WARDS: EAST AND , ITEM NO: WOLLATON WEST

WOLLATON AND LENTON ABBEY AREA COMMITTEE 9 MARCH 2006

REPORT OF CHIEF RISK OFFICER

NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL RESIDENTS SURVEY 2005 - IMPLICATIONS FOR WOLLATON AND LENTON ABBEY AREA COMMITTEE

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The report highlights the key Area 7 results of the 2 nd Market and Opinion Research International (MORI) Resident Survey undertaken in October/November 2005. It provides robust data that reflects the perceptions of Area 7 residents on key quality of life, anti social behaviour and corporate satisfaction indicators/figures

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Committee:

− Note the Area 7 findings − Note that Council Departments will analyse the data presented by Mori and integrate them into their service planning processes for 2006/2007 − Note that information from the survey is to be used to develop the Community Plan.

3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

3.1 In October/November 2005 MORI undertook Nottingham’s 2 nd Residents survey. The Council worked in partnership with One Nottingham who wished to engage city residents as part of the safer and stronger communities’ strand of Neighbourhood Renewal, focussing on local communities’ quality of life. In total 2,033 City residents took part of these 207 are Area 7 residents.

3.2 It is worth noting that the survey dealt with residents’ perceptions at the time the survey was conducted rather than facts . Residents’ perceptions, therefore, may not accurately represent the level and quality of services that are currently provided in Area 7 and Nottingham as a whole. One of the challenges will be to link these perceptions with other data that is available, for example, performance indicators or other measurements of service quality. 4 AREA 7 KEY FINDINGS

4.1 The following table provides comparative data for Area 7 on 2004, 2005 and Nottingham as whole (2005) data 2004 2005 +/ - Nottm Signft Whole Chng Satisfaction with the way the Council runs things 36% 49% +13 54% Y % Who are satisfied with their local area as a place to live 71% 80% +9 68% N % Who are not satisfied with their local area as a place to live 12% 11% -1 19% N % Who feel their neighbourhood has got better in the last 2 - 6% - 13% n/a years % Who feel their neighbourhood has got worse in the last 2 - 38% - 36% n/a years % Who are satisfied with Nottingham as whole as a place to 59% 65% +6 70% N live % Who are not satisfied with Nottingham as whole as a place 21% 12% -9 16% Y to live Feel safe in the city centre in the day 76% 91% +15 89% Y Feel safe in the city centre after dark 30% 26% -4 32% N Feel safe in the local neighbourhood in the day 94% 95% +1 90% N Feel safe in the local neighbourhood after dark 60% 60% - 46% n/a Sense of belonging to local neighb ourhood 66% 76% +10 Y Sense of belonging to Nottingham City 72% 70% -2 78% N % Who agree that people from different ethnic backgrounds 72% 77% +5 70% N that get on well together % Who agree that their area is a place where people respect 75% 79% +4 69% N ethnic differences % Who say that by working together local residents can 54% 46% -8 55% N influence decisions affecting their local area % Who agree that they can personally influence decisions 21% 28% +7 52% N affecting their neighbourhood % Who feel noisy neighbours or loud parties are a very/fairly 16% 4% -12 17% Y problem in their local neighbourhood % Who feel teenagers hanging around on the streets are a 37% 25% -12 43% Y very/fairly problem in their local neighbourhood % Who feel vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to 39% 22% -17 42% Y property or vehicles is a very/fairly problem in their local neighbourhood % Who feel people being attacked because of their skin 10% 4% -6 14% Y colour, ethnic origins or religion is a very/fairly problem in their local neighbourhood % Who feel people using or dealing drugs is a very/fairly 17% 11% -6 37% N problem in their local neighbourhood % Who feel people being drunk and rowdy in public places is a 20% 6% -14 28% Y very/fairly problem in their local neighbourhood % Who feel people sleeping rough on the streets or in other 6% 3% -3 11% N public places is a problem in their local neighbourhood % Who feel rubbish and litter lying around is a very/fairly 36% 22% -14 49% Y problem in their local neighbourhood % Who feel abandoned or burnt out cars are a very/fairly 12% 5% -7 18% Y problem in their local neighbourhood % Who feel people are being attacked because of their - 2% - 9% n/a disability is a problem in their local neighbourhood % Who feel people being attacked because of their sexual 4% 2% -2 8% Y orientation is a very/fairly problem in their local neighbourhood

4.2 Positive Aspects of life in Area 7

4.3 Respondents across the City where asked what where the positive aspects about life in Nottingham, the following table provides the top 5 aspects for Area 7 residents:

1 Shops 47% 2 Transport 30% 3= Quiet Area 23% 3= Health Centres 23% 5 Appearance 22%

4.4 Priorities for improving life in Area 7

4.5 Respondents across the City where asked what should the priorities be for improving life in Nottingham, the following table provides the top 5 aspects for Area 7 residents:

1 Safety/Crime 50% 2 Affordable homes 33% 3 Better schools 30% 4 Reducing litter 22% 5 Better Recycling 20%

4.7 When looking at perceived Anti Social Behaviour; Area 7 residents were consistently the lowest Area across the City saying that individual ASB issues were a problem. Crime or anti -social Lowest scoring area (and Highest scoring area (and behaviour % saying is a problem) % saying is a problem) Noisy neighbours or loud Area 7 (4%) Area 8 (26%) parties Teenagers hanging around Area 7 (25%) Area 2 (54%) street Vandalism or graffiti Area 7 (22%) Area 8 (47%) People being attacked for Area 7 (4%) Areas 4 (24%) their skin colour/ethnic origin People using or dealing in Area 7 (11%) Area 6 (53%) drugs People being drunk or Area 7 (6%) Area 8 (47%) rowdy People sleeping rough on Area 7 (3%) Areas 4 (23%) the streets Rubbish or litter lying Area 7 (22%) Area 8 (65%) around Abandoned or burnt out Area 7 (5%) Area 1 (26%) cars People being attacked Area 7 (2%) Area 4 (14%) because of their disability People being attacked Area 7 (2%) Area 8 (13%) because of their sexual orientation 5.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS None

6.0 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS None.

7 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPLICATIONS The consideration of residents feed back in the planning and delivering of services will ensure that the council meets the needs of all its residents.

10 List of background papers other than published works or those disclosing confidential or exempt information Area Performance Monitoring file.

11 Published documents referred to in compiling this report None.

Tony McGovern Chief Risk Officer The Guildhall South Sherwood Street Nottingham NG1 4BT Telephone number: 0115-915-4225 Email address: [email protected]

Contact Officers Shahid Sharif Service Manager Customer & Information Services Telephone number: 9154549 Email address: [email protected] WARDS AFFECTED: ALL OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 16 FEBRUARY 2006

REPORT OF CHIEF RISK OFFICER

NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL RESIDENTS SURVEY 2005

1.0 SUMMARY

1.1 The report highlights the key citywide results of the 2 nd Market and Opinion Research International (Mori) Resident Survey undertaken in October/November 2005. It provides robust data down to Area level that reflects the perceptions of city residents on key quality of life, corporate and service satisfaction measures and access to services.

2.0 MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

2.1 The committee is asked to: − Receive the Key Findings report − Note the progress made on satisfaction percentage figures across the council − Note that Departments will analyse the data presented by Mori and integrate them into their service planning processes for 2006/2007 − Note that information from the survey is to be used to develop the Community Plan. − Request that area co-ordinators and appropriate council officers take a report of the findings to each Area Committee to consider the issues of concern identified for each Area.

3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

3.1 Nottingham City Council, like other local authorities has a statutory obligation to undertake a Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) General Satisfaction Survey every 3 years; the last survey was undertaken in 2003. To allow for the annual tracking of satisfaction figures and quality of life indicators Mori were commissioned in 2004 to undertake a “Gap Year” Residents surveys

3.2 In October/November 2005 2,033 City residents took part in a “Gap Year” survey. The Council worked in partnership with One Nottingham who wished to engage city residents as part of the safer and stronger communities strand of Neighbourhood Renewal, focussing on local communities quality of life.

3.3 A separate report will be produced by Mori for One Nottingham and made available to Nottingham City Council it will examine the findings in greater detail with respect to the six most deprived wards in the City (i.e. St Anns, Aspley, , Arboretum, Bridge and Bestwood), Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF) Super Output Areas and the main Black Minority Ethnic (BME) categories.

3.4 The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) recently published a report ‘Improving Delivery of Mainstream Services in Deprived Areas – the role of community involvement’; this report demonstrated the importance of involving the community in all stages of service provision and improvement. Consultations such as this survey are crucial in improving services, especially in deprived areas. . The findings of this report and similar future consultation exercises will provide invaluable data to help improve services to meet the needs of local communities, in line with the Councils’ Strategic Plan.

3.5 The framework for corporate assessment as outlined in the Audit Commissions “CPA (Comprehensive Performance Assessment) – the harder test” National Report (June 2005) highlighted a clear requirement for local councils to have effective and co- ordinated consultation, whose outcomes are used in the decision-making processes to develop services

3.6 It is also worth noting that this survey deals with residents’ perceptions at the time the survey was conducted rather than facts . Residents’ perceptions, therefore, may not accurately represent the level and quality of services that are currently provided in Nottingham. Indeed, one of the challenges will be to link these perceptions with other data that is available, for example, performance indicators or other measurements of service quality.

4 SUPPORTING INFORMATION - KEY FINDINGS

4.1 Overall there is an upward trend in satisfaction figures in comparison with the 2004 Residents Survey. Appendix one provides a comparison table, along with Appendix Two that provides top line findings on key areas.

4.2 Feelings of Safety – In 2005 89% (+6) feel safe in the city centre during the day and 32% (+4) feel safe in the city centre after dark

4.3 Although Residents generally feel safer than they did in 2004; there are some important sub-group differences of which to take note. For example, council and housing association tenants are more likely to feel unsafe in their area after dark (64%). A possible explanation for this maybe that historically, council housing is located in the more disadvantaged areas of the city, these same areas often experience increased levels of crime, therefore, it is wholly reasonable to assume that the tenants in these areas would report feeling unsafe.

4.4 Sense of Belonging –The sense of belonging to Nottingham City has shown a significant increase from 74% in 2004 to 78% in 2005

4.5 Just over two-thirds (68%) of residents say they are satisfied with their local neighbourhood as a place to live. Conversely almost one in five (19%) of Nottingham’s residents are not satisfied with their local neighbourhood. The level of satisfaction with neighbourhoods is fairly low in Nottingham compared to other authorities Mori have surveyed in recent years.

4.6 Anti-Social Behaviour - The extent to which different sorts of anti-social behaviours are seen as problems in local areas have largely remained the same since 2004. Teenagers hanging around on the streets, vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles and people using or dealing drugs are most likely to be seen as very or fairly big problems in the local area (43%, 42% and 37% respectively see each as a problem). However, in 2005, rubbish and litter lying around is the key issue, with just under half (49%) of residents saying it is a very or fairly big problem.

4.7 These figures are significantly higher that the figures reported through the last Anti Social Behaviour telephone survey undertaken by the Council in September 05, caution must be taken when trying to compare the findings of these surveys as a different methodology was used for each and the telephone survey was a more in- depth survey around anti-social behaviour perceptions and experiences.

4.8 Community Cohesion - In 2005 70% (+5) agree that people from different ethnic backgrounds get on well together. 69% (+6) also agree that their area is a place where people respect ethnic differences.

4.9 Just over half 55% (+9) say that by working together local residents can influence decisions affecting the local area. Residents are again least positive about their ability to change things on their own. Over half (52%) disagree that they can personally influence decisions affecting their neighbourhood, but again this proportion has decreased significantly since 2004 (58%), indicating that residents are beginning to feel more empowered.

4.10 Quality Of Life - In 2005, 70% (+5) report they are satisfied with the quality of life in Nottingham.

4.11 Corporate Image. Encouragingly satisfaction with Nottingham City Council has increased significantly over the last year rising to 54% (+5) of residents who are satisfied with the way the city council runs things.

4.12 There is most agreement that the quality of Council services is good overall. While fewer think the Council provides good value for money, this figure has in fact increased significantly from 2004, which is positive given the growing media coverage around possible levels of council tax increases. Value for money is dramatically increasing in importance on the Whitehall policy agenda and this has been made explicit in much of the literature produced in the last 12 months. Therefore the Council needs to focus on being able to demonstrate that we provide value for money in its services

4.13 Contact with the Council - As in 2004, half of Nottingham residents say they have contacted Nottingham City Council in the last year. Of those residents who have contacted the council in the last twelve months 73% (+3) say that Council staff are helpful and able to deal with their query. The proportion of those contacting the council who see staff as efficient has risen to 64% (+4).

4.14 Nottingham City Council’s staff ratings still have some way to go compared with the best-rated councils from recent MORI surveys. Ratings of helpfulness and efficiency of staff are below the average for other similar authorities. The adoption of the Customer Transformation Strategy will enable the Council to improve in all aspects of customer contact/care.

4.15 Importantly the satisfaction with the final outcome of the contact has remained unchanged. Just over half are satisfied (56%), while over a third are dissatisfied (37%). The level of dissatisfaction is too high, and measures to address this need to be identified and implemented as part of the Customer Services Transformation Strategy particularly dealing with customer enquiries and complaints; as satisfaction with Nottingham City Council is over twice as high among those who report being satisfied with the final outcome of their enquiry.

4.16 Information Provision. The 2005 survey shows that the information provision by Nottingham City Council is improving. Almost half 46% (+10) saying they feel well informed by the Council about the services it provides. However, there is still work to be done as more still say they are only given a limited amount of information or that the Council does not tell them much at all about what it does, and Nottingham sits in the bottom quarter of similar authorities studied by MORI.

4.17 Recycling - Ratings of kerbside recycling and ‘bring’ recycling have both increased significantly to 68% (+10) and 71% (+7) respectfully. In 2005, rubbish and litter lying around remains a key issue, with just under half 49% (same as in 2004) of residents saying it is a very or fairly big problem.

4.18 Refuse - Three-quarters (76%) are satisfied with refuse collection this satisfaction level is below similar Mori surveys for this service.

4.19 Sport facilities have a higher proportion of satisfied users than was the case last year 72% (+7). For this service, it is also important to look at patterns of usage across the key socio-economic groups. Usage falls away quite dramatically with age and social grade and is lower in the most deprived parts of Nottingham such as St Anns and the Dales and Bulwell and Bulwell Forest.

4.20 Libraries have maintained their positive rating of 87% satisfied, a score that places the authority near to the top of the table of results from like authorities in which Mori have asked the same question. Museums and Galleries - Over the past twelve months, satisfaction with museums and galleries has also increased from 68% satisfied to 76% satisfied

4.21 Services in general – Area 3 (Aspley, Leen Valley and ) feature most prominently in the lists of lowest levels of service satisfaction , appearing in 16 out of the 24 service areas asked about. It is advisable that service satisfaction figures are analysed at an area level to see if any patterns can be established.

4.22 What makes Nottingham a Good Place to Live? - Residents are still most likely to mention the high standard and convenience of local shopping 50% (+3) as what makes Nottingham a good place to live. It would be desirable if respondents could comment on how good the councils schools are (11%) or that there’s a feeling of safety in the local community (13%)

4.23 And what causes Dissatisfaction? - Issues relating to crime and anti-social behaviour again feature prominently. Two-thirds 66% mention too much crime when asked why they are dissatisfied. Encouragingly though, the situation has improved falling by eight percentage points since 2004 (74%). This is a significant decrease; further comparisons need to be made with national figures and Police crime figures.

4.24 IMPLICATIONS AND ACTIONS

4.25 There is much that is positive to take from this survey. On key measures such as information provision and overall corporate image, Nottingham City Council has improved over the past twelve months. Some aspects of customer care have also improved. It is important for the Council to understand the complex factors that impact on customer perception of, and satisfaction with, its services

4.26 The findings are instructive in the Nottingham context as they show the fundamental importance of getting customer care right, as well as the need to influence media coverage.

4.27 The council needs to build on the trends of improvement highlighted within the Mori survey and further analyse the trends where satisfaction is low or declining.

4.28 The Council need to concentrate on communicating to residents’ positive messages around value for money and quality of service provision, as well as the need to take account of deprivation and ethnic diversity of the population. The report will be forwarded to the Communications Department for comment and action.

4.29 Deprivation needs to be targeted by getting basic services right such as refuse collection and street cleansing which directly impact on ‘liveability’ (i.e. quality of life) in specific areas of the City. While the situation in areas such as St Ann’s and the Dales has improved, there are still large gaps between local residents’ perceptions and those of others living in places like Wollaton and Lenton Abbey that need to be closed.

4.30 Working with other agencies in the local strategic partnership to reduce incidence of crime and anti-social behaviour will also be important in improving residents’ quality of life and their perceptions of public services.

4.31 There has been a positive shift in opinion around safety in the town centre the challenge is to replicate this change - unobtrusively - in local areas. Local area working underpins the main recommendations.

4.32 Equitable service delivery and diversity needs to be continuous and become an important goal for the council.

4.33 Appendix Two is the Key Findings report from Mori

5 LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS OTHER THAN PUBLISHED WORKS OR THOSE DISCLOSING EXEMPT OR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

5.1 None

6 PUBLISHED DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN COMPILING THIS REPORT

6.1 Nottingham City Council Residents Survey 2005 – Mori 6.2 Improving Delivery of Mainstream Services in Deprived Areas – The Role of Community Involvement - ODPM.

Tony McGovern Chief Risk Officer The Guildhall South Sherwood Street Nottingham NG1 4BT Telephone number: 0115-915-4225 Email address: [email protected]

Contact Officers Shahid Sharif Service Manager Customer & Information Services Telephone number: 9154549 Email address: [email protected]

Appendix One: Key Indicator Comparison Table (2004/2005) 2004 2005 +/- Satisfaction with the way the Council runs things 49% 54% +5 Feel safe in the city centre in the day 83% 89% +6 Feel safe in the city centre after dark 28% 32% +4 Feel safe in the local neighbourhood in the day 89% 90% +1 Feel safe in the local neighbourhood after dark 44% 46% +2 Sense of belonging to Nottingham City 74% 78% +4 % Who are satisfied with their local area as a place to live 66% 68% +2 % Who are not satisfied with their local area as a place to live 19% 19% - % Who feel their neighbourhood has got better in the last 2 years - 13% - % Who feel their neighbourhood has got worse in the last 2 years - 36% - % Who are satisfied with Nottingham as whole as a place to live 65% 70% +5 % Who are not satisfied with Nottingham as whole as a place to live 15% 16% +1 % Who agree that people from different ethnic backgrounds that get on well together 65% 70% +5 % Who agree that their area is a place where people respect ethnic differences 63% 69% +6 % Who say that by working together local residents can influence decisions affecting 46% 55% +9 their local area % Who disagree that they can personally influence decisions affecting their 58% 52% -6 neighbourhood % Satisfied with their quality of life in Nottingham 65% 70% +5 % Who feel they are well informed by the Council about services it provides 36% 46% +10 % Who said rubbish and litter is a very/fairly big problem 49% 49% - % Users satisfied with (bring) recycling (n = 757) 64% 71% +7 % Users satisfied with kerbside recycling 58% 68% +10 % Users satisfied with Local Tip (n = 667) 73% 75% +2 % Users satisfied with refuse collection (n = 2,033) - 76% - % Users satisfied Library users (n = 862) 87% 87% - % Users satisfied with the provision of Public Transport Information (n = 606) 78% 78% - % Users satisfied with the local Bus Service (n = 1,452) 80% 81% +1 % Users satisfied with Sport/Leisure facilities and Events (n = 710) 65% 72% +7 % Users satisfied with Museums and Galleries (n = 379) 68% 76% +8 % Users satisfied with Parks and Open Spaces (n = 1,213) 74% 76% +2 % Users satisfied with Community and Youth Services (n = 153) 59% 44% -15* % Users satisfied with Arts and Events (n = 314) 72% 73% +1 % Users satisfied with Fire Service (n = 2,033) - 70% - % Users satisfied with Local Education Authority (n = 484) 74% 70% -4 % Users satisfied with Personal Social Services (n = 168) 74% 63% -9* % Users satisfied with Planning Services (n = 103) 62% 53% -9* % Users satisfied with Housing Services (n = 486) 50% 50% - % Users satisfied with Consumer, food and health protection service (n = 136) - 52%* - % Users satisfied with Environmental Health (n = 255) - 56% - % Users satisfied with Information/advice – Trading Standards, Consumer Advice, - 59%* - Welfare Rights etc (n = 136) % Users satisfied with street cleaning (n = 2,033) - 64% - % Users satisfied with Adult Education (n = 301) - 77% - % Users satisfied with Information/advice/guidance on getting a job (n = 158) - 57%* - % Users satisfied with Local Health Centres (e.g. GP’s, dentists, pharmacists, nurses - 85% - (n = 1,696) (n = number of respondents)

* Caution needs to taken when using this information, as the sample sizes are not high enough to provide statistically significant data.

APPENDIX TWO: KEY FINDINGS REPORT

Nottingham City Council Residents Survey 2005

Introduction and Key Findings

Report Prepared for Nottingham City Council

December 2005 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

Contents

1. Preface 2 2. Detailed Methodology 4 Definition of Social Grades 8 Citizens Panel 9 Publication of Data 9 3. Key Findings 10 Implications 26

1 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

1. Preface Introduction and Background and Objectives This report presents the findings of a residents survey conducted by the MORI Local Government Research Unit on behalf of Nottingham City Council. The principle objectives for the survey are to provide the authority with robust data, which accurately represents the views of the citizen on key quality of life, corporate and service satisfaction measures and access to services. Its purpose is also to provide a useful comparison with, and to build on, the last MORI Residents Survey carried out in 2004.

After this introduction, which includes an explanation of the methodology used, key findings and implications are presented. The main body of the report then covers all of the detailed findings under the following broad headings:

Nottingham as a Place to Live • Satisfaction with local neighbourhoods and Nottingham as a whole as a place to live;

• Reasons for satisfaction and dissatisfaction;

• Residents’ priorities for improving quality of life; and

• Pride in Nottingham;

Community Safety

• Feelings of safety in the daytime and after dark;

• Fear of crime; and

• Perceived problems with anti-social behaviour.

Community Cohesion

• Sense of community identity; and

• How well residents get on together

The Council • Overall satisfaction with the Council;

• Perceptions on improvement at Nottingham City Council; and

• Perceptions around different aspects of image.

2 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

Council Services

• Council service usage; and

• Council service satisfaction.

Contacting the Council

• Perceptions of various aspects of contact experience;

• Satisfaction with final outcome; and

• Preferred means of contacting the City Council.

Transport in Nottingham

• Which modes of transport are used for different journeys; and

• How far people travel for these journeys

A marked-up questionnaire is appended while full computer tabulations are presented under separate cover.

3 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

2. Detailed Methodology Sampling and Fieldwork MORI interviewed a total of 2,033 residents aged 18+ in 260 randomly selected output areas (OAs) across the Nottingham City Council area. All OAs within the City Council area were sorted by ward and then ranked by demographic type (social class), with individual sampling points then selected at random.

Within each OA, interviewer quotas were set to reflect the population profile of that neighbourhood by age, gender, working status and ethnicity, using the latest 2001 Census data. At the analysis stage, data were weighted to the known population profile of the City Council area.

Fieldwork was conducted, face-to-face and in-home, between 15th October and 20 th November 2005. Each interview lasted for about 25 minutes and they were carried out using MORI’s own field force.

Presentation and Interpretation of Data A further explanation of statistical reliability is appended, but it should be remembered at all times that a sample, rather than the entire population of Nottingham residents, has taken part in the survey. As a consequence, all results are subject to sampling tolerances, which means that not all differences are significant. Overall results are accurate to +2% (assuming a 95% confidence interval). When comparing changes over time between the 2004 and 2005 surveys we should look for differences of +3% in order to conclude that a significant change has taken place.

Reference in this report is made to “net figures”. This represents the balance of opinion on attitudinal questions and provides a particularly useful means of comparing the results for a number of variables. In the case of a “net agree” figure, this represents the percentage who agree with a particular statement less the percentage who disagree. For example, if a statement records 40% agree (i.e. strongly/tend to agree) and 25% disagree (strongly/tend to disagree), then the net figure is +15 points.

Where percentages do not sum to 100, this may be due to computer rounding, the exclusion of “don’t know” categories, or multiple answers. Throughout the volume an asterisk (*) denotes any value less than half a per cent.

4 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

Understanding the Local Population For this report individual wards in the Nottingham City area have been grouped together by Committee Areas in order to make analysis by area possible. The groupings of wards within Committee Areas are defined by Nottingham City Council. The Committee Area profiles shown in this section and throughout the report closely match the 2001 Census data for the Nottingham City Council area.

The chart below indicates that the age profile of the Committee Areas vary, which reflects the high proportion of students in some areas. The areas with the youngest population profiles are Area 8 (Dunkirk, Lenton & Bridge) and Area 4 (Berridge, Arboretum & Radford and Park), while the areas with the oldest population are Area 1 (Bulwell & Bulwell Forest) and Area 7 (Wollaton & Lenton Abbey).

Age profile by committee area

18-24 25-34 35-54 55-64 65+

Overall 20 20 31 11 18

Area 1 (Bulwell and Bulwell 9 15 33 16 26 Forest)

Area 2 (Basford and 13 20 35 13 18 Bestwood)

Area 3 (Aspley, Leen V and 12 21 36 10 21 B’bgh)

Area 4 (Berridge, Arb, Radford & 41 20 25 6 9 Prk)

Area 5 (Sherwood and ) 16 24 34 11 16

Area 6 (St Ann’s and the 17 25 31 10 17 Dales)

Area 7 (Wollaton and Lenton 13 20 29 11 27 Abbey)

Area 8 (Dunkirk, Lenton and 45 16 19 9 11 Bridge)

Area 9 (Clifton and ) 10 18 36 14 22

Base: 2,033 Nottingham residents aged 16+, interviewed 15 th October – 20 th November 2005 Source: MORI

5 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

There are also variations by social class in these areas. For a full definition of the grading system used for social class throughout this report, please see page 8. Area 4 (Berridge, Arboretum & Radford and Park), 5 (Sherwood & Mapperley), 7 (Wollaton & Lenton Abbey) and 8 (Dunkirk, Lenton & Bridge) clearly have the highest proportion of ABC1s.

On the other hand, Area 3 (Aspley, Leen Valley & Bilborough), 6 (St Ann’s & The Dales), 2 (Basford & Bestwood), 9 (Clifton & Wilford), and 1 (Bulwell & Bulwell Forest) all contain high proportions of C2DEs.

Social grade profile by committee area

ABC1 C2DE

Overall 44 56

Area 1 (Bulwell and Bulwell 36 64 Forest)

Area 2 (Basford and 34 66 Bestwood)

Area 3 (Aspley, Leen V and 26 73 B’bgh)

Area 4 (Berridge, Arb, Radford & 59 41 Prk)

Area 5 (Sherwood and Mapperley) 58 42

Area 6 (St Ann’s and the 34 66 Dales)

Area 7 (Wollaton and Lenton 60 39 Abbey)

Area 8 (Dunkirk, Lenton and 54 46 Bridge)

Area 9 (Clifton and Wilford) 36 65

Base: 2,033 Nottingham residents aged 16+, interviewed 15 th October – 20 th November 2005 Source: MORI

6 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

Some areas of Nottingham have a fairly high proportion of BME residents, and in particular Areas 4 (Berridge, Arboretum & Radford and Park), 3 (Aspley, Leen Valley & Bilborough) and 6 (St Ann’s and The Dales). Areas 1 (Bulwell & Bulwell Forest) and 9 (Clifton & Wilford), on the other hand, are predominantly white.

Ethnicity profile by committee area

White BME

Overall 85 14

Area 1 (Bulwell and Bulwell 94 5 Forest)

Area 2 (Basford and 87 12 Bestwood)

Area 3 (Aspley, Leen V and 83 16 B’bgh)

Area 4 (Berridge, Arb, Radford & 75 23 Prk)

Area 5 (Sherwood and Mapperley) 88 11

Area 6 (St Ann’s and the 82 15 Dales)

Area 7 (Wollaton and Lenton 83 11 Abbey)

Area 8 (Dunkirk, Lenton and 76 12 Bridge)

Area 9 (Clifton and Wilford) 95 2

Base: 2,033 Nottingham residents aged 16+, interviewed 15 th October – 20 th November 2005 Source: MORI

7 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

Definition of Social Grades In this report we also make reference to the social class or social grade of respondents. These are the social class definitions used by the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising. These groups are standard on all surveys carried out by Market & Opinion Research International Limited, and are described in the table below.

Social C lass Occupation of Chief Income Earner

A Upper Middle Class Higher managerial, administrative or professional

B Middle Class Intermediate managerial, administrative or professional

C1 Lower Middle Class Supervisor or clerical and junior managerial, administrative or professional

C2 Skilled Working Class Skilled manual workers

D Working Class Semi and unskilled manual workers

E Those at the lowest State pensioners, etc, with no other levels of subsistence earnings

Normative Data and Comparisons Where possible, comparisons are made to normative data, collected from surveys carried out by MORI for authorities of a similar type, or providing the same type of service. It should be remembered that these data represent surveys carried out by MORI alone and do not represent a full league table. They do however, provide useful comparisons which can be used to provide context to results presented in this report.

Measuring Perceptions It is also worth pointing out that this survey deals with residents’ perceptions at the time the survey was conducted rather than facts . Residents’ perceptions, therefore, may not accurately represent the level and quality of services that are currently provided in Nottingham. Indeed, one of the challenges will be to link these perceptions with other data that is available, for example, performance indicators or other measurements of service quality.

8 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

Citizens Panel The survey also provided the opportunity to re-open recruitment of a new Citizens Panel for Nottingham City Council that was begun in 2004 - a standing panel of residents who are willing to take part in future research and consultation. A total of 385 survey participants agreed to join the Citizens’ Panel in 2004 and a further 489 agreed as a result of the 2005 survey.

Acknowledgements MORI would like to thank Shahid Sharif and Tony Leafe at Nottingham City Council for their help and advice in developing this project. Special thanks also go to the 2,033 residents who took part in this survey.

Publication of Data As the City Council has engaged MORI to provide an objective and representative programme of research, it is important to protect the Council’s interests by ensuring that it is accurately reflected in any press release or publication of the findings. As part of our standard terms and conditions, the publication of the data in this report is therefore subject to the advance approval of MORI. This would only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misinterpretation of the findings.

9 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

3. Key Findings Community Life Quality of Life Just over two-thirds (68%) of residents say they are satisfied with their local neighbourhood as a place to live . This is a slight, but not statistically significant, increase on the 2004 figure. There is still room for improvement though. The level of satisfaction with neighbourhoods is fairly low in Nottingham compared to other authorities MORI has surveyed in recent years.

Drilling down to committee area level , residents of Nottingham’s most deprived area (Area 6 - St Ann’s and The Dales) are least likely to express satisfaction with their neighbourhood as a place to live. This was the case in 2004, but this year’s satisfaction score of 60% represents an improvement on the score of 49% recorded at this time.

The following scatter chart looks more closely at how area characteristics are related to satisfaction with neighbourhoods . Net satisfaction with local areas is plotted on the vertical axis, while deprivation is plotted on the horizontal axis. The further up the horizontal axis an area is, the more satisfied residents are with their quality of life, while areas found further to the right of the chart are more deprived (as recorded in the ODPM’s Index of Multiple Deprivation). The line of best fit represents the statistical relationship between the two variables. If an area is above the line, then residents are more satisfied than they should be given the level of deprivation. Similarly, if an area is found below the line, then residents are less satisfied than they should be, given the recorded level of deprivation.

Satisfaction with area versus IMD: ward areas in Nottingham

Net satisfaction with area (+%) 90

80 Wollaton and Lenton Abbey Clifton and 70 Wilford Dunkirk, Lenton and Bridge Bulwell and 60 Bulwell Forest Sherwood and Mapperley 50 Nottingham Basford and Bestwood 40 2005 Berridge, Arboretum, Aspley, Leen 30 Radford & Park Valley and St Ann’s and the Dales 2 Bilborough R = 0.8102 20

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Deprivation Score (IMD 2004) Base: 2,033 Nottingham residents aged 18+, interviewed 15 October – 20 November 2005 Source: MORI

10 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

Satisfaction in Area 9 (Clifton & Wilford) is higher than we might expect, given the score this area receives in the ODPM’s Index of Multiple Deprivation. However, with a score falling below the line of best fit, residents of Area 4 (Berridge, Arboretum & Radford and Park) are perhaps less satisfied than we might expect. Residents in Area 6 (St Ann’s & the Dales) live in the most deprived area, and their satisfaction is in line with what we would expect it to be.

Community Safety Residents generally feel safer than they did in 2004 . As the chart below shows, whilst more feel unsafe than safe in Nottingham and in their local neighbourhood after dark, the situation is improving. Here though, there are some important sub-group differences of which to take note . For example, council and housing association tenants are more likely to feel unsafe in their area after dark (64%).

Feeling Safe

Q How safe do you feel in…? % safe – change % A bit/very unsafe % Very/fairly safe +/- from 2004

This neighbourhood in the day 10% 90% +1

Nottingham City Centre in the day 10% 89% +6

This neighbourhood after dark 54% 46% +2

Nottingham City Centre after dark 67% 32% +4

Base: 2,033 Nottingham residents aged 18+, interviewed 15 th October – 20 th November 2005 Source: MORI

Looking at findings by area, residents in the most affluent parts of Nottingham (Area 7 (Wollaton & Lenton Abbey), and Area 9 (Clifton & Wilford) feel safest in their neighbourhood. Feelings of safety are lowest among residents of Area 4 (Berridge, Arboretum & Radford and Park). Perhaps surprisingly, given its affluence (third after Area 7 and Area 9), feelings of safety in Area 5 (Sherwood & Mapperley) are comparatively lower than in other areas. In the past year, Area 6 (St Ann’s & the Dales) has shown significant improvement and feelings of safety are now above what we would expect, given the relatively high level of deprivation in that area.

11 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

Feelings of Safety in more deprived areas

Very/fairly safe 100 2 Clifton and Dunkirk, Lenton R = 0.3688 Wollaton and Wilford and Bridge Lenton Abbey 95 Bulwell and Bulwell Forest Aspley, Leen Valley and 90 Bilborough Nottingham St Ann’s and the Dales Sherwood and 85 Mapperley Berridge, Arboretum, Basford and Radford & Park 80 Bestwood

75 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Deprivation Score (IMD 2004) Base: 2,033 Nottingham residents aged 18+, interviewed 15 October – 20 November 2005 Source: MORI

Anti-Social Behaviour The extent to which different sorts of anti-social behaviours are seen as problems in local areas have largely remained the same since 2004. Teenagers hanging around on the streets , vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles and people using or dealing drugs are most likely to be seen as very or fairly big problems in the local area (43%, 42% and 37% respectively see each as a problem). However, in 2005, rubbish and litter lying around is the key issue, with just under half (49%) of residents saying it is a very or fairly big problem.

12 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

We can compare these concerns with the national picture by referring to the British Crime Survey, which shows that Nottingham residents perceive the below antisocial behaviours to be more of a problem in their area compared to residents nationally.

Nottingham 2005 BCS 2004/5 % saying very/fairly big % saying very/fairly big problem problem Rubbish/litter 49 30 lying around Teenagers 43 31 hanging around street Vandalism or 42 28 graffiti People using or 37 26 dealing in drugs People being 28 22 dunk or rowdy Abandoned or 18 12 burnt out cars Noisy 17 9 neighbours or loud parties

The chart below indicates national trends in perceptions of these antisocial behaviours measured by the BCS. The proportion of adults perceiving abandoned or burnt-out cars to be a problem in their area has fallen since 2003/04, with only half as many people perceiving this a problem as in 2002/03. The proportion perceiving people being drunk or rowdy in public places has increased over the last year, from 19 to 22 per cent, and the proportion perceiving teenagers hanging around on the streets to be a problem has also increased from 27 to 31 per cent.

13 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

Anti-social behaviour – Trends from the British Crime Survey

Abandoned cars Noisy neighbours People being drunk People using drugs Teenagers hanging around Rubbish Vandalism 40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 Base: 32,824 (2001/02), 36,450 (2002/03), 37,891 (2003/04) 45,069 (2004/05) Source: MORI

Again, the need to work carefully to the needs of local communities is evident . Most types of antisocial behaviour are considered to be more of a problem by residents in Area 6 (St Ann’s & the Dales), Area 4 (Berridge, Arboretum & Radford and Park) Area 8 (Dunkirk, Lenton & Bridge). Meanwhile, people using or dealing drugs is perceived to be a particular problem in Area 6, and rubbish and litter is most likely to be considered a problem by residents in Area 8 (Dunkirk, Lenton & Bridge).

The table below though, illustrates the width of the gap between areas in the degree to which local residents perceive key anti-social behaviours to be problems.

14 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

Crime or anti -social Lowest scoring area Highest scoring area behaviour (and % saying is a (and % saying is a problem) problem) Noisy neighbours or Area 7 (4%) Area 8 (26%) loud parties Teenagers hanging Area 7 (25%) Area 2 (54%) around street Vandalism or graffiti Area 7 (22%) Area 8 (47%) People being attacked Area 7 (4%) Areas 4 (24%) for their skin colour/ethnic origin People using or Area 7 (11%) Area 6 (53%) dealing in drugs People being drunk or Area 7 (6%) Area 8 (47%) rowdy People sleeping Area 7 (3%) Areas 4 (23%) rough on the streets Rubbish or litter lying Area 7 (22%) Area 8 (65%) around Abandoned or burnt Area 7 (5%) Area 1 (26%) out cars People being attacked Area 7 (2%) Area 4 (14%) because of their disability People being attacked Area 7 (2%) Area 8 (13%) because of their sexual orientation

Community Cohesion and Getting Involved Affinity with the country as a whole has remained strongest and increased slightly since 2004. Just under nine in ten (88%) saying they feel they belong to Britain. A sign that the rebranding of the city is working, sense of belonging to Nottingham City has shown a significant increase from 74% in 2004 to 78% this year.

The sense of belonging to local neighbourhoods has remained the same since 2004 (69%). This affinity is highest among residents of Area 9 (Clifton & Wilford), Area 1 Bulwell & Bulwell Forest) and Area 2 (Basford & Bestwood) (all 78%). Meanwhile, residents of Area 8 (Dunkirk, Lenton & Bridge) have the lowest sense of belonging with both the city as a whole and their local neighbourhood. However, this area has also shown the largest increase since 2004.

Perceptions of community harmony have improved since 2004 :

15 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

• Just under seven in ten (69%) of residents agree that the area in which they live is a place where residents respect ethnic differences, representing a significant positive shift from 2004 (66%).

• A slightly higher proportion of seven in ten (70%) agree that people from different ethnic backgrounds get on well with together in their neighbourhood. The increase in residents saying this in comparison to 2004 is also higher to the tune of five percentage points.

When considering the influence that they have over decisions that affect their local area, residents are less positive . Just over half (55%) say that by working together local residents can influence decisions affecting the local area. This result is a significant improvement on the proportion of residents saying the same last year (46% agree). Residents are again least positive about their ability to change things on their own. Over half (52%) disagree that they can personally influence decisions affecting their neighbourhood, but again this proportion has decreased significantly since 2004, indicating that residents are beginning to feel more empowered.

16 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

When comparing these results to the 2003 Home Office Citizenship Survey – a nationally representative survey of 9,486 adults in and Wales – we can see that Nottingham residents feel less empowered than people in England and Wales generally and also feel less community cohesion 1.

Nottingha m 2005 Citizenship Survey 2003 % agree % disagree % agree % disagree I feel I can 24 52 38 62 personally influence decisions affecting my neighbourhood/area This neighbourhood 70 12 80 20 is a place where people from different backgrounds can get on well together This neighbourhood 69 10 79 21 is a place where residents respect ethnic differences between people

The City We have already examined perceptions of local areas. Now we broaden out our work to look at perceptions of the city

Satisfaction with Nottingham as a whole and Advocacy In 2005, seven in ten (70%) report they are satisfied with the quality of life in Nottingham . Positively, this score has increased from that recorded in 2004 (65%). Further, the majority of Nottingham residents are advocates of Nottingham as a whole . In fact, almost one in five (17%) say they would speak highly of Nottingham without being asked. The same proportion of 17% would be critical, but only 4% would do so unprompted.

Residents of Area 2 (Basford & Bestwood) are most positive (61% are advocates) and residents of Area 1 (Bulwell & Bulwell Forest) are most likely to be negative (23% are critics of Nottingham).

Perceptions among local residents on how outsiders view Nottingham are more negative . A third (33%) believe non-Nottingham residents would be

1 W e must, however, treat this com parison with som e caution, given that there is no neither agree nor disagree option in the Citizenship Survey, which will lead to a higher proportion of responses allocated across the agree/disagree categories.

17 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005 critical, compared to 29% who think they would be positive about the city. These findings indicate that advocacy is not simply influenced by their own quality of life and also that residents think that those on the outside looking in a more likely to make negative than positive connections with the city.

What makes Nottingham a Good Place to Live? Amongst those who say they are satisfied with Nottingham as a place to live, most are likely to mention the high standard and convenience of local shopping (50% do so, compared to 47% in 2004). Again following patterns recorded in 2004, good public transport is also seen as a positive aspect of life in Nottingham.

Reasons for satisfaction with Nottingham Q Please give up to five reasons why you say you are satisfied with Nottingham as a place to live? % change +/- from % mentioning each 2004 50% Shops close by/good shops +3 32% Good public transport 0 18% Appearance of area -3 16% Good/no problems generally -6 Local health services 16% n/a Quiet area 13% +2 11% Good schools -3 11% +1 Good local services 8% Clean/tidy/street cleanliness +1 Base: All 1,413 Nottingham residents aged 16+, satisfied with the area Source: MORI

Residents of Area 2 (Basford & Bestwood), and Area 4 (Berridge, Arboretum & Radford and Park) are, relatively speaking, more likely to point to transport as a reason for satisfaction. Residents living in Area 3 (Aspley, Leen Valley & Bilborough), Area 8 (Dunkirk, Lenton & Bridge) and Area 6 (St Ann’s & the Dales) are all less likely than residents in other areas to mention positive aspects of life in Nottingham.

And what causes Dissatisfaction? As was the case last year, issues relating to crime and anti-social behaviour feature prominently among reasons given for dissatisfaction with quality of life in the city. As the chart below shows, two-thirds (66%) mention too much crime when asked why they are dissatisfied. Encouragingly though, the situation has improved. This figure has fallen by eight percentage points since last year. The proportion mentioning that the area is dirty or untidy has also decreased by six percentage points to 18% in 2005.

18 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

Reasons for dissatisfaction with Nottingham Q Please give up to five reasons why you say you are dissatisfied with Nottingham as a place to live? % change +/- from % mentioning each 2004 Too much crime 66% -8

Unruly youths/children 32% +3

Poor policing 25% -1

Vandalism 21% -2

Dirtiness/untidiness 18% -6

Council tax too high 8% 0

Generally dissatisfied 7% -2 Council wastes money 7% +2

Base: All 321 Nottingham residents aged 16+, dissatisfied with the area Source: MORI

Drivers of dissatisfaction are also seen in residents’ priorities for the City Council and partners in the next few years . Improving safety in communities and combating crime is again the most urgent perceived priority for Nottingham City Council. However, the extent to which residents feel this way has decreased significantly since 2004 from 57% to 51%.

An exception to a more general fall in priorities is again in the area of crime and anti-social behaviour. Selected by 26% of respondents, dealing with nuisance neighbours is fourth on the list of priorities . This figure has increased since 2004 when dealing with problem neighbours was selected by 19%.

Attitudes towards Nottingham City Council Overall Satisfaction More than twice as many Nottingham residents are satisfied with Nottingham City Council (54%) than are dissatisfied (20%). Encouragingly, satisfaction with Nottingham City Council has increased over the last year when 49% recorded their satisfaction with the way the authority runs things.

19 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

The chart below shows how Nottingham compares with MORI’s national omnibus rating on this measure. As can be seen, the City Council’s net satisfaction score has improved relative to the national measure, but is still a little way below the aggregate (net) scores as measured in the last round of BVPI general user surveys. This is in spite of the fact that the BVPI General User Survey aggregate score of 55% satisfied is almost exactly equal to Nottingham City Council’s score in 2005 2.

The picture becomes more complete when we look at normative data from similar authorities in which MORI has worked. In this instance, the City Council’s score in 2005 means that it is moving towards the middle of the comparative data table.

How does Nottingham compare (net satisfaction) Q How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way…. is running . . . . .? Net satisfaction +% 80 70 BVPI 2003 60 (aggregate 50 score for unitaries) 40 National Average 30 MORI Omnibus Nottingham 20 10 Latest score (Nov 2005) = 20% net satisfaction 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year surveyed Base: All Source: MORI

But how does the authority perform relative to the local conditions in which it is working? Our Frontiers of Performance III analysis of 2005, which uses statistical modelling to establish whether an authority is achieving realistic public satisfaction levels, given a mixture of local circumstances such as deprivation, ethnic fractionalisation and council spend, shows that Nottingham City Council’s satisfaction score (this time from the 2003-2004 BVPI General User Survey) is in line with predictions generated by the model. Just shy of half (48%) said they were satisfied with the work of the council in this survey, a figure which sits perfectly alongside our own estimation of 47% satisfied.

2 National Topline Results for General User Survey; O D PM ; 2004. Allowance must be made when interpreting this finding, given the different methodologies used – postal survey for BVPIs and a face-to- face survey for Nottingham City Council.

20 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

The following chart provides more specific detail on the effect of deprivation on residents’ satisfaction with local authorities . These data represent areas in which MORI has recently carried out residents surveys. Net satisfaction with local authorities is plotted on the vertical axis, while deprivation is plotted on the horizontal axis. The further up the horizontal axis an area is, the more satisfied residents are with their local authority, while areas found further to the right of the chart are more deprived. The line of best fit represents the statistical relationship between the two variables. If an authority area is above the line, then residents are more satisfied than they should be given the level of deprivation. Similarly, if an area is found below the line, then residents are less satisfied than they should be, given the recorded level of deprivation.

Satisfaction with LA vs Deprivation Score

±% Net satisfaction with LA

70 Leicestershire 65 Hertfordshire Hampshire 60 R2 = 0.3665 55 Dorset 50 Derbyshire 45 40 Nottingham Buckinghamshire 2005 35 30 Surrey Kent 25 Nottingham Norwich 2004 20 Brent Islington 15 Portsmouth 10 Hackney 5 Harlow 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Deprivation Score (IMD 2004) Base: All Source: MORI

As in our Frontiers of Performance III work, there is a limit to how far a local authority can boost satisfaction, no matter how effectively it is operating, because of local circumstance. Encouragingly though, in 2005 Nottingham’s performance is now further above what we might expect given the relative levels of deprivation of the city.

Analysis by area shows that satisfaction is highest in Area 2 (Basford & Bestwood), Area 9 (Clifton & Wilford) and Area 4 (Berridge, Arboretum & Radford and Park) and lowest in Area 3 (Aspley, Leen Valley & Bilborough), Area 8 (Dunkirk, Lenton & Bridge) and in Area 7 (Wollaton & Lenton Abbey).

However, contrary to what MORI typically finds, deprivation levels do not correlate with net satisfaction with the Council in every committee area. Residents in the most affluent area of Nottingham – Area 7 (Wollaton & Lenton Abbey) – are among the least satisfied with the Council which

21 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005 suggests that there may be specific issues fuelling this negativity, or that this area has a population profile which is different enough from that for the city as a whole to affect expectations.

More Detailed Aspects of Image There is most agreement that the quality of Council services is good overall . While fewer think the Council provides good value for money , this figure has infact increased significantly from 2004, which is positive given the growing media coverage around possible levels of council tax increases. Again positive, the proportion of residents who feel that the Council is too remote and impersonal is smaller still and this has decreased in the last year.

The Council’s Image

Q I would like you to tell me, how strongly you agree or disagree with each. % agree: change % Disagree % Agree +/- from 2004

The quality of Council services 16% 57% is good overall +1

The Council gives residents good value for 33% 34% +3 money

The Council is too remote 29% 32% and impersonal -5

Base: 2,033 Nottingham residents aged 16+, interviewed 15 th October – 20 th November 2005 Source: MORI

In the case of the last two measures in particular though, there is still work to be done as opinion is evenly distributed across those who agree and disagree.

Compared with other authorities MORI has surveyed in recent years, the Council’s scores on these measures are about average on overall quality of services, above average on whether the Council is too remote and impersonal, but still below average on providing good value for money.

Information Provision This years’ survey shows that information provision by Nottingham City Council is improving . Almost half (46%) residents feel well informed by Nottingham City Council about the services and benefits it provides. This is a significant improvement on the 2004 result, when just over a third (36%) felt

22 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005 informed. However, there is still work to be done as more still say they are only given a limited amount of information or that the Council does not tell them much at all about what it does, and Nottingham sits in the bottom quarter of similar authorities studied by MORI.

Information provision has been shown to have a strong impact on residents’ satisfaction ratings – residents who feel informed by their authority are typically more satisfied with overall performance than those who do not feel informed. The following scatter chart shows how Nottingham’s performance has improved on both of these measures over the past twelve months as well as the broader relationship as shown through data from other recent local authority studies carried out by MORI.

Satisfaction with Council vs Level of Information

Net satisfaction with Council (+%) 70

60

50

40 Nottingham 2005 30 Nottingham 2004 20

10 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 Net informed (+%) Base: All Source: MORI

Attitudes towards Local Services The following chart shows how the public view services in terms of both:

• Satisfaction (vertical axis - the higher up the chart a service is, the more satisfied residents are with those services); and

• Importance (horizontal axis – the further to the right a service is, the more important it is seen to be).

Therefore, if a service is located in the top right hand quadrant, then it is seen to be both important and it records a high level of satisfaction. Meanwhile, those services towards the bottom left are those which the public still see as important, but for which perceived satisfaction is lower. It is important to look at usage figures when interpreting the chart, but it provides insight into

23 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005 residents’ priorities for service provision and how this relates to service satisfaction.

Service Priorities: Importance and Satisfaction

+/- % Net satisfied Theatres/concert halls The provision of Libraries 80 public transport The local bus service information Recycling at bring sites Museums and galleries Adult education Fire service Sports/leisure facilities The Household Waste Centres and events 60 Refuse Parks and open Information/advice Personal Social Services collection spaces Local Authority Consumer food/health Education Services Kerbside recycling 40 Street cleaning Planning Information/advice/ services guidance on Environmental health getting a job 20 Housing services Community/youth services 0 0 10 20 30 40 50

% Importance Base: 2,033 Nottingham residents aged 18+, interviewed 15 th October – 20 th November 2005 Source: MORI

The analysis shows that services that are seen to be important and about which perceptions are positive are parks and open spaces and bus services, this was also the case in 2004. There have been positive results in that:

• Satisfaction with (bring) recycling has increased by seven percentage points over time (64% in 2004 to 71% in 2005). This score places it in the top half of similar authorities studied by MORI;

• Ratings of kerbside recycling have also improved, this time by 10 percentage points so that 68% are satisfied in 2005.

• Sport facilities , while still highlighted in red, have a higher proportion of satisfied users than was the case last year (72% in 2004, versus 65% in 2005). For this service, it is also important to look at patterns of usage across the key socio-economic groups. Usage falls away quite dramatically with age and social grade and is lower in the most deprived parts of Nottingham such as St Annes and the Dales and Bulwell and Bulwell Forest.

• Libraries have maintained their positive rating of 87% satisfied, a score which places the authority near to the top of our table of results from like authorities in which we have asked the same question. Over the past twelve months, satisfaction with museums and galleries has also increased from 68% satisfied to 76% satisfied;

24 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

Less positively , three-quarters (76%) are satisfied with refuse collection . This means that Nottingham is placed towards the foot of the table of normative data gathered during similar surveys for this very important service.

It is also instructive to look at results by area to see if any patterns can be established :

• Generally speaking, it is Area 3 (Aspley, Leen Valley and Bilborough) which features most prominently in the lists of lowest levels of service satisfaction , appearing in 16 out of the 24 service areas asked about.

• There are differences around satisfaction with specific and important services . For example, in Area 8 (Dunkirk, Lenton and Bridge) satisfaction stands at 54%, while in Area 2 (Basford and Bestwood) it stands at 73%).

Contact with the Council As in 2004, half of Nottingham residents say they have contacted Nottingham City Council in the last year . Council tenants are the most likely to have made contact, with over seven in ten having done so. The most common reason for contact is to report an issue or a problem (40%), a figure which again rises (to 62%) among local authority tenants.

Compared to 2004, more residents who have contacted the Council now feel Council staff are helpful and efficient, whereas the proportion saying staff were able to deal with their query has not changed.

• Up three percentage points from last year, 73% say staff are helpful and able to deal with their query . Meanwhile (22%) report that they were unhelpful.

• An increase of four percentage points see the proportion of those contacting the council who see staff as efficient move to 64%. Again though, a third (32%) see staff as inefficient.

Despite the improvements that have been made over the last year, Nottingham City Council’s staff ratings still have some way to go compared with the best rated councils from recent MORI surveys . Ratings of helpfulness and efficiency of staff are below the average for other similar authorities that MORI has worked with in the last few years, whist on other aspects of customer care, Nottingham City Council is about average.

Perhaps most importantly, satisfaction with the final outcome of the contact have remained unchanged. Just over half are satified (56%), while over a third are dissatisfied (37%). This score places Nottingham in the middle of the table of normative data for similar authorities studied by MORI.

25 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

While there may be inevitable limitations on the speed with which outcomes can be achieved, the importance of achieving successful resolution to the contact experience is proved through the impact it has on overall satisfaction. The table below shows that satisfaction with Nottingham City Council is over twice as high among those who report being satisfied with the final outcome of their enquiry .

Satisfaction with final outcome of contact Satisfaction Satisfied Dissatisfied with Council Satisfied 70% 31% Dissatisfied 24% 61%

Implications There is much that is positive to take from this survey . On key measures such as information provision and overall corporate image, Nottingham City Council has improved over the past twelve months. Some aspects of customer care have also improved. It is important to understand though, the impact various factors and services have on perceptions of the authority.

MORI’s recent work for the Local Government Association Reputation Project has involved key driver analysis from an extensive range of surveys of local authorities to establish the hierarchy shown in the following chart.

Drivers of Reputation among Local Residents (LGA Reputation Project)

Greatest drivers of overall satisfaction Perceived quality of services overall

Perceived VFM Deprivation/diversity/ Physical Capital Media coverage/mood

Weaker drivers of overall Direct communication satisfaction Street cleaning/liveability Positive experiences of contact with staff Source: MORI

26 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

The findings are instructive in the Nottingham context as they show the relative importance of getting customer care right (not everyone contacts the council and the profile of those that do does not match that of the wider population) as well as the need to influence media coverage. What they do show, however, is the need to concentrate on communicating to residents positive messages around value for money and quality of service provision, as well as the need to take account of deprivation and ethnic diversity of the population which is harder to influence directly. All this needs to be done alongside working to improve public perception around key ‘dissatisfiers’ such as refuse collection.

And deprivation does still need to be countered by getting ‘liveability’ services right . While the situation in areas such as St Ann’s and the Dales has improved, with a higher proportion saying they are satisfied with their quality of life, there are still large gaps between local residents’ perceptions and those of others living in places like Wollaton and Lenton Abbey (net satisfaction with the area as a place to live stands at 36% and 69% respectively) which need to be closed.

Working with other agencies in the local strategic partnership to reduce incidence of crime and anti-social behaviour will also be important in improving residents’ quality of life and their perceptions of public services. Again, there has been an improvement in perception in more deprived areas which is a positive reflection of work already in train, but there are still disparities when comparisons are made to other areas. A further indication is the fact that those living in council and housing association accommodation are consistently more concerned about safety.

There has been a positive shift in opinion around safety in the town centre , which is again the result of targeted initiatives aimed at improving the feel of this environment. The challenge is to replicate this change - unobtrusively - in local areas . This may well be a longer-term strategy involving designing crime out of areas of social housing and empowering residents to take more responsibility for their own areas.

Again, local area working underpins our main recommendations. While there are obvious differences across age groups, uptake of key services such as sports facilities which influence the health of residents again varies depending on area. Equitable service delivery must be an important goal .

©MORI/J23443

Andrew Collinge

Anne-Merete Tonsager

27 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

Adam Palenicek

28 N ottingham City Council Satisfaction & Quality of Life Survey 2005

29