DOCSLIB.ORG

Cambridgeshire and Peterborough COVID-19 Digital Response

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough COVID-19 Digital Response Cambridgeshire and Peterborough COVID-19 digital response Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council COVID-19 Coordination Hub July 2020 Contents These following document outlines Cambridgeshire’s (CCC) and Peterborough’s (PCC) digital response to COVID-19 from March to the present day and beyond... ● Keeping the council working ● Information provision: websites ● Community support ○ Online directories ○ Requesting help ○ Responding to requests for help ○ Newsletters ● Proactive contact with shielding residents ● The Shield system ○ Development ○ Stats ○ Iterations and aspirations ● Community response teams ● Data sharing ● Data, management information and business intelligence ● For fun - an A-Z of some of the requests we have received at the hub Keeping the councils working Remote working Over 2,700 members of staff are connecting to the CCC network via A recent survey went to all CCC and PCC staff, and 2,378 VPN, compared to approximately 700 people per day before lockdown. people responded. Staff have been using Teams and Skype to hold remote meetings and also to stay in touch with their teams. Of those, 87% of staff have been working from home successfully and 1% have been working in an office or other Many services have quickly adapted to offering their services remotely location. - from supporting people with Learning Disabilities to providing remote music lessons. The survey was overwhelmingly positive about working from home. 79% of people said that they have been supported in Democracy developing a flexible working pattern that helps them. 84% of The councils quickly adopted Zoom for conducting council meetings people said that they can see that working from home has a real and also shares them on YouTube as well as information videos in role in how we work in the future. This may mean that the way multiple languages. we traditionally work has changed for the long term as a result of COVID-19. Supporting staff ● Communications: 2 COVID-19 emails were sent every day to all staff as well as weekly hub newsletter, Friday Focus. The staff survey asked about the success of these communications and 96% staff said they have been useful or very useful. ● Identifying staff who needs to shield: forms were developed for HR to identify members of staff who are shielding and to record the numbers of cases of people testing positive for COVID-19. Information provision: websites New web content Web & Digital teams worked closely with the COVID-19 hub to understand the demand and contact from the public in order to create relevant and helpful COVID-19 pages on the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough websites. This helped to provide support and information to residents and local communities. Content on the websites includes information about health, government advice, changes to council services, safety (domestic abuse and scam awareness). The new pages link seamlessly to both the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough community support directories and to the “I need help” form which enables people to request specific help. Since the new content went live in March 2020, the Cambridgeshire COVID-19 pages have had around 4,000 unique visits per week and around 2,000 unique visits per week to the Peterborough pages. Information provision: websites New web content Additionally, in Peterborough, new web pages have been added to the Peterborough Information Network. The pages are: ● Adults COVID-19 ● Families Information Service COVID-19 ● Information for young people coronavirus ● Local Offer COVID-19 ● Local Offer for Young People Coronavirus ● SEN and Inclusion COVID-19 The pages are updated on a daily basis with a wide range of resources, including easy read information. Since the new content went live in April 2020, the pages have been viewed regularly and have been the top search results on the entire Peterborough Information Network. In May 2020, the words “COVID-19” were successfully searched for 5,222 times. Community support: online directories The need Stats At the start of the COVID-19 crisis, we saw communities pull CCC: 180+ COVID-19 community groups and 900 views a day (at together and establish some fantastic groups that were able to help the height of the crisis) people with shopping, collecting prescriptions or telephone PCC: 130+ COVID-19 community groups and 1,340 views in May befriending. 2020 The most critical need we had for the directory was to store all of these groups centrally and make them easily searchable, so that people were able to find COVID-19 support groups nearest to them. What did we do? ● Offer space where people can find the support they need ● Create a central and easily searchable platform for community/volunteer groups to advertise their offer ● Contact community/volunteer groups that were not already on online directory and support them ● Quality assure and moderate the listings to ensure they were geographically tagged and contained crucial contact As part of our recovery work, we have been exploring how we can information continue the remarkable efforts of community groups and ● Fast tracked work to make improvements to locational volunteers we have seen during the COVID-19 crisis. searches, categorisations, site wide banners and data reporting Community support: requesting help Email Telephone One of the first things the hub did was create an email address so ● The hub created a new team of call handlers, all remote that it could start receiving contact from individuals, organisations workers, using the Avaya software at home to receive calls. and businesses about COVID-19. It soon became clear that the main ● Scripts and processes created so that call handlers can reasons for contact were either “I need help” queries or “I want to signpost to online resources, community offer and complete help”. “I need help” forms on their behalf. Stats (30th June 2020) ● 5000+ emails resolved ● 7000+ phone calls received ● 2700+ I Need Help forms fulfilled “I need help” process ● Online form to capture help requests from individuals and organisations ● Back office dashboard for hub coordinators to investigate and triage requests Community support: responding to requests for help The team Stats The hub coordination team is the front line of the COVID-19 hub. Of the 2,737 requests for help received to date on the 1st July, 2,271 The team has grown from 4 FTE on the 24th March to 11 FTE on the of these have been dealt with by hub coordinators either by referring 15th May. the request to a council service or by organising a food parcel. The 372 requests received by non-shielding people were passed to the What they do relevant district council to provide support. ● The team deals with 120 contacts each day via the mailbox, telephone and “I need help” dashboard 37,572 government food parcels delivered / 2,911 hub food parcels ● They triage the requests for help based on the type of help delivered required and the person’s vulnerability ● They create the lists for food deliveries for the next day and pass to the red cross who go out and deliver food parcels to the most vulnerable the next day, even at the weekend. ● They manage the redeployment of council staff and volunteers to meet the demand created by COVID-19 Challenges? ● Referral stats ● Unexpected nature of the work, from standard requests for food/medication to worries about a zip line, wasps/squirrels, drainage etc. Community support: newsletters Regular newsletters have been produced detailing the work being undertaken by the COVID-19 hubs. There are two newsletters - both entitled “Highlights from the Hub” - one produced by the county-wide hub and one produced by the Peterborough Hub. The newsletters, which are both emailed out to a wide range of stakeholders, as well as being uploaded to the council website and Peterborough Information Network, include information on support and resources available to the public and focus on the excellent work being undertaken. Proactive contact with shielding residents The service Recording the contact The COVID-19 hub has a responsibility for the 30,000 shielding ● The service went live recording on spreadsheets but by the residents in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. All of these people 27th April, a new system went live, built internally by LGSS recieve a letter or an email from the hub to advise of our contact Digital, which enabled the team to record relevant details when we are made aware of their vulnerable status so that information about the shielding people onto a customer they know how to contact us if they need help. As well as this, on the record. 20th April a new service went live - calling all of the shielded people ● The team also gained the ability to record information about to check in on them, find out how they are and submit any requests for help such as needing food, medication or other urgent supplies. the person’s wellbeing with every call made as well as enable them to follow the processes in place for escalations if The team needed. The team is made up of 130 case officers and 17 case managers ● The new system also facilitates the ability for case officers to responsible for regularly calling the 7,500+ shielding people who manage their workloads by easily being able to find the advised that they need help and do not have access to essential customers assigned to them supplies or the care they need. ● As it was built internally, we have been able to iterate on the minimal viable version of the product and continue to Process improve it based on the changing needs of the new service and user feedback. The management team of this new service devised processes for the new team - such as scripts to follow on calls, what information needs to be captured and what to do if the person does not answer the phone.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Simultaneous Cabinet Further Transformation In
    6 SIMULTANEOUS CABINET Monday 13 November 2017 FURTHER TRANSFORMATION IN EAST SUFFOLK (REP1629) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Suffolk Coastal District Council and Waveney District Council agreed in January 2017 to create a new Council for east Suffolk. This was preceded by an intensive period of public consultation in November 2016, the results of which demonstrated that the majority of residents were in favour of one district Council in east Suffolk. 2. The decision to create a new Council for east Suffolk was both ambitious and ground breaking. A “super district” Council will be formed which will be the largest in England in terms of population. The creation of a new Council follows the successful legacy of both Councils working closely together for many years. Officers of all levels of seniority are shared, a joint Business Plan has been adopted and other key policies such as the Housing Strategy are shared. The Councils already share one website under the “East Suffolk” banner and Councillors from both authorities have attended meetings of each Council’s Cabinets since 2010. Cabinet portfolios are aligned and members have shared representation on various outside bodies. 3. The creation of a new Council will be a model other authorities follow as they decide how best to grapple with the significant challenges facing local government. Councils need to be of a scale large enough to face these challenges by having a loud enough voice, a strong bargaining position, a healthy balance sheet and a resilient workforce, yet small enough to feel connected to their residents. The creation of the new Council for east Suffolk will strike that balance.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Councils in England by Type
    List of councils in England by type There are a total of 353 councils in England: Metropolitan districts (36) London boroughs (32) plus the City of London Unitary authorities (55) plus the Isles of Scilly County councils (27) District councils (201) Metropolitan districts (36) 1. Barnsley Borough Council 19. Rochdale Borough Council 2. Birmingham City Council 20. Rotherham Borough Council 3. Bolton Borough Council 21. South Tyneside Borough Council 4. Bradford City Council 22. Salford City Council 5. Bury Borough Council 23. Sandwell Borough Council 6. Calderdale Borough Council 24. Sefton Borough Council 7. Coventry City Council 25. Sheffield City Council 8. Doncaster Borough Council 26. Solihull Borough Council 9. Dudley Borough Council 27. St Helens Borough Council 10. Gateshead Borough Council 28. Stockport Borough Council 11. Kirklees Borough Council 29. Sunderland City Council 12. Knowsley Borough Council 30. Tameside Borough Council 13. Leeds City Council 31. Trafford Borough Council 14. Liverpool City Council 32. Wakefield City Council 15. Manchester City Council 33. Walsall Borough Council 16. North Tyneside Borough Council 34. Wigan Borough Council 17. Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council 35. Wirral Borough Council 18. Oldham Borough Council 36. Wolverhampton City Council London boroughs (32) 1. Barking and Dagenham 17. Hounslow 2. Barnet 18. Islington 3. Bexley 19. Kensington and Chelsea 4. Brent 20. Kingston upon Thames 5. Bromley 21. Lambeth 6. Camden 22. Lewisham 7. Croydon 23. Merton 8. Ealing 24. Newham 9. Enfield 25. Redbridge 10. Greenwich 26. Richmond upon Thames 11. Hackney 27. Southwark 12. Hammersmith and Fulham 28. Sutton 13. Haringey 29. Tower Hamlets 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Written Evidence Submitted by East Sussex County Council [ASC 021]
    Written evidence submitted by East Sussex County Council [ASC 021] • How has Covid-19 changed the landscape for long-term funding reform of the adult social care sector? The challenges facing the adult social care market prior to the pandemic are well documented and, in many cases, have been brought into sharp focus over the last 12 months. Local Authority published rates; contract arrangements (e.g. block arrangements); commissioning approaches (e.g. strategic partners) and CCG funding agreements including Better Care Fund allocations are all key funding reform considerations which sit alongside the necessity to offer choice, personalised care and high quality, safe services. Residential and nursing care There are 306 registered care homes in East Sussex – the majority are small independently run homes, which don’t have the wrap-around organisational infrastructure enjoyed by larger / national providers. In East Sussex, Local Authority placements are made across around one-third of the residential and nursing care market. At the peak of the second wave over 100 care homes in East Sussex were closed to admissions due to Covid outbreaks. Week commencing 04/01/21 there were 853 confirmed cases of Covid19 in East Sussex care home settings. During 2021, as of the week ending 19/03/2021, East Sussex has had 2,404 deaths registered in total and 1,110 of these have been attributable to COVID-19, of which 597 have occurred in hospital and 436 have occurred in care homes (LG reform data). In the two years up to April 2019, there were 26 residential and nursing home closures in East Sussex resulting in a loss of 435 beds, across all care groups.
    [Show full text]
  • IPPR | Empowering Counties: Unlocking County Devolution Deals ABOUT the AUTHORS
    REPORT EMPOWERING COUNTIES UNLOCKING COUNTY DEVOLUTION DEALS Ed Cox and Jack Hunter November 2015 © IPPR 2015 Institute for Public Policy Research ABOUT IPPR IPPR, the Institute for Public Policy Research, is the UK’s leading progressive thinktank. We are an independent charitable organisation with more than 40 staff members, paid interns and visiting fellows. Our main office is in London, with IPPR North, IPPR’s dedicated thinktank for the North of England, operating out of offices in Newcastle and Manchester. The purpose of our work is to conduct and publish the results of research into and promote public education in the economic, social and political sciences, and in science and technology, including the effect of moral, social, political and scientific factors on public policy and on the living standards of all sections of the community. IPPR 4th Floor 14 Buckingham Street London WC2N 6DF T: +44 (0)20 7470 6100 E: [email protected] www.ippr.org Registered charity no. 800065 This paper was first published in November 2015. © 2015 The contents and opinions in this paper are the authors ’ only. POSITIVE IDEAS for CHANGE CONTENTS Summary ............................................................................................................3 1. Devolution unleashed .....................................................................................9 2. Why devolve to counties? ............................................................................11 2.1 Counties and their economic opportunities ...................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 985 EDUCATION (2) That the Revised Estimates Of
    985 EDUCATION (Note: This report was presented to the Council at its meeting on \2th Decem­ ber, 1952.) EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 4th December, 1952. Present: Councillors Brown (in the Chair), Adkins, Alien, J.P., Bailey, A. C. L. Bishop, Buckle, Collins, Duff, Gange, J.P., Leigh, J.P., C.C., Lovell, MacRae, Mason, Mrs. Milner and Sheldrake (Representative members); Messrs. F. W. Coppin and C. A. Lillingston, Rev. H. Eland Stewart, and Miss D. E. Hunt (Co-opted members); Mr. J. Barrow, C.C. (Appointed member); Mr. J. Rostron, Miss A. Robinson and Miss D. E. Ross (Members of the Youth Sub-Committee). PART I.—RECOMMENDATIONS. RECOMMENDATION I: Education Estimates of Capital Expenditure for the Year 1953/54. Your Committee has considered, and is in agreement with, recommendation I of the report of its General Purposes and Finance Sub-Committee of 4th December, 1952, relating to capital expenditure for the financial year 1953/54, details of which are set out in paragraph 61 (2nd December, 1952) of the report of the (Education) Sites and Buildings Sub-Committee. Resolved to RECOMMEND: That a resolution in the following terms be passed by the Council: That the items included in the estimates of capital expenditure, amounting to £52,365, for the financial year 1953/54, in accordance with the details now submitted, be approved and submitted to the Middlesex County Council. RECOMMENDATION II: Education Estimates on Revenue Account for the Years 1952/53 and 1953/54. Your Committee has considered, and is in agreement with, recommendation II of the report of its General Purposes and Finance Sub-Committee of 4th December, 1952, relating to the approval of estimates of income and expendi­ ture on revenue account for the financial year 1953/54, and revised estimates for 1952/53.
    [Show full text]
  • Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council Bridgend County Borough Council Caerphilly County Borough Council the City of Cardiff Counc
    Welsh Local Authorities gritting information (alphabetical order) Blaenau Gwent Info and map of http://www.blaenau-gwent.gov.uk/resident/highways- County Borough gritting routes cleansing/winter-gritting/winter-gritting-routes-salt-bins/ Council http://www.blaenau- gwent.gov.uk/resident/emergencies-crime- prevention/preparing-for-winter/ Bridgend County Info and map of http://www.bridgend.gov.uk/winter.aspx Borough Council gritting routes http://www.bridgend.gov.uk/services/highways.aspx Caerphilly County Info and map of http://www.caerphilly.gov.uk/Services/Roads-and- Borough Council gritting routes pavements/Gritting-and-snow-clearing/Winter-Service- Plan http://www.news.wales/south/caerphilly-county- borough-council/caerphilly-council-is-monitoring- weather-conditions-2017-01-25740.html The City of Cardiff Info and map of https://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ENG/resident/Parking-roads- Council gritting routes and-travel/Winter-maintenance/Pages/Winter- Location of salt maintenance.aspx bins https://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ENG/resident/Community- safety/Severe-winter- weather/Documents/winter%20weather%20guide.pdf Carmarthenshire Info and map of http://www.carmarthenshire.gov.wales/home/residents/t County Council gritting routes ravel-roads-parking/gritting/#.WH4UVk1DT9Q Twitter https://twitter.com/CarmsCouncil/status/7992671481998 25409 Ceredigion County Info and map of https://www.ceredigion.gov.uk/English/Resident/Travel- Council gritting routes Roads-Parking/Highways-During- Twitter Winter/Pages/default.aspx https://www.ceredigion.gov.uk/English/Resident/Travel-
    [Show full text]
  • List of Elected Officials
    Wayne County Elected Officials State Officials Governor Statewide Eric Holcomb Rep Lt. Governor Statewide Suzanne Crouch Rep Attorney General Statewide Todd Rokita Rep US Senator Statewide Mike Braun Rep US Senator Statewide Todd Young Rep Secretary of State Statewide Holli Sullivan Rep Auditor of State Statewide Tera Klutz Rep Treasurer of State Statewide Kelly Mitchell Rep US Representative District 6 Greg Pence Rep State Senator District 27 Jeff Raatz Rep State Representative District 54 Tom Saunders Rep State Representative District 56 Brad Barrett Rep Judge of Circuit Court 17th Circuit April Drake Rep Judge of Superior Court Superior Court I Charles “Chuck” Todd Rep Superior Court II Greg Horn Rep Superior Court III Darrin Dolehanty Rep Prosecuting Attorney 17th Circuit Mike Shipman Rep Wayne County Officials Auditor Kimberly Walton Rep Clerk of Courts Debra Berry Rep Coroner Kevin Fouche Rep Recorder Debbie Tiemann Rep Sheriff Randy Retter Rep Surveyor Gordon Moore Rep Treasurer Nancy Funk Rep Assessor Tim Smith Rep Wayne Twp-Assessor Gary Callahan Rep Commissioner-District 1 Kenneth E Paust Rep Commissioner-District 2 Mary Ann Butters Rep Commissioner-District 3 Jeff Plasterer Rep Wayne County Council Officials County Council-District 1 Robert (Bob) Chamness Rep County Council-District 2 Rodger Smith Rep County Council-District 3 Beth Leisure Rep County Council-District 4 Tony Gillam Rep County Council At-Large Max Smith Rep County Council At-Large Cathy Williams Rep County Council At-Large Gerald (Gary) Saunders Rep Wayne County Trustee Abington-Trustee Chelsie R Buchanan Rep Boston-Trustee Sandra K Nocton Rep Center-Trustee Vicki Chasteen Rep Clay-Trustee Rebecca L Cool Rep Dalton-Trustee Lance A.
    [Show full text]
  • Caerphilly County Borough Council by Email Only [email protected] Dear Councillor Poole
    Our ref: NB Ask for: Communications 01656 641150 Date: 7 September 2020 Communications @ombudsman-wales.org.uk Councillor David Poole Council Leader Caerphilly County Borough Council By Email Only [email protected] Dear Councillor Poole Annual Letter 2019/20 I am pleased to provide you with the Annual letter (2019/20) for Caerphilly County Borough Council. I write this at an unprecedented time for public services in Wales and those that use them. Most of the data in this correspondence relates to the period before the rapid escalation in Covid-19 spread and before restrictions on economic and social activity had been introduced. However, I am only too aware of the impact the pandemic continues to have on us all. I am delighted to report that, during the past financial year, we had to intervene in (uphold, settle or resolve early) a smaller proportion of complaints about public bodies: 20% compared to 24% last year. We also referred a smaller proportion of Code of Conduct complaints to a Standards Committee or the Adjudication Panel for Wales: 2% compared to 3% last year. With regard to new complaints relating to Local Authorities, the overall number has decreased by 2.4% compared to the previous financial year. I am also glad that we had to intervene in a smaller proportion of the cases closed (13% compared to 15% last year). That said, I am concerned that complaint handling persists as one of the main subjects of our complaints again this year. Amongst the main highlights of the year, in 2019 the National Assembly for Wales (now Senedd Cymru Welsh Parliament) passed our new Act.
    [Show full text]
  • THE SANITARY FUNCTIONS of COUNTY COUNCILS. General
    428 MTDICBALPJTURAL I SANITARY FUNCTIONS OF COUNTY COUNCILS. [FEB. 23, 1895. traces. Then, again, the line between giving IIa faint opal- Reports under the Housing of the'.Working Classes escence," " giving a very slight precipitate," and " giving no Aet. precipitate," is very difficult to draw, especially when no Applications and questions under the Isolation Hos- strength is given for the solutions nor limit of time for the pitals Act. formation ot a precipitate. It would be a very lengthy task Appeals by parish councils in case of default in sani- indeed to point out these defects in detail, but a comparison tary matters on the part of the rural district council. of the British with other more modern Pharmacopceias will 3. Whether any county medical officer of health had been soon show how much more minute are the instructions given appointed. for testing in these latter. In the first place fourteen administrative counties, accord- To these and similar criticisms from a manufacturer's ing to the returns furnished by the respective clerks, have standpoint there are two objections that are likely to be appointed county medical officers of health. These pioneer taken: first, that they are mere details which it is the counties are: business of the manufacturer to attend to; and, secondly, Bedfordshire Lancasllire Surrey that an absolute standard of should be Cheshire London Worcestershire purity set up and Derbyshire Northumberland Yorkshire, N. Riding adlhered to at any cost. To the first objection it may fairly be Durham Shropshire Yorkslhire,
    [Show full text]
  • 52A County and County Borough Councils: Duties of Leaders of Political Groups in Relation to Standards of Conduct
    Atodiad 2 /Appendix 2 “52A County and county borough councils: duties of leaders of political groups in relation to standards of conduct (1) A leader of a political group consisting of members of a county council or county borough council in Wales— (a) must take reasonable steps to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by the members of the group, and (b) must co-operate with the council’s standards committee (and any sub-committee of the committee) in the exercise of the standards committee’s functions. (2) In complying with subsection (1), a leader of a political group must have regard to any guidance about the functions under that subsection issued by the Welsh Ministers. (3) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make provision for the purposes of this section about the circumstances in which— (a) members of a county council or county borough council in Wales are to be treated as constituting a political group; (b) a member of a political group is to be treated as a leader of the group. (4) Before making regulations under subsection (3), the Welsh Ministers must consult such persons as they think appropriate.” ------------------------------------------------------- “(2A) A standards committee of a county council or county borough council in Wales also has the specific functions of— (a) monitoring compliance by leaders of political groups on the council with their duties under section 52A(1), and (b) advising, training or arranging to train leaders of political groups on the council about matters relating to those duties.” ----------------------------------------------------------- “56B Annual reports by standards committees (1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, a standards committee of a relevant authority must make an annual report to the authority in respect of that year.
    [Show full text]
  • Sussex County Council Districts Road
    203 Sussex County LIGHTHOUSE RD L MARINA LN YN N 204A S LN S H 36 O 201 C K 202 L E MILLS RD D Y R R Y D E H RD L BEAC L EDAR O C C C BAY AV M 205 Council Boundaries 204 36 SAPP RD 206 B 208 ANGUS DR Adopted November 2011, Revised February 2012 E A 50 V Slaughter Beach E L R N N D E A E 209 M R R G D R E 618 R V D E OOK LN 204 E R BUCKS RD K 633 B A L W D MEA D O O T ST KIRBY209A RD H 50 T 634 210 I 14 Miles F F I R 619 R D G N HORSESHOE DR D R SEABURY36A AV N VINYARD DR O K DAVIS LANDING RD 224 T OLD619A SHAWNEE RD ELKS LODGE RD C G N E 00.5 1 2 3 4 5 I N 218 X Milford E R A R L SLAUGHTER BEACH RD 211 200 D SURREYD CT T E T R C O D B S B M VALLEY FORGE DR A A D D R 1 in = 1 miles A S 620 MARY DR AB EVANS DR P BOT R TS P LADY SLIPPER LN A O ND RD H S S UG A HIDDENMEADOW LN WATSON DR MANE ST R MAP RUTT RD LE D 113 R 224A µ 615 W IONA WAY 38 E L L S 617 FORK207A RD ARGOS CORNER RD R TEATOWN RD 113 D LINDALE RD RUST RD 1 ST 621 616 217 Council Districts DUPONTBLVD 213A 635 MARSHALLST 206 CHURCH RD D D WILKINS RD R R CALHOUN RD 213B 14E OD H JOHNSON RD E HAVEN O A C 38B R 216A W E IN D 224B ON B 207 P TT ER BUTLER AV KERFIE BU L 214 BA L 219 W 38C D O CODS RD 225B 220 RD F 225A 199 RD NELSON DR F ALDS H ITZ G ER E 207 R 38 38B S SHORE DR R I DANIELS RD LEWIS DR C N 38A E G 113 AMELIA DR D B SHORE DR A R 215A D HOLLY DR E R MAYHEW DR 627 A R 36 N C 613A C C A H L C R SUGAR HILL RD P £ 626 E U D BBAGE P E ¤ R O E N N NEAL RD 636 215 R 221 R D E D D R 637 S APPELS RD D K E HAFLINGER RD T A D R V S N K R 39B R EC D R GREENTOP RD R TER N TE I
    [Show full text]
  • INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL a Study
    INDIANAPOLIS-MARION COUNTY CITY-COUNTY COUNCIL A Study of Council Effectiveness EVALUATION OF INDIANAPOLIS’ CENTERS FOR WORKING FAMILIES NETWORK Report forFebruary the United 28, Way 2020 of Central Indiana JULY 2018 | 18-XXX AUTHORS Cullen C. Merritt, Ph.D. & Amanda Rutherford, Ph.D. Prepared for the Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council CONTENTS Part 1: Overview 1 Introduction 2 Methodology 6 Part 2: Results 13 Awareness of the council 14 Purpose of the council 16 Prior interactions with the council 17 Councilor salary 18 Trust in government 20 Council representation 22 Public engagement 24 Issues facing Indianapolis/Marion County & the council 26 Summary of findings 27 Part 3: Recommendations 29 Recommendations 30 Part 4: Appendices 33 ADDITIONAL CONTENT PART 1: OVERVIEW 3 FIGURE 1. Share of revenue by source 3 FIGURE 2. Share of appropriations by source 4 TABLE 1. Peer consolidated council comparison 7 FIGURE 3. Race/ethnicity of survey respondents vs. census estimates 7 FIGURE 4. Gender of survey respondents vs. census estimates 7 FIGURE 5. Education of survey respondents vs. census estimates 8 FIGURE 6. Employment of survey respondents vs. census estimates 8 FIGURE 7. Household income of survey respondents vs. census estimates 8 FIGURE 8. 2016 local election voter turnout vs. reported turnout of ever voting in local elections among survey respondents 9 FIGURE 9. 2016 state election voter turnout vs. reported turnout of ever voting in state elections among survey respondents 9 FIGURE 10. 2016 federal election voter turnout vs. reported turnout among survey respondents 10 FIGURE 11. Overview of focus group participants PART 2: RESULTS 14 FIGURE 12.
    [Show full text]