%
27
55%
29
53%
26
52%
23
51%
23
49%
17
49%
27
48%
34
48%
34
47%
25
39
49
What do Residents Think
of the Services You
Provide?
Importance vs Success – Corporate
Priorities
Net success (+) Meeting the needs of people whose children have special needs
Supporting
people with
mental ill
health
50
40
30
Ensuring availability of local shops
Supporting the health of the local population
Protecting the environment
Providing reliable public transport
Supporting the local economy and creating jobs
Meeting the needs of elderly people
20
Helping unemployed
people back to work
10
Crime and Community Safety
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
0
5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Tackling poverty and deprivation
Supporting
Providing sport & recreational facilities
the start-up/
Protecting
growth of
vulnerable
Meeting the needs of young people
small
children
businesses
Meeting the needs of disabled people
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (1,688)
75
Importance vs Satisfaction with Services
Net satisfaction (+)
80
70
60
50
Library service*
Primary schools*
B_line (Student card)*
Secondary schools*
Protecting consumers (Trading Standards)*
Adult Education*
40
30
20
10
0
-10 0
-20
-30
Supporting
local business
Overall planning
for land use
5
Care of the elderly in
their own homes*
Ser. for people
with disabilities*
Main. footpaths
Bus and train services*
Community Safety
Traffic control
Importance (%)
Tackle pov. & unemp.
10
15
Pavement maintenance
20
Youth clubs/facilities for young people*
25
30
Preventing youth offending
Road maintenance
-40
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (1,688)
*Base for net satisfaction users (c.100-c.900)
35
Changes in Satisfaction with Universal
Services
Q
How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the
following in this area?
1999
2002
Net Satisfied (+/-)
+27
+20
+16
+12
Community safety
Maintenance of footpaths/bridle
paths & public rights of way
+1
Overall planning for land use
Pavement maintenance
Traffic control
Road maintenance
+18
-8
-5
-9
Change (+/-)
-7
+4
+17
+3
+16
-21
-5
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (1,688)
+25
+16
Road Maintenance
+8
Dorset 2000
Leicestershire 2001
Suffolk 1999
BV Pilots (CCs) 2000
County Durham 1999
Hampshire 1999
BV Pilots (All) 2000
West Sussex 1999
Surrey 1998
Lancashire 2000
Staffordshire 1999
Net Satisfied (+/-)
Derbyshire 2002
+22 +17
+28 +8
Nat - Peoples Panel 2002
Northamptonshire 1999
Nottinghamshire 1998
-12
-14
Derbyshire 1999
-21
Buckinghamshire 2002
-28
-36
Bedfordshire 2001
-40
Kent 2001
Base: MORI Norm Database (County Council Authorities)
+28
+22
+17
+10
+8
+8
+6
+4
+/-0
-1
-2
-5
-6
Trend on Highway Maintenance
Net Satisfaction
Average of MORI Surveys
25
15
5
- 51990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
- 15
- 25
Derbyshire
Pavement Maintenance
Net Satisfied (+/-)
Leicestershire 2001
Cornwall 1999
Suffolk 1999
BV Pilots (CCs) 2000
Staffordshire 1999
BV Pilots (All) 2000
Nat - Peoples Panel 2002
Hampshire 1999
Lancashire 2000
Derbyshire 2002
+9
+29 +19
+/-0
+20
Surrey 1998
West Sussex 1999
Derbyshire 1999
Northamptonshire 1999
Buckinghamshire 2002
Nottinghamshire 1998
-33
Kent 2001
Base: MORI Norm Database (County Council Authorities)
+29
+20
+19
+16
+9
+8
+/- 0
+/- 0
-4
-5
-5
-6
-7
-9
-11
-14
Changes in Satisfaction with NonUniversal Services
Q
How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the
following in this area?
1999
2002
Net Satisfied (+/-)
Primary schools
Library services
Secondary schools
Protecting consumers
(Trading Standards)
Care of the elderly in their own home
Services for people with disabilities
Youth clubs/other facilities -23
for young people
-27
Change (+/-)
+79
+76
+77
+77
+63
+67
+53
+59
+42
+34
No
+26
+19
Significant
Changes
Base: All Derbyshire residents who are users of each service 16+:
10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (c.80-800)
-3
0
+4
+6
-8
-7
-4
Libraries
Net Satisfied (+/-)
+86
+85
+86 +85
+84 +84
Bedfordshire 2001
Lancashire 2000
Suffolk 1999
Northamptonshire 1999
West Sussex 1999
Hampshire 1999
Cornwall 1999
Dorset 2000
Nottinghamshire 1998
BV Pilots (CCs) 2000
Nat - Peoples Panel 2002
Derbyshire 2002
Derbyshire 1999
Surrey 1998
BV Pilots (All) 2000
Staffordshire 1999
Buckinghamshire 2002
Oxfordshire 2002
Devon 1998
Base: All users, MORI Norm Database (County Council Authorities)
+86
+86
+85
+85
+84
+84
+83
+83
+82
+82
+81
+77
+77
+77
+76
+76
+73
+71
+69
Primary Schools
Net Satisfied (+/-)
Cornwall 1999
Nat - Peoples Panel 2000
Lancashire 2000
Hampshire 1999
Northamptonshire 1999
Suffolk 1999
Derbyshire 1999
West Sussex 1999
BV Pilots (CCs) 2000
Derbyshire 2002
+84
+83 +83
+88
+84
Staffordshire 1999
Devon 1998
Bedfordshire 2001
Dorset 2000
Nottinghamshire 1998
Buckinghamshire 2002
BV Pilots (All) 2000
Oxfordshire 2002
Surrey 1998
Base: All users MORI Norm Database (County Council Authorities)
+88
+85
+84
+84
+83
+83
+79
+77
+77
+76
+75
+75
+74
+73
+72
+72
+66
+65
+61
Secondary Schools
Net Satisfied (+/-)
Northamptonshire 1999
Lancashire 2000
Suffolk 1999
West Sussex 1999
Bedfordshire 2001
Staffordshire 1999
Cornwall 1999
Devon 1998
Derbyshire 2002
+76
+72
+77
+74
+72
+74
Nat - Peoples Panel 2002
Derbyshire 1999
Hampshire 1999
Dorset 2000
BV Pilots (CCs) 2000
Surrey 1998
Oxfordshire 2002
Nottinghamshire 1998
BV Pilots (All) 2000
Buckinghamshire 2002
Base: All users MORI Norm Database (County Council Authorities)
+77
+76
+74
+74
+72
+72
+71
+71
+67
+66
+63
+63
+63
+61
+58
+58
+53
+48
+40
Adult Education
Net Satisfied (+/-)
+78
+78
+83
+80 +80
+82
Northamptonshire 1999
Hampshire 1999
Bedfordshire 2001
Oxfordshire 2002
Lancashire 2000
Cornwall 1999
West Sussex 1999
Suffolk 1999
Nat - Peoples Panel 2002
Nottinghamshire 1998
Staffordshire 1999
BV Pilots (All) 2000
Devon 1998
Kent 1998
BV Pilots (CCs) 2000
Surrey 1998
Derbyshire 2002
Buckinghamshire 2002
Dorset 2000
NB. Question not asked in Derbyshire in 1999
Base: 294 users/MORI Norm Database (County Council Authorities)
+83
+82
+80
+80
+78
+78
+77
+76
+76
+73
+72
+72
+71
+68
+66
+58
+54
+53
+52
Youth Service & Clubs
Net Satisfied (+/-)
+26
+20
+28
+27
+3
Bedfordshire 2001
Oxfordshire 2002
Lancashire 2000
Nat - Peoples Panel 2002
Nottinghamshire 1998
Cornwall 1999
West Sussex 1999
Staffordshire 1999
Suffolk 1999
Buckinghamshire 2002
BV Pilots (All) 2000
BV Pilots (CCs) 2000
Northamptonshire 1999
Derbyshire 1999
Derbyshire 2002
Hampshire 1999
Surrey 1998
Dorset 2000
+28
+27
+26
+20
+20
+3
-3
-6
-8
-10
-10
-17
-18
-22
-27
-36
-38
-40
Base: All users MORI Norm Database (County Council Authorities)
Care of Elderly: County Surveys 1999-2002
71
67
62
58
55
42
1999
41
40
37
34
31
25
2002
Why Communications is
Important
How Well Informed Are Residents?
Q
How well informed do you think Derbyshire County
Council keeps residents about the services and benefits it
provides?
Don’t know Keeps us very well informed
Doesn’t tell us
much at all
about what it
does
5% 6%
18%
Keeps us fairly well
informed
38%
33%
1999
Informed
42
Uninformed 54
Net informed -12
Gives us only a limited
amount of information
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (1,688)
2002
44
51
-7
How well informed does your County
Council keep you?
Net Informed(+/-)
Leicestershire 2001
Hertfordshire 1999
-1
-5
-7
-7
-7
Derbyshire 2002
Oxfordshire 2002
West Sussex 1999
BV Pilots (All) 2000
BV Pilots (CCs) 2000
-10
-10
-12
-14
-14
-18
-21
-21
Derbyshire 1999
-7
-1
-7 -5
-7
Buckinghamshire 2002
Dorset 2000
Bedfordshire 2001
Kent 2001
Hampshire 1999
County Durham 1999
Cornwall 1999
Staffordshire 1999
Nottinghamshire 1998
Lancashire 2000
-26
-26
-27
-29
-39
Base: MORI Norm Database (County Council Authorities)
County Councils - Information Provision
and Satisfaction
Net satisfaction
65
Derbyshire
60
2
R = 0.5044
55
50
45
40
35
30
- 60.0
- 40.0
- 20.0
Net well
Informed
0.0
20.0
Impact of Communications
Informed
Uninformed
The quality of Council
services is good overall
County Councillors do
their best to serve the
community
The County Council
does a good job for
people like me
Derbyshire CC gives
residents good value for
money
County Councillors
make a real effort to
listen to local people
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: informed (741),
uninformed (861)
10
20
30
40
Net Agree (+/-)
50
60
70
The Impact of Communications
30
Derbyshire CC is too
remote and impersonal
62
-7
43
Derbyshire CC rarely
takes residents’ views
into account when
making decisions which
affect them
-20
Uninformed
Informed
Derbyshire CC
services some areas
of the county better
than others
-10
1
0
35
10
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: informed (741),
uninformed (861)
20
30
40
50
Net Agree (+/-)
60
70
80
Information: Preferred Sources
Prefer (%)
Local Newspapers
40
Leaflets/magazines
delivered to your door
35
30
‘Insight’ – the County
Council newspaper
25
Leaflets or posters
around the local
community
20
15
10
Friends, neighbours and
relations
Councillors
5
Post offices
Local shops
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Current (%)
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (1,688)
50
55
60
65
The Impact of Current Information
Q
From which, if any, of the sources on this card do you
obtain most of your information about Derbyshire County
Council?
Informed
Local newspapers
66%
‘Insight’ - the County
Council Newspaper
Leaflets/magazines
delivered to your door
55%
46%
Uninformed
Local newspapers
‘Insight’ - the County
Council Newspaper
Leaflets/magazines
delivered to your door
67%
27%
27%
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: informed (741), uninformed (861)
Who is Reading ‘Insight’?
Q
Do you recall receiving a copy of the Derbyshire County Council
Newspaper called ‘Insight’? [Respondents were prompted with a copy
at the time of the interview]
% Yes
16-24
25-34
21%
39%
35-54
59%
55-64
70%
65+
70%
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (1,688)
How Interesting is ‘Insight’?
Q
From this card, please tell me how interesting do you find
‘Insight’?
Don’t know 2%
No opinion Very interesting
Not at all
4%
interesting
15%
8%
Not very
interesting 20%
51%
1999 2002
Interesting
68
66
Not interesting 23
28
Fairly interesting
Base: All Derbyshire residents who recall receiving Insight 16+:
10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (942)
Demand for More Information
Q
Which, if any, of the items on this list would you like more
information on?
Top Five Requests
Info. on how the County is spending its
money
Info. on the County’s plans and
priorities for the area
Info. on whom to contact at the County
Council with different problems
38%
35%
22%
Local events
21%
Community safety
19%
None of these
Don’t know
18%
3%
Base: All Derbyshire residents 16+: 10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (1,688)
Customer care
 Need to thank the staff
 Overall ratings are generally comparable with 1999
– 73% say staff are helpful
– 65% interested in their problem
– 60% able to deal with their query
 Compare well with other Counties on many aspects of
customer care
– something to celebrate, but also build on
– an area where expectations are rising
Helpful Staff: Comparisons
Helpful (%)
Kent 1996
Lancashire 2000
NCC 1999
Dorset 2002
Tameside 2000
Oxfordshire 2000
Trafford 2000
Derbyshire 2002
Buckinghamshire 1999
Derbyshire 1999
Nottinghamshire 1998
Surrey1998
Manchester 1998
Base:all contacting council
95% for call centres 85%
83%
77%
76%
76%
75%
74%
73%
72%
71%
70%
70%
65%
Key Points
Conclusions
 Overall findings in-line with 1999 survey - a good result
considering the national picture
 In terms of your quality of life priorities...
– Seen as succeeding on health and environment
– Background concern about care of elderly and help for
unemployed
 Crime and activities for teenagers key concerns - as
nationally
– the two key corporate priorities and ones you do least
well on
– important to tell people what you are doing
• and what they can do
Conclusions
 Many services are well rated compared to other Counties
 Improvement on Highways is impressive
– and noticed by the public
– but could still improve further if you wanted to
prioritise
 Surprised not to see rises in satisfaction with primary
schools, but scores already respectable
 Areas public prioritise
– crime
– anti-social behaviour
• diversionary activities for young people
– public transport and roads….
Conclusions
WELL DONE
But no room for
complacency
Using Perceptions to Develop Services:
how do you react to each result/trend?
We do not need to do
anything about these
results at this stage
 consider implications
in due course
These results do not
reflect the high quality
service we provide
 tell people about services
available
 communicate successes
to stakeholders/customers
We cannot do anything about
these results at this stage
(eg budget constraints)
 communicate to interested
parties, including why
We need to understand these
results more
what hypotheses do we want to
explore?
Use Panel?
Qualitative or quantitative?
Do we need original research,
or just more analysis?
These results are not good enough - we need to take action
in which areas?
over what timescale?
 what are budget implications?
Questions, Comments
0207 347 3000
The ‘halo effect’: Area and Council
Net satisfaction with Council (+/-)
70
Derbyshire 1999/2002
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50
Base: All
60
70
80
Net satisfaction with area (+/-)
90
How should Insight be Improved?
Top Five Suggestions
More coverage of local issues
More information about what
the County Council is doing
More information on how
money is spent
More information about
services
Scrap it/it is unnecessary/
waste of money
16%
9%
8%
8%
6%
No improvement needed
Don’t know
Base: All Derbyshire residents who recall receiving Insight 16+:
10 Aug-20 Oct 2002 (942)
24%
25%