Kent County Council Redesign of Community Warden Service

Interim findings of Public Consultation Prepared by Lake Market Research 21st November 2014

This report complies with ISO:20252 standards and other relevant forms of conduct Research Background & Methodology

• County Council’s Community Safety Service launched a public consultation on the re-design of the Community Warden Service on the 29th September.

• Consultees were invited to submit their views on the proposals via each of the following channels:

. An online questionnaire featured on the kent.gov website

. In paper form via the community wardens themselves.

• The consultation period ran for a period of 6 weeks from 29th September to 9th November 2014.

• The consultation questionnaire was designed by Kent County Council and featured a number of open ended questions. These questions have been reviewed and coded into themes to provide quantitative analysis alongside qualitative comments.

2 1,184 responses have been recorded across individuals, Councils and organisations.

Are you completing this questionnaire on behalf of…?

An organisation (as the official representative) 10% Number of completions per sample group: A District / Town / Parish Yourself (as an individual) 960 Council A District / Town / 9% 101 Yourself (as an Parish Council individual) An organisation (as the 123 81% official representative)

Base: All answering (1,184) 3 Profile of the Individuals responding…

Gender Disabled as set out in Equality Act 2010 Male 36% Yes 13% Female 54% No 70%

Prefer not to say / not answered 10% Prefer not to say / not answered 17%

Age Type of impairment applies for those answering yes 34 and under 5% Physical impairment 51% 35 – 44 11% Sensory impairment 24% 45 – 54 13% Long standing illness or health 34% 55 – 64 14% condition 65 – 74 21% Mental health condition 8%

75 and over 16% Learning disability 5%

Prefer not to say / not answered 20% Other 17%

Prefer not to say / not answered 6%

4 Details of District/Town/Parish Councils responding…

• Appledore Parish Council • Frittenden Parish Council • Pembury Parish Council • Ash Parish Council • Gravesham Borough Council csu • Plaxtol Parish Council • Ashford Borough Council x 2 • Hadlow Parish Council • Shepherdswell with Coldred Parish Council • Aylesford Parish Council • Hartley Parish Council • Shepway and Folkestone Town Councils • with PC • Hawkinge Town Council • Shoreham Parish Council • Birchington Parish Council x 2 • Headcorn Parish Council • Shorne Parish Council • Bobbing Parish Council • Parish Council • Snodland Town Council • Borden Parish Council • High Halden Parish Council • St Margaret's at Cliffe Parish Council • Brabourne & Smeeth Parish Council • Higham Parish Council • St Nicholas at Wade and Sarre Parish Council • Burham Parish Council • Hollingbourne Parish Council • St. Mary in the Marsh Parish Council • Capel le Ferne Parish Council • Independent councillor of East Malling and • parish council • Chart Sutton Parish Council Larkfield Parish Council • Sutton Valence Parish Council • Parish Council • Maidstone Borough Council – Loose Ward • Swanscombe and Greenhithe town council • Children's Centre • Ashford Borough Council – Oxney Ward • Swingfield Parish Council • Cliffsend Parish Council • Iwade Parish Council • Tenterden Town Council • Collier Street Parish Council • Kingsnorth Parish Council • Teynham Parish Council • Crockenhill Parish Council • Kingswood Broomfield Parish council • Tunstall Parish Council • Dartford Borough Council • Langdon Parish Council • Vigo Parish Council • District councillor for Otford and Shoreham • Lenham Parish Council • Vigo Village • Ditton Parish Council • Parish Council • Walmer Parish Council • Dover District Council, Eythorne & Shepherdswell • Longfield and New Barn Parish Council • Weald South Ward of Ashford Borough Council • Dover Town Council • Loose Parish Council • West Kent Neighbourbood watch Association • Dymchurch Parish Council • Lower Halstow • West Kingsdown Parish Council • East Malling and Larkfield Parish Council x 2 • Lydd Town Council • Westerham Town Council • East Peckham Parish Council • Lympne Parish Council • Wilmington Parish Council • East Sutton Parish Council • Maidstone Borough Council • Wingham Parish Council • Eastchurch Parish Council • Marden Parish Council • Wouldham Parish Council • Eastry Parish Council • Meopham Parish Council • Wrotham Parish Council • Egerton Parish Council • Mereworth Parish Council • Wye with Hinxhill Parish Council • Elham Parish Council • Minster on Sea Parish Council • Yalding Parish Council • Eynsford Parish Council • Molash Parish Council • UKIP Borough Councillor • Eythorne Parish Council • New Romney Town Council • Farningham Parish Council • Nonington PC • Fawkham Parish Council • Otford Parish Council 5 Details of Organisations responding…

• Age UK Maidstone & North West Kent • Herne Speedwatch • Shepherdswell Pre-school • Amicus Horizon Limited • Hersden Community Centre • Shepway & East Folkestone neighbourhood watch co-ordinator • Ashford Borough Council, ward member • Higham Age Concern Luncheon Club • Shornclifee Nursery • Ashford District Partnership Group • Higham Neighbourhood Forum • South Street Baptist Church, Meopham • Bean Residents Association • Home Instead Senior care Tunbridge Wells, Sevenoaks • St John's Church, Higham • Bramley Court residents and Edenbridge • St Michaels Village Community Group • Brampton Field Residents' Association • Homewood School & sixth form Tenterden • St Saviours Community Centre and Horn Street Speed Watch • BRFM Bridge Radio • Hothfield Educational Foundation • St. Bartholomew's Church, Otford • & District Neighbourhood Watch Association • Ireland's Bakery • St. Michaels Preschool • Canterbury 4 The Environment C4E • Bubblestone Road neighbourhood watch • Staplehurst Interest Group • Capel-le-Ferne village hall • KCC Adult Social Care Strategic Commissioning • Stephen P Gay Funeral Service Ltd • CARM meeting point at Tenterden • KCC home support network, ILS service, support SU's • Stone (Dartford) Scout Group with LD & physical disability • Centra Care and Support • Strange Cargo • KCC Romney Marsh County Councillor • Chartham over 60's club, Primary School, Youth Club • Temple Hill Trust • Kent Association of locals- Gravesham branch • Chinnery Court Sheltered Housing • Tenterden & District Day Centre • Kent County Council Trading Standards Service • Churches of Eynesford, Farmingham and Lullingston • Tenterden Community Emergency Plan Steering Group • Kent Office of Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) • Churchill C of E Primary School, Westerham • Thanet Community Networks on behalf of the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) • The Ark Christian Centre and Happy Feet Preschool Dover Kent • Citizens Rights for Older People • Kent Peoples Trust • The Ark Dover • Cognatum Limited • • The Bayle Residents' Association • Community hub afternoon tea club (CHAT) • KFRS () • The Bradstone Association (residents' group) • Creteway Estate Residents Association • Larkfield Neighbourhood Watch / North Larkfield Group • Crockenhill Baptist Church for the protection of the Environment • The Farningham Tea & Chat Group • Culverstone Neighbourhood Watch • Lifesaver Emergency Response • The Illegal Money Lending Team • Ditton Church pre school • Longfield country market • The Shoreham Society • Dover & District Neighbourhood Watch Association • Lydd Meeting Point • Thursday Fellowship which meets St Peter's church Hextable weekly 2-4 pm for older people • Dover Community Safety Partnership • Lympne CEP School, School PTFA • Tonbridge & Malling Community Safety Partnership • Dover District Council Labour Group • Maidstone Youth Project • Tonbridge and Malling safer towns • Dr R F Cullen and partners • Minster gathouse museum • Vigo pop in club for the over sixties • East Kent Housing (Independent Living Team) • Minster Surgery • Ward Councillor - Maidstone Borough Council • Eastry Neighbourhood Watch Chairman • Monkton (Thanet) social group for retired or semi retired • Weald Club for the disabled • Farmers Market Chartham • Neighbourhood Watch x 6 • Well-Being at Home Befriending service • Folkestone Harbour Wards Residents Association • New Romney meeting point • West Kingsdown Baptist Church • Greenhill Community Cafe • Over Sixties Club • White Cliffs Primary College • Greenhill Pact Group • Pastoral Team, Birchington CE Primary school • Wood Avenue Park View & Kitchener Square community Association • Greenhill Residents association • Pilgrims Hospice shop, New Romney • Young at Heart, 60 plus club, age UK Hub • Harrietsham Fish Scheme • Royal British Legion Eastry, Birchington branches • Hartley afternoon W I • Rusthall Medical Centre • Hartley Bay & Toddler Group • Sandyhurst Lane Residents' Association (Ashford) • Headcorn Eldercare • Sevenoaks District Councillor 6 The majority responding have received a service from the Wardens or are actively involved with the service.

Do you / have you received a service from Kent County Council Community Wardens?

Yourself (as an 72% 28% individual)

% Yes - Aged 34 and under: 57%, Aged 35-44: 79%, Aged 45-54: 73%, Aged 55-64: 70%, Aged 65-74: 71%, Aged 75 and over: 82%

Is your organisation actively involved with the Community Warden Service?

A District / Town / 85% 15% Parish Council

An organisation (as the 85% 15% official representative)

Yes No

Base: All answering (1,151), Individuals (933), District/ Town/ Parish Councils (100), Organisations (118) 7 The service received covers a wide range of areas, but notably concerning the elderly and the young.

Details of the service received from Kent County Council Community Wardens

Updates to the community / Network meetings / Guidance / Advice / Presentations / Information 29%

Point of contact for vulnerable & elderly providing reassurance, support & facilitating independence 20%

Anti Social Behaviour (ASB) / Nuisance Youths 20%

Working with Children / Schools / Youth Groups / Social Clubs / Churches / Community Groups 20%

Partnering with & facilitating access to other agencies / Liaising with Police / Reporting to Council 13%

Door to door Sales / Traders / Cold Callers / Scams 12% Visible presence / Deterrent/ Crime Prevention / Sense of security / Reassurance 11%

Illegal Parking / Abandoned Vehicles / Parking issues / Untaxed vehicles 10% Littering / Fly Tipping / Litter Picking / Graffiti / Dog Fouling 9%

Other general positive experiences (NON SPECIFIC) 8%

Supporting community events / Health walks / Parish Events 8% Neighbour disturbances / Disputes / Harassment / Noisy Neighbours 7%

Traffic Calming / Traffic Issues / Road Safety / Speedwatch 7%

Experience of working with Warden in an official capacity (Positive) 7%

Burglary / Theft / Shoplifting / Security marking 7% Intelligence gathering / Eyes & Ears of the residents / Local Knowledge 7%

Vandalism 5%

Neighbourhood Watch / Suspicious persons 5%

Base: All answering (845) 8 Community updates / liaison and partnerships are particularly referenced by Councils / Organisations.

Details of the service received from Kent County Council Community Wardens

Top 5 details by group

48%

37% 38% 32% 29% 27% 25% 25% 24% 25% 19% 18% 17% 15%

10%

Council Council Council Council Council

Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual

Organisation Organisation Organisation Organisation Organisation Updates to the community Point of contact for Partnering with & Working with Children / / Network meetings / vulnerable & elderly facilitating access to other Anti Social Behaviour Schools / Youth Groups / Guidance / Advice / providing reassurance, agencies / Liaising with (ASB) / Nuisance Youths Social Clubs / Churches / Presentations / support & facilitating Police / Reporting to Community Groups Information independence Council

Base: All answering (958) Significantly higher at 95% confidence level to other groups 9 14% support the Consultation proposal. As expected this proportion falls to 8% amongst those who receive a service.

Do you support the proposal as set out in the Consultation Document? % Yes Individual 15% A District/Town/Parish Council 5% An organisation 10%

Yes Receive a service from wardens 8% 14% Do not receive a service from wardens 31%

Male 13% Female 15% No Aged 34 and under 21% 86% Aged 35-44 19% Aged 45-54 11% Aged 55-64 13% Aged 65-74 12% Aged 75 and over 18%

Completed consultation online 15% Completed consultation on paper 12%

Base: All answering (1,149) Significantly higher at 95% confidence level to other groups 10 Consultees believe wardens should be community based and continuity is important.

Reasons for not supporting proposal as set out in Consultation document (coded)

Need to be community based / Local knowledge / continuity / personal relationships / rapport 35%

Will reduce a vital service / Will destroy the good already achieved / Retrograde step 22%

Slower deployments / incidents not attended / less efficiency / Dilution / Over stretched 18%

Do not support cuts / Keep it as it is / Don't fix it if it isn't broken / want to keep Wardens 18%

Loss of a constant visible presence / Crime deterrent / Patrols 14%

Will impact on vulnerable groups: the elderly/disabled/the young 13%

Lack of local Police presence needs to be covered by Wardens 12%

Impact on community cohesion / solidarity / sense of security / reassurance 11%

Not trusted if not local / Familiarity essential / takes time to build trust / Respect 10%

Don't see how it can work / illogical / makes no sense / not thought through / too little detail 8%

Will prompt an escalation in crime / Anti-Social behaviour / Vandalism 7%

Impact on rural communities and more disadvantaged, isolated wards / Other areas prioritised 7%

Increase number of Wardens / every community should have their own 7%

Will undermine partnerships with Schools, local Groups, the Town & Parish Councils & the Police 7%

Wardens need to be allowed to work proactively not reactively 6%

Will Impact on intelligence gathering / observation / eyes & ears of the community 5%

Base: All answering (958) 11 Some examples of Consultees specific comments...

Reasons for not supporting proposal as set out in Consultation document (comments)

“Our community warden is an expert on local matters, he knows all the residents “I think that the wardens should be geographically based so that and where all the troubled families live, in they can continue to be very familiar with a locality and therefore a way a non community warden would not, provide a much better service because of their local knowledge the clue is in the term community warden, and relationship with the local community. If this is lost then their he puts himself out to help us” performance will be considerably impaired”

“It is very clear that we as Maidstone Borough “From page 10 of the Consultation Document: What this Council and our residents and stakeholders value means for your local community If this proposal is agreed the community wardens as a key community then in the future you may not see as many community resource. They have been successful in addressing wardens on the streets of Kent. Response: But this is what residents’ fear of crime and provide a core service the community wants! However, the proposed new structure within the communities in Maidstone as detailed in means we will be able to serve more communities than we Question 2. Reducing the number of ‘ground do currently. Response: Inefficiently because spread too workers by nearly 50% will impact on the residents thinly. On top of this we will be better placed to respond who currently receive a service but also impact the quickly and easily to issues as they arise. Response: A lot support given to the statutory agencies such as of time wasted driving around with an overall success rate district councils, Kent Police and Kent Fire and reduced by at least 50%” Rescue Service.”

Base: All answering (958) 12 Community based wardens are particularly important to the organisations responding.

Reasons for not supporting proposal as set out in Consultation document

Top 5 reasons by group

48%

35% 32% 33%

21% 22% 21% 21% 21% 18% 17% 17% 16%

14% 13%

Council Council Council Council Council

Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual

Organisation Organisation Organisation Organisation Organisation

Need to be community Will reduce a vital service / Slower deployments / Do not support cuts / Keep Loss of a constant visible based / Local knowledge / Will destroy the good incidents not attended / it as it is / Don't fix it if it presence / Crime continuity / personal already achieved / less efficiency / Dilution / isn't broken / want to keep deterrent / Patrols relationships / rapport Retrograde step Over stretched Wardens

Base: All answering (958) Significantly higher at 95% confidence level to other groups 13 23% support the proposal for less focus on geographic boundaries. This proportion falls to 17% amongst those who receive a service.

Do you support the proposal for less focus on geographic boundaries, so that Wardens can be quickly and easily deployed to where they’re needed most? % Yes Individual 24% A District/Town/Parish Council 19% An organisation 16%

Yes Receive a service from wardens 17% 23% Do not receive a service from wardens 42%

Male 24% Female 24% No 77% Aged 34 and under 27% Aged 35-44 32% Aged 45-54 22% Aged 55-64 24% Aged 65-74 20% Aged 75 and over 26%

Completed consultation online 25% Completed consultation on paper 19%

Base: All answering (1,153) Significantly higher at 95% confidence level to other groups 14 The loss of relevant local knowledge and relationships worry a significant majority.

Reasons for not supporting proposal for less focus on geographic boundaries (coded)

Lost Local knowledge / continuity / personal relationships / rapport / engagement 49%

Every Village needs one / community based / Defined geographic boundaries / need own Warden 23%

Not trusted if not local / Familiarity essential / takes time to build trust / recognised by all 21%

Slower deployments / incidents not attended / less efficiency / Dilution / over-stretched 20%

Will destroy the good already achieved / Retrograde step / A drop in service standards 10%

Loss of a constant visible presence / crime deterrent 9%

A lifeline / Elderly rely on the Wardens / will impact on the vulnerable / won't feel safe / isolated 9%

Wardens need to be proactive rather than reactive 9%

Impact on intelligence gathering / observation / background information 7%

Impact on community cohesion / solidarity / confidence / reassurance 6%

Can't see how it can work / Not well thought through / 40 Wardens cannot cover Kent 6%

Impact on rural communities / resources directed to major towns / focus on the worst areas 6%

Will prompt escalation in crime / Anti-Social behaviour / Vandalism 5%

Too much time spent travelling / Less time spent with public 5%

Keep it as it is / Current system works well 5%

Base: All answering (869) 15 The loss of local knowledge and the subsequent impact on trust are a particular concern to Councils responding.

Reasons for not supporting proposal for less focus on geographic boundaries

Top 5 reasons by group

65%

56%

46%

30% 31%

22% 24% 24% 22% 21% 20% 20% 17%

9% 10%

Council Council Council Council Council

Individual Individual Individual Individual Individual

Organisation Organisation Organisation Organisation Organisation

Lost Local knowledge / Every Village needs one / Not trusted if not local / Slower deployments / Will destroy the good continuity / personal community based / Defined Familiarity essential / incidents not attended / already achieved / relationships / rapport / geographic boundaries / takes time to build trust / less efficiency / Dilution / Retrograde step / A drop engagement need own Warden recognised by all over-stretched in service standards

Base: All answering (958) Significantly higher at 95% confidence level to other groups 16 Few suggested additional options for consideration. Some agreement with regard to leader / manager reductions.

Any other options that they would like to be considered (coded)

Keep it as it is / Don't change it / Happy with our Warden 34% Community based / local knowledge / defined geographical boundaries / consistency / visibility 18% Reduce Warden Managers / Team Leaders / Management to be deployed in field 10% Increase number of Wardens / More needed 10% Mobile Wardens / Targeting wider areas / As needed 9% Cuts to KCC Senior Executives salaries / expenses / Reduce number of Councillors / KCC Managers 7% Make cuts elsewhere (Unspecified) 7% Parish / Borough Councils to contribute to cost / Wardens integrated in to Local Authorities 5% Focus on areas where scheme has succeeded / should be based in communities most needed 5% Greater Police presence PCSO presence 4% Reduce Warden admin time / bureaucracy burden / share admin services 4% Do not reduce by so many / a smaller reduction of Warden numbers 4% Use more volunteers / Charity run / Working with existing groups (e.g. neighbourhood watch) 3% Use of part time Wardens / Reduce core hours 2% CSU's to manage Wardens / Wardens integrated into Community Safety Units 2% Abolish completely / Useless / Get rid off 2% Narrow Wardens remit / Focus on "Real Time" situations 2% Remove the Kent PCC / Use PCC budget to fund Wardens 2% Increase Council Tax 2%

Base: All answering (597) 17 Some examples of Consultees specific comments...

Any other options that they would like to be considered (comments)

“Yes a cut in management before “Instead of the proposals to increase the mobility of the wardens, they should be cuts to the wardens. They have given distinct locations even if their time in each is to be reduced i.e. 2 or 3 days in been running with two area each. The value of the wardens is that they know in depth their areas of work. managers for over a year so if the PCSOs come & go and never learn much about the areas that they cover. We need wardens are reduced why do they men & women that can be trusted to serve their communities.” still need two area managers. one are manager and three team leaders is all that is needed.” “Admin posts to 2 at least (one East Kent, one West Kent) supervisors to 8 at least, wardens to 60 or 65 at least, increase warden area coverage, but keep as much geographical link as possible to maintain local contacts/ knowledge” “The cuts to the Community Safety and Community Wardens budget are in the region of 30% which will have a massive “Has a reduction of the core-hours been considered. The current and impact on the service being delivered. proposed range of 7:30 to 22:00, must require overlapping shifts and However, this is a miniscule part of almost matches the current core-hours of even Kent Police PCSOs. By KCC's budget (0.14%) and the proposed reducing the core hours and the shift overlap, a significant number of savings are insignificant in the big hours could be saved. Along with a positive part-time recruitment picture. It is unrealistic of you to ask us to campaign this could save money but retain the number of Wardens, propose other options. Given unrestricted retaining that all important local knowledge and trust. Along with the access to your finances the Council is planned proactive deployment and the reactive deployment, has sure it could find other areas to make consideration been given to a dedicated, guaranteed amount of time, by a savings. For example KCC spent £4.5m named Warden, in each of the areas that is currently served by a Warden. on consultants in 2012. If this spending is Again, this would serve to underpin that local bond.” being maintained at this level now then that is a prime area to address.” Base: All answering (597) 18 Two thirds believe the proposals would have a major impact on them. If proposals were implemented what could be the impact upon you/your organisation? % Major impact Don't know Individual 64% 12% A District/Town/Parish Council 82% An organisation 75% No impact

7% Receive a service from wardens 76% Do not receive a service from wardens 40%

Male 62% Female 67% Minor impact 15% Major impact Aged 34 and under 43% 66% Aged 35-44 61% Aged 45-54 63% Aged 55-64 64% Aged 65-74 71% Aged 75 and over 65%

Completed consultation online 64% Completed consultation on paper 71%

Base: All answering (1,153) Significantly higher at 95% confidence level to other groups 19 Responses to perceived impact echoes local knowledge / relationship and safety concerns.

Details of the major or minor impact upon you / your organisation (coded)

Loss of local knowledge / continuity / personal relationship / visible, uniformed presence 34%

A rise in crime / Vandalism / Anti-social behaviour / Assault / Theft 25%

Intimidation / fear of leaving home / insecurity / safety / lack of reassurance 19%

A lifeline / I rely on the Warden / will impact the elderly and vulnerable / Increased isolation 19%

All the good that has been done will be undone / Loss of a vital service / Less effective 15%

Reduced support for community / youth clubs will close / less events / impact on schools visits 14%

Impact on intelligence gathering / observation / advice / eyes and ears of community 11%

Slower response times / difficult to get hold of / unsure who to contact / less contact time 10% Less crime will be reported / negative impact on public faith / reduced community morale / 7% distance Wardens from public / breakdown in community cohesion Loss of partnership between wardens & other agencies / Wardens help signposting for residents 5%

Increased workload for Police, Councils & other Services / Police will be less effective 5%

Impact on rural communities / resources directed to major towns 3%

Increase in Traffic violations / Traffic issues not dealt with 3%

Increase in Fly Tipping / will go unchecked 1%

Base: All answering (597) 20 34% believe volunteers could be used to supplement the service in the future. In the future, do you think volunteers could be used to supplement the Community Warden service (a service similar to Special Constables)? % Yes Individual 35% A District/Town/Parish Council 28% An organisation 35%

Receive a service from wardens 30% Yes Do not receive a service from wardens 46% 34% Male 41% No Female 31% 66% Aged 34 and under 42% Aged 35-44 43% Aged 45-54 27% Aged 55-64 38% Aged 65-74 36% Aged 75 and over 39%

Completed consultation online 37% Completed consultation on paper 30%

Base: All answering (1,087) Significantly higher at 95% confidence level to other groups 21 A significantly higher proportion of Councils would consider the option of funding compared to Organisations. Would your organisation, either individually or collectively with others, consider the option of funding a dedicated Community Warden for your area?

Overall District/Town/Parish Council

Yes 33% Yes No 19% 67%

No Organisation 81% Yes 7%

No 93%

Base: All answering (190) Significantly higher at 95% confidence level to other groups 22