Residents’ survey 2019
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
Client
Final report
January 2020
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 1
Contents Page
Contents Page Project details and acknowledgements ...... 3
Executive Summary ...... 4
Background ...... 6
Findings ...... 10
Conclusions ...... 54
Appendix A: Questionnaire ...... 58
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 2
Project details and acknowledgements
Title Residents’ survey 2019
Client Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
Project number 19091
Author
Research Manager
Reviewed by
M·E·L Research Ltd Somerset House, 37 Temple Street, Birmingham, B2 5DP Email: [email protected] Web: www.melresearch.co.uk Tel: 0121 604 4664
M·E·L Research Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 3 2nd Floor, 1 Ashted Lock, Birmingham Science Park Aston, Birmingham. B7 4AZ
Executive Summary
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 4
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 5
Background Research context
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council regularly engage with the community to test and inform key priorities and the allocation of resources. As part of this process the council commissioned M·E·L Research to carry out a residents’ survey. The aim of the research was to get residents’ views on quality of life factors and service satisfaction. The research covered a set of broad topics to gain an understanding of:
▪ Residents’ views on quality of life ▪ Service satisfaction ▪ Digital transformation and communication preferences ▪ Volunteering Methodology
A 15-minute, face to face (doorstep) survey was undertaken with residents between November and December 2019, conducted by trained social research interviewers, using a Computer Aided Personal Interview (CAPI) approach. A stratified, random sampling approach was used: a sample of residents’ starting addresses were drawn randomly from Royal Mail’s Postcode Address File, stratified by ward. From each starting address, interviewers aimed to achieve a cluster of approximately 5 interviews from adjacent and nearby properties. Quota targets were set for age group, gender, ward and Rural Urban Classification. Below presents a summary of the approach:
Target population Residents of Basingstoke and Deane borough aged 18 or older Interview length Average of 15 minutes Survey period 11th November – 8th December 2019 Sampling method Stratified, random door-to-door surveying Data collection method Interviewer administered face to face survey Total sample 1,105
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 6
Map 1: Plotted postcodes of survey sample
Statistical reliability
The survey findings are based on results of a survey of a sample of Basingstoke and Deane residents and results are therefore subject to sampling tolerances. With 1,105 residents having completed the survey, this returns a confidence interval of ±2.9% for a 50% statistic at the 95% confidence level. This simply means that if 50% of residents indicated they agreed with a certain aspect, the true figure (had the whole population been surveyed) could in reality lie within the range of 47.1% to 52.9% and that these results would be seen 95 times out of 100. Table 1 below shows the confidence intervals for differing response results (sample tolerance).
Table 1: Surveys completed overall
Approximate sampling tolerances* Size of sample 50% 30% or 70% 10% or 90% 1,105 surveys ±2.9 ±2.7 ±1.8
*Based on a 95% confidence level
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 7
The sample (n=1,105) was proportioned representatively across the 18 wards in the borough (please see Table 2 below) although caution should be taken when interpreting the results due the small sizes and associated tolerance levels.
Table 2: Surveys completed by ward
Approximate No. of % of % of borough sampling Ward surveys surveys population tolerances* completed completed (2018) (50% statistic) Basing & Upton Grey 67 6% 6% ±11.9 Bramley 44 4% 5% ±14.7 Brighton Hill 66 6% 6% ±12.0 Brookvale & Kings Furlong 61 6% 6% ±12.5 Chineham 68 6% 6% ±11.8 Eastrop & Grove 59 5% 5% ±12.7 Evingar 60 5% 5% ±12.6 Hatch Warren & Beggarwood 60 5% 5% ±12.6 Kempshott & Buckskin 67 6% 6% ±11.9 Norden 61 6% 6% ±12.5 Oakley & The Candovers 57 5% 5% ±12.9 Popley 62 6% 6% ±12.4 Sherborne St John & Rooksdown 56 5% 5% ±13.0 South Ham 63 6% 6% ±12.3 Tadley & Pamber 71 6% 7% ±11.6 Tadley North, Kingsclere & Baughurst 70 6% 6% ±11.7 Whitchurch, Overton & Laverstoke 63 6% 6% ±12.3 Winklebury & Manydown 50 5% 4% ±13.8
*Based on a 95% confidence level. Hampshire County Council Small Area Population Forecasts, 2018.
Analysis and reporting
Results have been compared to historical residents’ surveys carried out in 2012, 2014 and 2017 where applicable.
Several questions have been included from the Local Government Association’s (LGA) ‘Are you being Served?’ survey for benchmarking purposes. The regional South East data is based on the LGA’s polling on resident satisfaction with councils (2017/18) and the national survey results (Polling round 23 June 2019). This is a triannual telephone survey of 1,000 British adults across Great Britain. It should be noted that where comparisons are made to the regional and national LGA survey results, these should be seen as indicative due to the difference in data collection methodology.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 8
Differences in views of sub-groups of the population were compared using a statistical test (z test1) and statistically significant results (at the 95% level) are indicated in the text. Statistical significance means that a result is unlikely due to chance (i.e. It is a real difference in the population) and that if you were to replicate the study, you would be 95% certain the same results would be achieved again. As the sample for this research was representative by ward, age group, tenure type, gender and Rural Urban Classification, analysis for other sub-groups will be indicative only.
Owing to the rounding of numbers, percentages displayed visually on graphs and charts within this report may not always add up to 100% and may differ slightly when compared with the text. The figures provided in the text should always be used. Where figures do not appear in a graph or chart, these are 3% or less. The ‘base’ or ‘n=’ figure referred to in each chart and table is the total number of residents responding to the question with a valid response.
Icon key:
Gender Rural Urban Classification
Age group Tenure type
Ward
1 A statistical test to determine whether two population means are different when the variances are known and the sample size is large.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 9
Findings
Who we spoke to
The sample was broadly representative by age group, gender, tenure type, Rural Urban Classification and ethnicity when compared to the known population of Basingstoke and Deane as whole. Data sourced from NOMIS Mid-year 2018 Population estimates, 2011 Census and 2011 Rural Urban Classification - ONS Crown Copyright Reserved 2018.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 10
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 11
Section 1: Overall attitudes towards the local area Satisfaction with the local area as a place to live
We asked residents to think about how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with their local area as a place to live – with their local area being within a 15-20 minute walk from their home.
▪ 95% of residents were ‘very’ (41%) or ‘fairly’ (55%) satisfied with their local area as a place to live. This result has remained fairly consistent since 2014. It should be noted that, residents stating they were ‘very’ satisfied is at its lowest level recorded from 2012 to 2019. ▪ Basingstoke and Deane score 15% points above the regional South East score (80%) and 14% points above the national average score (81%).
Figure 1: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live?
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don’t know Total satisfaction
2019 (n=1,105) 41% 55% 95%
2017 (n=1,153) 61% 33% 94%
2014 (n=1,410) 62% 33% 96%
2012 (n=1,156) 59% 32% 4% 92%
Comparative data sources
South East average 2017/18 31% 49% 9% 7% 80%
National average June 2019 32% 49% 10% 7% 81%
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by tenure type, gender, ward and urban/rural:
▪ Fewer residents who rent their home from a housing association (87%) were satisfied with their local area as a place to live compared to those renting from a private landlord (97%) or those who are buying their home on a mortgage (97%).
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 12
▪ Men (96%) were significantly more likely to be satisfied with the local area as a place to live when compared women (94%). Some qualitative work may be required to understand why this is. ▪ Those who are living in urban areas (94%) are less likely to be satisfied with their local area compared to those in rural areas (97%). ▪ Fewer residents living in areas classified as ‘urban city and town’ were ‘very (36%) satisfied with their local area as a place to live, compared to those in ‘rural hamlets and isolated dwellings’ (55%) and ‘rural town and fringe’ (50%) areas. There were no variations in total satisfaction (% very/fairly satisfied). Caution should be taken due to the smaller sample sizes achieved for these subgroups. ▪ When comparing overall satisfaction with the local area as a place to live by ward, all areas scored highly although some areas which were more densely populated, scored slightly lower. For example, significantly less residents in South Ham (90%) were satisfied with the local area as a place to live, compared to those in Hatch Warren & Beggarwood (100%).
Figure 2: Satisfaction with the local areas as a place to live by demographics
18-24 (n=89) 94% 25-34 (n=173) 97% 35-44 (n=192) 93% 45-54 (n=214) 93% 55-64 (n=175) 97% 65-74 (n=150) 95% 75 + (n=105) 96%
Male (n=536) 96% Female (n=562) 94%
Owned outright (n=346) 97% Buying on a mortgage (n=325) 97% *Buying: shared ownership scheme (n=8) 100% Rented from housing association (n=162) 87% Rented from private landlord (n=107) 97%
Urban (n=749) 94% Rural (n=311) 97%
Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings (n=91) 98% Rural town and fringe (n=148) 97% Rural village (n=72) 97% Urban city and town (n=749) 94%
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 13
Satisfaction with the way the council runs things
Residents were read out the below statement and were then asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with the way Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council runs things.
Your local area receives services from two councils, Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council and Hampshire County Council. This survey asks about Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council, which is responsible for a range of services such as refuse collection, street cleaning and planning.
▪ 80% of residents were either ‘very’ (13%) or ‘fairly’ (67%) satisfied with the way the council runs things. 14% of residents had no feeling either way.
▪ Satisfaction with this aspect has increased by 2% points since the previous survey period (2017), although this result is not statistically significant. Positively, the total satisfaction for 2019 is 18% points above the South East Average and 17% points above the national average scores.
Figure 3: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council runs things?
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don’t know Total satisfaction
80% 2019 (n=1,105) 13% 67% 14% 6%
2017 (n=1,153) 25% 53% 10% 5% 78%
2014 (n=1,410) 37% 47% 7% 5% 84%
2012 (n=1,156) 26% 51% 14% 5% 77%
Comparative data sources
South East 48% 14% 15% 5% average 2017/18 16% 64%
National average 48% 18% 12% 7% June 2019 15% 63%
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by tenure type:
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 14
▪ Residents living in homes that are rented from a housing association were less likely to be satisfied (65%) with the way the council runs things compared to the other tenure types, for example 89% who rent from a private landlord were satisfied with this aspect.
Figure 4: Satisfaction with the way the council runs things by demographics
18-24 (n=62) 66% 25-34 (n=153) 84% 35-44 (n=173) 80% 45-54 (n=187) 79% 55-64 (n=149) 79% 65-74 (n=131) 83% 75 + (n=94) 85%
Male (n=471) 81% Female (n=478) 79%
Owned outright (n=346) 83% Buying on a mortgage (n=325) 82% *Buying: shared ownership scheme (n=8) 89% Rented from housing association (n=162) 65% Rented from private landlord (n=107) 89%
Urban (n=643) 79% Rural (n=278) 83%
Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings (n=91) 87% Rural town and fringe (n=148) 81% Rural village (n=72) 82% Urban city and town (n=749) 79%
*Caution should be taken when interpreting the result due to the small base size
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 15
Agreement the council provides value for money
Residents were then asked to think about the range of services Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council provides to the community as well as the service their household uses. They were then asked to what extent they agree or disagree that the council provides value for money.
▪ 62% of residents either ‘strongly’ (6%) or ‘tended to’ (56%) agree that the council provides value for money. A quarter (24%) of residents had no feeling either way. ▪ Agreement with this aspect has increased by 3% points since the previous survey period (2017), although this result is not statistically significant. The total agreement for 2019 is 15% points above the regional South East score and 14% points above the national average score.
Figure 5: To what extent do you agree or disagree that Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council provides value for money?
Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree nor disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know Total agreement
2019 (n=1,105) 6% 56% 24% 13% 62%
2017 (n=1,153) 13% 46% 22% 9% 8% 59%
2014 (n=1,410) 18% 52% 15% 8% 4% 71% 60% 2012 (n=1,156) 10% 49% 23% 8% 6%
Comparative data sources
South East 8% 47% average 2017/18 9% 38% 29% 15%
National average 8% 48% June 2019 11% 37% 27% 15%
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by age group, ward and tenure type:
▪ The younger (18-24) age group (44%) and the middle to older age groups (35- 64 years) were significantly less likely to feel the council provide value for money ranging from 56%~62% satisfaction. This is compared to the older 65- 74 age group with 71% satisfied with this aspect.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 16
▪ Significantly fewer (50%) residents living in homes that are rented from a housing association were satisfied with this aspect, compared to the other tenure types. For example, 66% of those who owned their home outright were satisfied.
▪ Fewer residents living in areas classified as ‘rural hamlets and isolated dwellings’ (51%) agreed that the council provided value for money compared to those living in ‘rural towns and fringe’ (65%) and ‘urban city and town’ (62%). ▪ Significantly fewer residents in Bramley (55%), Evingar (42%), Tadley North, Kingsclere & Baughurst (51%), Hatch Warren & Beggarwood (48%) and Winklebury & Manydown (54%) agreed that the council provides value for money. This is compared to areas such as Basing & Upton Grey (67%), Brighton Hill (75%) and Kempshott & Buckskin (76%) with significantly higher levels of agreement with this aspect.
Figure 6: Agreement with the council providing value for money by demographics
18-24 (n=89) 44% 25-34 (n=173) 68% 35-44 (n=192) 56% 45-54 (n=214) 62% 55-64 (n=175) 58% 65-74 (n=150) 71% 75 + (n=105) 69%
Male (n=536) 62% Female (n=562) 62%
Owned outright (n=391) 66% Buying on a mortgage (n=372) 63% *Buying: shared ownership scheme (n=9) 89% Rented from housing association (n=206) 50% Rented from private landlord (n=119) 64%
Urban (n=749) 62% Rural (n=311) 59%
Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings (n=91) 51% Rural town and fringe (n=148) 65% Rural village (n=72) 57% Urban city and town (n=749) 62%
*Caution should be taken when interpreting the result due to the small base size
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 17
Belonging to the area
Residents were asked how strongly they felt they belonged to their area.
▪ The sense of belonging to the area has remained fairly consistent across the survey periods, although this has increased by 2% points since the 2017 survey period (this result is not statistically significant) and is now at its highest level with 89% either feeling ‘very’ (33%) and ‘fairly’ (56%) strongly.
Figure 7: How strongly do you feel you belong to the area?
Very strongly Fairly strongly Not very strongly Not at all strongly Don’t know
Total agreement
2019 (n=1,105) 33% 56% 9% 89%
2017 (n=1,153) 51% 36% 9% 88%
2014 (n=1,410) 53% 35% 8% 88%
2012 (n=1,156) 46% 41% 9% 87%
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by age group, gender, tenure type, ward and urban/rural:
▪ As age increased, so did the feeling of belonging to the area. For example, 82%
of those aged 25-34 felt like they belonged to the area, compared to 96% of those aged 75 or older.
▪ Significantly fewer women (87%) felt like they belonged to the area compared to men (91%). This could correlate to the slightly lower levels of satisfaction with the area as a place to live for women.
▪ Residents who rent their home either from a housing association or from a private landlord were less likely to feel they belonged to the area at 80% and 84% respectively. This is compared to those who own their home outright or buying on a mortgage (94% and 90% respectively).
▪ Residents living in areas classified as ‘rural hamlets and isolated dwellings’ were more likely to feel that they belong to the area (96%) compared to those living in ‘urban city and town’ areas at 87%.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 18
▪ Residents living in Eastrop & Grove (81%), Norden (82%) and South Ham (76%) were significantly less likely to feel that they belong to the area compared to the other wards, for example 95% in Whitchurch, Overton & Laverstoke felt they belong to the area.
Figure 8: How strongly to you feel you belong to the area by demographics
18-24 (n=89) 84% 25-34 (n=173) 82% 35-44 (n=192) 90% 45-54 (n=214) 86% 55-64 (n=175) 94% 65-74 (n=150) 93% 75 + (n=105) 96%
Male (n=536) 91% Female (n=562) 87%
Owned outright (n=391) 94% Buying on a mortgage (n=372) 90% *Buying: shared ownership scheme (n=9) 100% Rented from housing association (n=206) 80% Rented from private landlord (n=119) 84%
Urban (n=749) 87% Rural (n=311) 94%
Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings (n=91) 96% Rural town and fringe (n=148) 92% Rural village (n=72) 94% Urban city and town (n=749) 87%
*Caution should be taken when interpreting the result due to the small base size
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 19
Influencing decisions that affect the local area
Residents were asked to what extent they agree they can influence decisions that affect their local area.
▪ 41% of residents either ‘strongly’ (5%) or ‘tended to’ (36%) agree that they could influence decisions that affect their local area. Just over a fifth (23%) had no feelings either way and 35% disagreed with this. ▪ Although the score for this indicator is low, agreement has increased by 22% points compared to the previous survey period (2017), this result is statistically significant. In addition, the score for this indicator is at its highest level recorded from 2012 to 2019.
Figure 9: Do you agree or disagree that you can influence decisions affecting your local area?
Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree nor disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know
Total agreement
2019 (n=1,105) 5% 36% 23% 26% 9% 41%
2017 (n=1,153) 4% 15% 11% 36% 28% 5% 19%
2014 (n=1,410) 5% 27% 16% 31% 15% 7% 31%
2012 (n=1,156) 6% 24% 20% 29% 19% 30%
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by age group, ward and tenure type:
▪ The younger (18-24) age group was significantly less likely (22%) to feel that they could influence decisions, compared to those aged between 25-74.
▪ Those renting their home from a housing association were less likely (24%) to feel that they could influence decisions, compared to those who owned their home (42%) and those who were buying on a mortgage (50%).
▪ Residents in Brookvale & Kings Furlong (15%), Hatch Warren & Beggarwood (20%) and Tadley North, Kingsclere & Baughurst (29%) had significantly lower levels of agreement that they could influence decisions affecting the local area. This is compared to areas such as Kempshott & Buckskin (67%) and Oakley & The Candovers (60%) with significantly higher agreement levels.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 20
Figure 10: Total agreement that you can influence decisions that affect the local area by demographics
18-24 (n=89) 22% 25-34 (n=173) 38% 35-44 (n=192) 39% 45-54 (n=214) 50% 55-64 (n=175) 50% 65-74 (n=150) 42% 75 + (n=105) 27%
Male (n=536) 43% Female (n=562) 39%
Owned outright (n=391) 42% Buying on a mortgage (n=372) 50% *Buying: shared ownership scheme (n=9) 67% Rented from housing association (n=206) 24% Rented from private landlord (n=119) 34%
Urban (n=749) 40% Rural (n=311) 42%
Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings (n=91) 33% Rural town and fringe (n=148) 45% Rural village (n=72) 49% Urban city and town (n=749) 40%
*Caution should be taken when interpreting the result due to the small base size
Indicative sub-group analysis
▪ Residents with a disability2 were less likely to feel that they can influence decisions affecting the local area, compared to those without a disability at 32% and 42% respectively. ▪ Residents classified as economically active were more likely to feel they could influence decisions at 46%, compared to just 30% of residents classified as economically inactive.
2 Day to day activities limited because of a health problem or disability which has lasted, or is expected to last, at least 12 months.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 21
Keeping residents informed about the services and benefits provided
Residents were asked how well-informed they think Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council keeps residents about the services and benefits it provides.
▪ 73% of residents either felt the council keeps them ‘very’ (12%) or ‘fairly’ (61%) well informed about the services and benefits it provides. Just over a fifth (22%) had no feeling either way. ▪ This indicator has increased by 12% points since the previous survey period (2017), this is a statistically significant finding. This result is at its highest level since 2012. ▪ The score for this indicator is well above the South East regional average score (61%) and 14% points above the national score of 59%.
Figure 11: Overall, how well informed do you think Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council keeps residents about the services and benefits it provides?
Very well informed Fairly well informed Not very well informed Not well informed at all Don’t know Total informed
2019 (n=1,105) 12% 61% 22% 4% 73%
2017 (n=1,153) 12% 50% 25% 9% 5% 61%
2014 (n=1,410) 15% 55% 20% 8% 69% 70% 2012 (n=1,156) 16% 54% 19% 7%
Comparative data sources
South East 61% average 2017/18 13% 48% 29% 8% National average 59% June 2019 12% 47% 29% 12%
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by age group, ward and tenure type:
▪ The younger (18-24) age group were significantly less likely to feel that the council keeps them informed with just over half (54%) stating they were informed. This is compared to the other age groups (<25 years old) with results ranging from 70-82% who felt informed.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 22
▪ Residents who rent their home from a housing association were less likely to feel informed (61%) compared to the other tenure types, for example 79% of those who rent from a private landlord felt informed.
▪ Resident living in areas classified as ‘rural hamlets and isolated dwellings’ were less likely to feel informed, with 64% stating they felt informed compared to 83% of residents living in ‘rural town and fringe’ areas. ▪ Residents living in Tadley North, Kingsclere & Baughurst (56%) were significantly less likely to have said that they feel informed, compared to most of the other wards in the borough, for example 82% of residents in the Oakley & The Candovers ward felt informed.
Figure 12: Total who feel informed by demographics
18-24 (n=89) 54% 25-34 (n=173) 76% 35-44 (n=192) 70% 45-54 (n=214) 74% 55-64 (n=175) 76% 65-74 (n=150) 78% 75 + (n=105) 82%
Male (n=536) 72% Female (n=562) 75%
Owned outright (n=391) 77% Buying on a mortgage (n=372) 75% *Buying: shared ownership scheme (n=9) 89% Rented from housing association (n=206) 61% Rented from private landlord (n=119) 79%
Urban (n=749) 73% Rural (n=311) 75%
Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings (n=91) 64% Rural town and fringe (n=148) 83% Rural village (n=72) 74% Urban city and town (n=749) 73%
*Caution should be taken when interpreting the result due to the small base size
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 23
Feeling safe outside after dark
Residents were asked how safe or unsafe they felt when they are outside after dark.
▪ 75% of residents felt either ‘very’ (25%) or ‘fairly’ (49%) safe outside after dark. 10% didn’t have any feelings either way and 15% said they felt unsafe. The proportion of residents who felt safe outside after dark has decreased by 15% points since 2017, this result is statistically significant. ▪ This figure is at its lowest level since 2012, external factors outside the council’s control could be contributing to this, further insight is needed here. The timings of the survey could also be a factor to the decrease in residents feeling safe outside after dark. The previous survey periods were carried out during the Spring/Summer, whilst the most recent survey was carried out during the darker winter months.
Figure 13: How safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in your local area after dark?
Very safe Fairly safe Neither safe nor unsafe Fairly unsafe Very unsafe Don’t know Total positive
2019 (n=1,105) 25% 49% 10% 14% 75%
2017 (n=1,153) 64% 26% 90%
2014 (n=1,410) 54% 33% 4% 5% 87%
2012 (n=1,156) 44% 34% 10% 7% 4% 78%
Comparative data sources
South East 42% 12% 8% 3% 77% average 2017/18 35%
National average 35% 42% 10% 8% 5% 76% June 2019
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by age group, gender, tenure type, ward and urban/rural:
▪ Fewer residents aged 75 or older said they felt safe at 64% compared to those aged between 35-64 (ranging from 77~79%). Although a higher proportion (19%) of those aged 75+ said they weren’t sure. This could be because this age group is less likely to go out at night.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 24
▪ Women were less likely (64%) to have said they felt safe outside at night, compared to men with 86% stating they felt safe.
▪ Fewer residents who rent their home from a housing association said they felt safe outside after dark (60%), compared to the other tenure types, for example 84% of those who are buying their home on a mortgage felt safe.
▪ Residents living in an urban environment were less likely to have stated they felt safe outside after dark (72%), compared to those in rural areas (82%). ▪ Exploring further, residents living in areas classified as ‘rural town and fringe’ were more likely to feel safe outside after dark (86%), compared to those living in ‘urban city and town’ areas (72%). ▪ There were some variations with how safe residents feel when outside after dark by ward. Residents in Brookvale & Kings Furlong and Chineham wards were significantly less likely to feel safe with just 57% and 59% of residents stating they felt safe. Residents in the North Easterly wards also had slightly
lower levels of feeling safe compared to those in the South Westerly wards.
Figure 14: Total who feel safe outside after dark by demographics
18-24 (n=89) 75% 25-34 (n=173) 75% 35-44 (n=192) 78% 45-54 (n=214) 79% 55-64 (n=175) 77% 65-74 (n=150) 70% 75 + (n=105) 64%
Male (n=536) 86% Female (n=562) 64%
Owned outright (n=391) 73% Buying on a mortgage (n=372) 84% *Buying: shared ownership scheme (n=9) 67% Rented from housing association (n=206) 60% Rented from private landlord (n=119) 80%
Urban (n=749) 72% Rural (n=311) 82%
Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings (n=91) 79% Rural town and fringe (n=148) 86% Rural village (n=72) 76% Urban city and town (n=749) 72%
*Caution should be taken when interpreting the result due to the small base size
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 25
Feeling safe outside during the day
Residents were then asked how safe they feel outside in their local area during the day.
▪ Results are positive with 95% of residents stating they either feel ‘very’ (54%) or ‘fairly’ (41%) safe. It should be noted that the proportion of residents who stated they feel ‘very’ safe is at its lowest since 2012. Again, this could be due to external factors, further research is needed to explore this in more detail. ▪ Although the total result has decreased slightly by 3% points; which is statistically significant, the borough’s score for this indicator is in line with the South East regional (95%) and above the national average score (94%).
Figure 15: How safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in your local area during the day?
Very safe Fairly safe Neither safe nor unsafe Fairly unsafe Very unsafe Don’t know Total positive
2019 (n=1,105) 54% 41% 4% 95%
2017 (n=1,153) 81% 17% 98% 98% 2014 (n=1,410) 79% 18% 96% 2012 (n=1,156) 75% 21%
Comparative data sources
South East 30% 95% average 2017/18 65%
National average 32% 94% June 2019 62%
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by tenure type and ward:
▪ Residents living in a home rented from a housing association were less likely to feel safe compared to the other tenure types. For example, 90% of those in homes rented from a housing association felt safe, compared to 96% of those living in owned outright accommodation (96%).
▪ When comparing whether residents feel safe outside during the day by ward, the majority of the wards all achieved positive scores of 90% or greater. The exception being with residents in Oakley & The Candovers (88%), Sherborne St John & Rooksdown (88%) and South Ham (79%), which all scored significantly
lower.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 26
Figure 16: Total who feel safe outside during the day by demographics
18-24 (n=89) 93% 25-34 (n=173) 96% 35-44 (n=192) 95% 45-54 (n=214) 92% 55-64 (n=175) 97% 65-74 (n=150) 93% 75 + (n=105) 97%
Male (n=536) 96% Female (n=562) 94%
Owned outright (n=391) 96% Buying on a mortgage (n=372) 95% *Buying: shared ownership scheme (n=9) 100% Rented from housing association (n=206) 90% Rented from private landlord (n=119) 97%
Urban (n=749) 94% Rural (n=311) 96%
Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings (n=91) 99% Rural town and fringe (n=148) 95% Rural village (n=72) 97% Urban city and town (n=749) 94%
*Caution should be taken when interpreting the result due to the small base size
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 27
Getting on well together
Residents were asked to what extent they agree that their local area is a place where people from different ethnic backgrounds get on well together.
▪ 79% of residents either ‘definitely’ (29%) or ‘tended’ (50%) to agree that people from different ethnic back grounds get on well together. This indicator has increase by 8% points since the previous survey period (2017); this result is statistically significant and is at its highest level recorded from 2012 to 2019.
Figure 17: To what extent do you agree or disagree that your local area is a place where people from different ethnic backgrounds get on well together?
Definitely agree Tend to agree Neither agree nor disagree Tend to disagree Definitely disagree Too few people in the local area All the same ethnic background Don’t know Total agreement
2019 (n=1,105) 29% 50% 12% 4% 79%
2017 (n=1,153) 36% 35% 13% 9% 4% 71%
2014 (n=1,410) 38% 36% 6% 14% 74%
75% 2012 (n=1,156) 16% 59% 12% 4% 4%
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by ward:
▪ When compared by ward, scores were relatively positive with only small proportions (<2%) disagreeing with this aspect. Residents in the Evingar ward were less likely to agree that people from different ethnic backgrounds get on well together, but also had significantly higher proportions that stated that there are too few people and they are all the same ethnic background in the local area. There were no significant findings by demographics.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 28
Satisfaction with the home residents live in
Residents were then asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with the home that they live in. They are no comparative data sources for this question.
▪ 93% of residents were either ‘very’ (46%) or ‘fairly’ (47%) satisfied with the home that they live in. ▪ Just 2% of residents said they were dissatisfied, when asked why; residents said this was mainly due to the condition of the home:
“This house needs serious renovation especially kitchen is in bad condition.” “We have a hole in the back door and in the roof. My overflow pipe is leaking, and housing association is not listening to us.” “Housing association does not look after this property.”
Figure 18: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the home that you live in?
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don’t know
Total satisfaction
2019 (n=1,105) 46% 47% 6% 93%
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by tenure type:
▪ Fewer (73%) residents who rent their home from a housing association were satisfied with their home, compared to the other tenure types. For example, 98% of residents who were buying their home were satisfied.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 29
Figure 19: Total satisfaction with the home lived in by demographics
18-24 (n=89) 91% 25-34 (n=173) 88% 35-44 (n=192) 90% 45-54 (n=214) 91% 55-64 (n=175) 98% 65-74 (n=150) 94% 75 + (n=105) 95%
Male (n=536) 95% Female (n=562) 90%
Owned outright (n=391) 98% Buying on a mortgage (n=372) 98% *Buying: shared ownership scheme (n=9) 100% Rented from housing association (n=206) 73% Rented from private landlord (n=119) 92%
Urban (n=749) 92% Rural (n=311) 94%
Rural hamlets and isolated dwellings (n=91) 92% Rural town and fringe (n=148) 93% Rural village (n=72) 97% Urban city and town (n=749) 92%
*Caution should be taken when interpreting the result due to the small base size
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 30
Section 2: Local services What makes an area a good place to live and what needs improving
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council provides many services to the local community and also has a role in planning, supporting and encouraging other services. Residents were asked to think about what things made somewhere a good place to live. Residents were able to select up to five options. A full breakdown of results and comparable data to the previous survey periods can be viewed in Table 3 with the top 5 options highlighted in red.
▪ The level of crime and antisocial behaviour (54%), clean and litter free streets (53%), health services (46%), affordable housing (43%) and shopping facilities (36%) were the most commonly mentioned aspects that made an area a good place to live.
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by rural /urban areas and age group:
▪ The level of crime and antisocial behaviour was more likely to be mentioned as making an area a good place to live by those living in urban areas (56%), compared to those living in rural areas (43%).
▪ More residents in urban areas (57%) felt that having clean and litter free streets made an area a good place to live, compared to those living in rural areas (47%). ▪ As age increased, so did the proportion of residents stating health care made an area a good place to live. For example, 27% of those aged 18-24 stated this, compared to 76% of those aged 75 or older. ▪ Affordable housing was less likely to have been mentioned by older residents (65 years or older), for example, 22% of those aged 75 years or older stated this, compared to 63% of those aged 25-34. ▪ Residents aged 18-24 (53%) were more likely to have stated that activities for teenagers made an area a good place to live compared to those aged 25 or older (ranging from 7% to 23%).
Aspects that need most improving:
▪ Affordable housing (35%), road and pavement repairs (32%), public transport (27%), health services (25%) and activities for teenagers (25%) were commonly mentioned. Two of these services (affordable housing and health services) were mentioned as one of the top five aspects that make an area a good place to live. A full breakdown of results and comparable data to the previous survey periods can be viewed in Table 3 with the top 5 options highlighted in red.
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by rural /urban areas and age group:
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 31
▪ Residents in rural areas were more likely to think that public transport (37%) and road and pavement repairs (48%) needed to be improved compared to those living in urban areas (with both aspects at 23%).
▪ As age increased, so did the proportion of residents stating that they think health services need to be improved. For example, 41% of those aged 75 or older stated this compared to 10% of those aged 18-24. ▪ Facilities and activities for young children were more of a concern for younger to middle aged residents. For example, 39% of those aged 35-44 stated that this aspect needs to be improved compared to 8% of those aged 65-74 years old.
Figure 20: Thinking generally, which five things would you say are the most important in making somewhere a good place to live and which needs most improving?
54% The level of crime and antisocial behaviour 15% 53% Clean and litter free streets 9% 46% Health services 25% 43% Affordable housing 35% 36% Shopping facilities 25% 23% Public Transport 27% 22% Facilities and activities for young children 21% 21% Parking in my street 23% 21% Parks and open spaces 18% 21% Activities for teenagers 25% 20% Education Provision 5% 19% Job prospects 11% 15% Road and pavement repairs 32% 14% Access to the countryside 2% 12% Natural green space and wildlife 4% 11% Support for older and vulnerable people 13% 11% Cultural Activities (cinemas, concert halls, art spaces) 10% 10% Sports and recreation facilities 23% 9% The level of traffic congestion 10% 6% Community halls and activities 4% Makes an area a good place to live 5% (n=1,105) Wage levels and low cost of living 10% In most need of improvement Heritage (museums, historic sites) 5% 4% (n=1,105) 4% Race relations 3% 3% Well-designed places to live 2% 3% The level of pollution 2% Nothing needs improving / none 7%
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 32 Table 3: What makes an area a good place to live and what is in most need of improvement (historical comparison)
2012 2014 2017 2019 In most need In most need In most need In most need A good place A good place A good place A good place of of of of to live to live to live to live improvement improvement improvement improvement Access to the countryside 13% 1% 14% 1% 26% 1% 14% 2% Activities for teenagers 23% 18% 16% 20% 14% 10% 21% 25% Affordable housing 35% 23% 41% 24% 48% 26% 43% 35% Clean and litter free streets 36% 16% 46% 18% 46% 23% 53% 9% Community halls and activities 9% 3% 6% 4% 9% 3% 6% 4% Cultural activities (cinemas, concert halls, art 5% 2% 6% 3% 6% 2% 11% 10% spaces) Education Provision 20% 4% 29% 4% 30% 5% 20% 5% Facilities and activities for young children 23% 11% 16% 12% 21% 7% 22% 21% Health services 32% 6% 49% 7% 47% 10% 46% 25% Heritage (museums, historic sites) 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 5% 4% Job prospects 24% 17% 33% 10% 23% 8% 19% 11% Natural green space and wildlife 11% 2% 18% 4% 18% 1% 12% 4% Parking in my street 26% 24% 14% 22% 23% 29% 21% 23% Parks and open spaces 12% 4% 20% 7% 23% 4% 21% 18% Public Transport 30% 22% 28% 24% 22% 18% 23% 27% Race relations 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% 3% Road and pavement repairs 23% 26% 20% 35% 23% 47% 15% 32% Shopping facilities 15% 6% 23% 9% 15% 7% 36% 25% Sports and recreation facilities 10% 5% 11% 6% 14% 2% 10% 23% Support for older and vulnerable people 19% 11% 16% 15% 15% 11% 11% 13% The level of crime and antisocial behaviour 52% 19% 43% 13% 36% 8% 54% 15% The level of pollution 4% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% The level of traffic congestion 15% 12% 14% 12% 9% 12% 9% 10% Wage levels and low cost of living 5% 6% 7% 4% 3% 3% 5% 10% Well-designed places to live 6% 3% 8% 3% 4% 2% 3% 2% None 1% 8% 0% 12% 0% 8% - 7% Don’t know 1% 4% 1% 5% 1% 3% - -
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 33
Figure 21 overleaf, has been divided into four quadrants, with each quadrant representing the mean scores for importance – what makes an area a good place to live - (19%) and improvement (14%). Each quadrant has been labelled as having high or low importance and a high or low improvement. The various aspects have been plotted on the chart, showing the relationship between what makes an area a good place to live and what residents thought needed to be improved upon.
▪ Affordable housing, health services, public transport, road and pavement repairs, activities for teenagers, shopping facilities, parking in my street and facilities for young people all fell into the ‘high importance, high improvement’ quadrant. ▪ Although having clean and litter free streets and low levels of crime and antisocial behaviour was important to residents; the need for improvement was below the mean calculated for improvement.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 34
Figure 21: Quadrant chart showing what makes a good place to live and what needs improving
Makes an area a good place to live and what needs improving 60% High importance, low improvement High importance, high improvement
Clean & litter free streets
50% Crime & antisocial behaviour Health services
40% Affordable housing Shopping facilities
30% Parking in my street Public Transport Parks and open spaces Education Provision Job prospects Importance 20% Activities for teenagers Facilities for young children Access to the countryside Road & pavement repairs Support for older & vulnerable Green space & wildlife Cultural Activities 10% Community halls & activities The level of traffic congestion Sports and recreation facilities Race relations Heritage Wage levels & low cost of living Pollution levels Well-designed places to live 0% Low importance, high improvement 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Low importance, low improvement Improvement
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 35
Most and least important services
Residents were then asked what aspects were most and least important to both their selves and their community. A full breakdown of results and comparable data to the previous survey periods can be viewed in Table 4 with the top 5 options highlighted in red.
▪ Collecting recycling and rubbish bins (59%), dealing with antisocial behaviour (37%) and having clean and litter free streets (19%) were the top three aspects that were important to residents. ▪ Allotments, public toilets and the provision of free events for the community were less likely to be important to residents.
Figure 22: Which three of these services do you think are the most and least important to you and your community?
59% Collecting recycling and rubbish bins 1% 37% Dealing with antisocial behaviour 2% 19% Clean and litter free streets 1% 18% Provision of parks and other green spaces 2% 17% Housing and council tax benefits 4% 17% Parking provision in residential areas 12% 15% Housing needs and advice 5% 13% Health promotion 3% 10% Protecting and enhancing our natural environment 2% 9% Most important (n=1,105) Regeneration of housing areas 5% 8% Least important (n=1,105) Providing and maintaining sports and recreational facilities 3% 8% Dealing with issues like noise and pollution 4% 7% Regeneration of business areas 7% 5% Managing and planting street trees 17% 5% Supporting businesses locally 3% 5% Planning enforcement and building control 8% 4% Public toilets 46% 4% Providing and maintaining public car parks 12% 4% Providing and maintaining community centres 3% 3% Something else 1% 3% Protecting and enhancing our built environment 4% 3% Putting on free public events for the community 28% 3% Licensing for taxis, entertainment and alcohol 20% 2% Making sure places serving food do so safely 8% 2% Allotment sites 52% 1% Providing and maintaining cemeteries 9%
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 36
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by rural /urban areas and ward:
▪ Dealing with crime and antisocial behaviour was more important to those living in urban (39%) areas compared to residents living in rural (29%) areas.
▪ Residents in Brighton Hill (55%), Tadley & Pamber (52%), Hatch Warren & Beggarwood (50%), Tadley North, Kingsclere & Baughurst (50%) and Brookvale & Kings Furlong (42%) were more likely to have stated dealing with crime and antisocial behaviour was one of the most important services, compared to the other wards.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 37 Table 4: Aspects that were most and least important to residents (historical comparisons)
2012 2014 2017 2019 Most Least Most Least Most Least Most Least important important important important important important important important Allotment sites 2% 32% 2% 32% 1% 52% 2% 52% Clean and litter free streets 27% 1% 35% 1% 33% 0% 19% 1% Collecting recycling and rubbish bins 47% 1% 71% 0% 65% 0% 59% 1% Dealing with antisocial behaviour 54% 1% 32% 1% 43% 2% 37% 2% Dealing with issues like noise and pollution 8% 3% 6% 3% 5% 2% 8% 4% Health promotion 10% 4% 8% 6% 8% 3% 13% 3% Housing and council tax benefits 9% 3% 9% 5% 5% 4% 17% 4% Housing needs and advice 17% 2% 12% 5% 17% 2% 15% 5% Licensing for taxis, entertainment and alcohol 1% 25% 1% 29% 0% 24% 3% 20% Making sure places serving food do so safely 4% 5% 3% 8% 4% 24% 2% 8% Managing and planting street trees 3% 10% 2% 15% 2% 20% 5% 17% Parking provision in residential areas 22% 3% 18% 3% 20% 3% 17% 12% Planning enforcement and building control 12% 3% 8% 6% 5% 3% 5% 8% Protecting and enhancing our built environment 5% 4% 3% 5% 3% 1% 3% 4% Protecting our natural environment 9% 1% 12% 1% 11% 0% 10% 2% Providing and maintaining cemeteries 1% 5% 1% 3% 1% 4% 1% 9% Providing and maintaining community centres 5% 1% 6% 3% 6% 2% 4% 3% Providing and maintaining public car parks 4% 3% 2% 3% 1% 2% 4% 12% Providing and maintaining sports and recreational facilities 10% 2% 6% 2% 7% 1% 8% 3% Provision of parks and other green spaces 14% 1% 19% 1% 20% 1% 18% 2% Public toilets 2% 21% 3% 22% 3% 47% 4% 46% Putting on free public events for the community 5% 17% 3% 19% 7% 20% 3% 28% Regeneration of business areas - - 2% 6% 2% 6% 7% 7% Regeneration of housing areas 8% 3% 9% 3% 9% 1% 9% 5% Supporting businesses locally 7% 4% 6% 6% 5% 3% 5% 3% Other 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 3% 1% Don't know 0% 23% 0% 27% 2% 13% 0% 0%
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 38
Section 3: Communicating with the council
This section focuses on how residents communicate with the council.
Main sources of information
Firstly, residents were asked for their main source of information about the council. The most popular methods were printed information provided by the council (40%) - (including the residents’ publication Basingstoke & Deane Today, leaflets, or posters) - or the Basingstoke and Deane Council website (27%). One in ten residents also mentioned local free newspapers (12%) and word of mouth (11%). A full breakdown of results and comparable data to the previous survey periods can be viewed in Table 5 with the top 3 options highlighted in red.
Figure 23: Please tell us what is your main source of information about the council?
Printed information provided by the council (including the residents’ publication Basingstoke & Deane Today, leaflets, or posters) 40%
Basingstoke and Deane Council website 27%
Local free newspapers 12%
Word of mouth 11%
Local paid for newspapers 4%
Via council's Facebook updates 2%
Local radio or television 1%
Via emails and e-newsletters from the council 1%
Direct contact with the Council 1%
Something else 1%
Via council's Twitter updates 1%
From your local councillor 0%
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 39
Table 5: Residents main source of information about the council (historical comparison) 2012 2014 2017 2019 Printed information provided by the council 60% 50% 50% 40% Basingstoke and Deane Council website 26% 19% 25% 27% Local free newspapers 6% 8% 4% 12% Word of mouth 3% 4% 6% 11% Local paid for newspapers 7% 10% 6% 4% Via council's Facebook updates 0% 0% 3% 2% Via council's Twitter updates 0% 0% 0% 1% Local radio or television 1% 2% 1% 1% Via emails and e-newsletters from the council 0% 0% 0% 1% Direct contact with the Council 1% 1% 1% 1% Something else 1% 1% 0% 1% From your local councillor 0% 0% 0% 0%
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by age group and gender.
▪ Residents aged 65+ (51%-53%) were more likely than younger age groups (26%-41%) to use printed information as their main source of information.
▪ Males were more likely than females to use the council website (29% vs. 24% for females).
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 40
Preferred methods of receiving information
All residents were then asked for their preferred method of receiving information about the council. The most preferred methods were printed information provided by the council (including the residents’ publication Basingstoke & Deane Today, leaflets, or posters) (51%) or the Basingstoke and Deane Council website (28%). Around one in ten residents (8%) also mentioned emails and newsletters from the council.
Figure 24: Please tell us how you would prefer to receive information about the council?
Printed information provided by the council (including the residents’ publication Basingstoke & Deane Today, leaflets, or posters) 51%
Basingstoke and Deane council website 28%
Via emails and e-newsletters from the council 8%
Local free newspapers 6%
Via council's Facebook updates 2%
Local paid for newspapers 2%
Direct contact with the Council 1%
Local radio or television 1%
Via council's Twitter updates 1%
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by age group and gender.
▪ Older residents (59%-65%) were more likely to prefer printed information provided by the council compared to younger age groups (44%-50%).
▪ Males were more likely than females to prefer the council website (32% vs. 26% for females). ▪ Females were more likely than males to prefer printed information provided by the council (54% vs. 47% for males).
▪ Males (10%) were more likely than females (6%) to prefer receiving information via emails and e-newsletters.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 41
Contacting the council with queries
All residents were then asked how they would like to contact the council if they had a query. The most popular mention was by telephone (61%). This is followed by email (20%) and through the council’s website (13%).
Figure 25: Please tell us how you would like to contact the council if you had a query?
By telephone 61%
Email 20%
Through the council’s website 13%
In person at the council offices 3%
Write a letter 1%
Send a message on a webchat 1%
Send a message on Facebook 1%
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by age group, gender and urban/rural:
▪ Residents 65+ (73%-76%) were more likely than residents under 55 (40%-61%) to contact the council by telephone if they had a query.
▪ Residents aged 18-24 (36%) were more likely than other age groups to prefer to contact the council by email if they have a query. For example, just 15% of those aged 65-74 would prefer to email the council if they had a query.
▪ Females were more likely than males to contact the council by telephone (64% vs. 57% for males) for queries.
▪ Residents living in an urban area (64%) were more likely to prefer to contact the council by telephone when they have a query. This compares to 52% of residents living in a rural area. ▪ Residents living in a rural area (17%) would like to contact the council via its website if they have any queries. This compares to 11% of residents living in urban areas.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 42
Contacting the council if they wish to make a payment
Residents were also asked how they would like to contact the council if they had to make a payment. The most popular method was through the council’s website (53%); followed by the telephone (35%). A small proportion (3%) said something else not on the list, when asked what this was, the most common response was paying by direct debit or other online payment system.
Figure 26: Please tell us how you would like to contact the council if you had to make a payment?
Through the council’s website 53%
By telephone 35%
In person at the council offices 7%
In person at other venues 4%
Something else 3%
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by age group, gender and urban/rural. ▪ Residents aged 65+ (53%-56%) are more likely than other age groups (20%- 32%) to prefer to use the telephone if they wish to make a payment. ▪ Residents under 65 (59%-70%) were more likely than those aged 65-74 (25%) to use the council website. ▪ Females (39%) were more likely than males (29%) to want to make a payment via telephone. ▪ Males (57%) were more likely than females (48%) to want to make a payment
through the council’s website.
▪ Residents living in a rural area (38%) were more likely to make a payment via the telephone. This compares to 32% of residents living in an urban area.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 43
Registering on the council’s website
All residents were provided with information about the benefits to registering on the council’s website and were asked if they would consider doing this. Around four in ten (42%) would consider registering and nearly a third (31%) would not. The remainder were either not sure (13%) or mentioned they were already registered (14%).
Figure 27: Now that you know what registering would allow you to do, would you consider registering on the council’s website?
Yes 42%
No 31%
Not sure 13%
Already registered with the council's website 14%
Sub-group analysis shows that there were significant variations by age group, gender and urban/rural.
▪ Residents aged 65-74 (30%) were less likely than other age groups (40%-54%) to consider registering on the council’s website.
▪ Males (47%) were more likely than females (36%) to consider registering on the council’s website.
▪ Residents living in urban areas (44%) were more likely than those living in rural areas (35%) to consider registering on the council’s website.
Indicative sub-group analysis
▪ Residents with a disability were less likely to want to register on the council’s website with 65% stating ‘no’, compared to 26% of those without a disability. Residents with a disability were more likely to want to speak to someone personally (54%), compared to those without a disability (27%).
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 44
▪ Residents classified as economically inactive were less likely to want to register on the council’s website with 51% stating ‘no’, compared to 22% of residents classified as economically active stating this. Residents classified as economically inactive, had a preference to speaking to someone personally (54%), compared to residents classified as economically active stating this (22%). ▪ Older residents were more likely to have stated that they have a disability and were economically inactive.
Reasons for not registering on the council’s website
Finally, residents were asked what would prevent them for using the council’s online services. ▪ Around six in ten (56%) said they were happy to use online services. Of those that mentioned a reason for not using online services, the most common was because they preferred to speak to someone personally (30%), this was followed by data security (18%).
Figure 28: What, if anything, would stop you from using Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council’s online services?
Nothing, I am happy to use online services 56%
I prefer to speak to someone personally 30%
My data security 18%
My confidence and skills when using online services 5%
Other 4%
Put off by past experiences with online services 4%
I need urgent assistance 4%
Sub group analysis shows that there were significant variations by age group, gender and urban/rural.
▪ Residents aged 75+ (65%) were more likely than younger age groups to state that they prefer to speak to someone personally (19%-46%).
▪ Females were more likely than males (34% compared to 26%) to mention that they prefer to speak to someone.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 45
▪ Residents in urban areas (20%) were more likely to mention data security as a reason for stopping them using online services. This compares to 12% of residents in rural areas.
Section 4: Volunteering
A new area of exploration for the council was around how involved people are with their local community. We asked residents if they had given any time to help as a volunteer or helped any organisations, charity etc. in an unpaid capacity in the last 12 months.
▪ Under a fifth (18%) of residents had volunteered or provided unpaid time in the last 12 months. Nationally, in 2017-18, 38% of people volunteered formally at least once in the last year3. ▪ Of the residents who had given up their time (c.197), when asked what type of organisation did they provided help to – church/religious activities (15%), working with people with disabilities (14%), the elderly (13%), sports activities (11%) and arts and culture activities (8%) were the most commonly mentioned. Table 6 presents a breakdown of all the results.
Figure 29: Within the last 12 months have you given up any time to help as a volunteer or as an organiser for any charities, clubs or organisations in an unpaid capacity?
Base – 1,104 What type of organisation did you provide unpaid help to? Base - 197
Church/religious activities 15%
Working with people with disabilities 14% Yes No 18% Working with elderly people 13% 82% Sports activities 11%
Arts and culture 8%
3 Community Life Survey 2017-18 (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/community-life-survey-2017-18)
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 46
Table 6: What type of organisation did you provide unpaid help to?
Count % Church/religious activities 30 15% Working with people with disabilities 27 14% Working with elderly people 25 13% Sports activities 22 11% Arts and culture 15 8% Working in support of the environment 14 7% Playgroups or other children’s activities 14 7% Village hall/community association 14 7% Working in the area of health 13 7% Activities or organisations working with young people 13 7% Neighbourhood Watch 12 6% Working with animals 11 6% Other 10 5% Working with vulnerable people 9 5% Providing adult education 5 3% School governing body 5 3% Parent/teacher association 3 2% Professional Societies or Associations 3 2% Residents/tenants group or organisation 2 1% Political Party 2 1% Anti-Crime or Victim Support 1 1% Trade Union 1 1%
Sub group analysis shows that there were significant variations by age group and urban/rural:
▪ The 55-64 (27%) age group were significantly more likely to have given unpaid help in the last 12 months compared to the other age groups (9%~22%).
▪ Residents living in rural areas (22%) were more likely to have given up their time in the last 12 months compared to those living in urban areas (16%).
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 47
Figure 30: Residents who said they had given any unpaid help in the last 12 months by age group and urban/rural
18-24 (n=89) 9% 25-34 (n=172) 10% 35-44 (n=192) 22% 45-54 (n=214) 18% 55-64 (n=175) 27% 65-74 (n=150) 17% 75 + (n=105) 15%
Urban (n=748) 16% Rural (n=311) 22%
Indicative sub-group analysis
▪ Fewer residents who were classified as economically inactive had given up their time with 14% stating yes, compared to 20% of those classified as economically active giving up their time.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 48
Where help was provided
Residents who had provided unpaid help were asked where they had provided this help – in their local area, outside their local area but still within the borough or outside the borough.
▪ In most cases the unpaid help provided was carried out either in the resident’s local area or outside their local area but still with the borough. Figure 31 presents a breakdown of all the results. Caution should be taken when interpreting the results due to the small sample sizes.
Figure 31: Where was this unpaid help carried out?
In my local area Outside my local area, but in Basingstoke & Deane Outside Basingstoke & Deane
Overall (n=194) 59% 32% 16% Neighbourhood Watch (n=12) 100% Residents/tenants group or organisation (n=2) 100% Village hall/community association (n=14) 86% 14% Working with elderly people (n=25) 80% 20% Providing adult education (n=5) 80% 20% Parent/teacher association (n=3) 67% 33% Playgroups or other children’s activities (n=13) 62% 39% School governing body (n=5) 60% 40% Church/religious activities (n=30) 60% 27% 13% Working with people with disabilities (n=27) 59% 30% 11% Working with vulnerable people (n=9) 56% 33% 11% Working in the area of health (n=13) 54% 39% 8% Political Party (n=2) 50% 50% Working in support of the environment (n=14) 50% 36% 14% Activities or orgs working with young people (n=11) 46% 36% 18% Sports activities (n=22) 36% 46% 18% Working with animals (n=11) 36% 9% 55% Professional Societies or Associations (n=3) 33% 33% 33% Other (n=10) 20% 10% 70% Arts and culture (n=14) 14% 64% 21%
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 49
Barriers to getting involved
All residents were then asked to state the main reasons that stop people in general and themselves personally getting involved in supporting the community.
▪ Residents felt that a lack of time (81%), not knowing what opportunities are available (34%) and a general unwillingness to get involved (24%) were the most common barriers that stopped the local community from getting involved with giving up their time. ▪ Barriers to resident’s personal involvement were similar with 59% stating they lack the time, 23% said they don’t know what opportunities are available, 13% they were just not interested and 10% said they are already giving as much as they can.
Figure 32: What do you think are the top three reasons that stop people in general from getting involved in helping support the community? And what about you personally?
81% Lack of time (for communities and individuals) 59% 34% Not knowing what opportunities are available 23% 14% Not interested 13% 17% Being physically unable to help 11% 17% Do not have the right skills 8% 5% Lack of community facilities 8% 7% Lack of money / funding 5% 1% Other 3% 4% Too many restrictions / red tape 3% 24% Unwillingness among communities & individuals 1% 1% Trust within communities 1% 2% Trust between communities and the council 1% Barriers for the local community 2% (n=1,105) There are already enough volunteers 1% 3% Barriers for residents personally Don't know 1% (n=1,105)
I already do as much as I can 10%
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 50
Section 4: The council plan
Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council have developed a set of four priorities; with each having five commitments which underpin the council plan for 2020 to 2024. The council wanted to understand to what extent residents agreed with the priorities. Residents were provided with a showcard that provided insight into each priority.
Priority: Strengthening communities
This priority looks at delivering services, supporting local communities, providing leisure and sporting facilities, focusing on health and mental welling and making sure residents grow older well. Residents were asked to what extent they agree or disagree with this priority.
▪ Overall 92% of residents either ‘strongly’ (67%) or ‘tended to’ (25%) agree with this priority.
Figure 33: To what extent, do you agree or disagree that the following are the right priorities for Basingstoke and Deane?
Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree nor disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree
Total agreement
Strengthening communities 67% 25% 6% 92% (n=1,105)
Priority: Protecting and enhancing our environment
This priority looks at responding the climate emergency, moving towards a zero carbon council by 2025, improving air quality, biodiversity, rivers and landscape quality.
▪ 93% of residents either ‘strongly’ (67%) or ‘tended to’ (26%) agree with this priority.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 51
Figure 34: To what extent, do you agree or disagree that the following are the right priorities for Basingstoke and Deane?
Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree nor disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree
Total agreement Protecting & enhancing the 67% 26% 5% 93% environment (n=1,105)
Priority: Improving safety
This priority looks at increasing the funding for Community Safety Patrol Officers, reducing antisocial behaviour, more support for the police, responding to emergencies and supporting the most vulnerable residents.
▪ 97% of residents either ‘strongly’ (81%) or ‘tended to’ (17%) agree with this priority.
Figure 35: To what extent, do you agree or disagree that the following are the right priorities for Basingstoke and Deane?
Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree nor disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree
Total agreement
Improving safety 81% 17% 97% (n=1,105)
Priority: Planning for the future
This priority looks at improving transport options and connections, creating sustainable homes, providing affordable housing, supporting jobs and business growth and supporting initiatives for a new modern hospital.
▪ 97% of residents either ‘strongly’ (72%) or ‘tended to’ (25%) agree with this priority.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 52
Figure 36: To what extent, do you agree or disagree that the following are the right priorities for Basingstoke and Deane?
Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree nor disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree Total agreement
Planning for the future 72% 25% 97% (n=1,105)
Residents were asked what they think the council needs to do to achieve these priorities. Overall 121 residents provided a valid comment. Frequently mentioned was:
▪ Improving communication with residents and the community (60% c.62) “I think they should seek more input from this community.” Man, 55-64 years old “Maybe they should come and talk to us.” Woman, 45-54 years old “They should come out and understand our issues.” Woman, 55-64 years old
▪ More investment and the council needs more money/funds (28% c.34) “They need more funding from central government.” Man, 45-64 years old “They need to invest and need to listen to the service users.” Woman, 45-54 years old “They should spend some more money and stick to what they say. They should communicate with the community.” Woman, 45-54 years old
Finally, residents were asked if they had any other comments on the council plan priorities. Overall only 48 residents provided a valid response. Similar to the above, comments focused on the council listening more to residents, keeping residents informed and spending/investing in the local area.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 53
Conclusions
Attitudes towards the local area
The most recent results are positive with satisfaction with the local area (95%), feeling safe outside during the day (95%) and satisfaction with the home (93%) all achieving scores of 93% or greater. For the former two indicators scores being in line or above the regional average (80% and 95%, no comparable data for satisfaction with the home).
The majority (89%) felt they belonged to the local area and this indicator has increased slightly since 2017. The sense of belonging increased as age increased.
Positively satisfaction with the way the council runs things has increased from 78% (2017) to 80% during the most recent survey period.
There has been a sharp decrease (-15% points) in the percentage of residents who feel safe outside after dark from 90% (2017) to 75% in the most recent survey period. This indicator is below both the South East average (77%) and National average (76%) scores. External factors outside the council’s control could be contributing to this, further insight is needed here. The previous survey periods were carried out during the Spring/Summer, whilst the most recent survey was carried out during the darker winter months, which may have lowered the results.
There has been an increase in the proportion of residents agreeing the council provides value for money from 59% (2017) to 62%. This indicator is above the national (48%) and South East (47%) regional scores.
Although there has been a positive increase with residents agreeing that they can influence decisions affecting their local area (19% agreed in 2017 vs. 41% who agreed in 2019), there has been in increase in the proportion having no feelings either way from 11% to 23% during the most recent survey period. The younger age groups (18-24) were less likely to feel they could influence decisions.
Positively there has been an increase in the proportion of resident feeling informed about the services and benefits the council provides from 62% (2017) to 73%. Although just over a fifth (22%) still have no feelings either way, this proportion has decreased slightly. Again, the younger age group (18-24) were less likely to feel informed, but it is not known if there is a desire to be informed for this age group.
Key sub-groups variations
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 54
Women were less likely to be satisfied with their local area as a place to live, feel they belong to the local area and were also less likely to feel safe outside after dark compared to men. Women’s preference when engaging with the council was through non-online channels; such as telephone or printed format compared to men who preferred online channels.
When compared to the other tenure types, fewer residents who are renting their home from a housing association were satisfied with their home, with the local area as a place to live, the way the council run things, agree the council provides value for money, felt that they belonged to the local area and were less likely to agree they can influence decisions.
When compared to rural areas, those living in urban areas were less likely to be satisfied with their local area as a place to live, less likely to feel like they belonged to the local area, feel safe outside after dark and less satisfied with the quality of the home they live in.
Local area
Low levels of crime and antisocial behaviour, having clean and litter free streets, good health services, affordable housing and good shopping facilities were most commonly mentioned by residents as making an area a good place to live. Although residents felt the council needs to improve on the affordability of housing and health services – both were mentioned as aspects that made an area a good place to live.
Residents also felt that aspects such as collecting recycling and rubbish bins, dealing with crime and antisocial behaviour and having clean and litter free streets were important local services. Whilst aspects such as allotments, public toilets and the provision of free events for the community were less important.
Communicating with the council
Residents’ current and preferred source of information about the council was via printed information and the council’s website. Not surprisingly, the older age groups were more likely to source or prefer to receive information in printed format and younger age groups via electronic format.
Residents would prefer to contact the council about a query by telephone (61%) and via email (20%). Residents would prefer to make payments through the council’s website (53%) or by telephone (35%). Older residents were more likely to want to make a payment via telephone whilst the younger age groups were more likely to use an online payment system. Residents with a disability, were less likely
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 55 to want to sign up to the council’s website but would prefer to speak to someone personally compared to those without a disability.
Around a third (31%) of residents wouldn’t consider registering on the council website, this was more so the case for older residents and those living in rural areas. Reasons for not wanting to use the council’s online services were around preference to speak to someone personally and data security.
Volunteering
Around a fifth (18%) of residents had provided unpaid help or support in the last 12 months, mainly through religious activities, working with people with disabilities and the elderly.
Barriers to providing unpaid help and support focused on not having enough time, not knowing what opportunities are available and people being unwilling to help.
The council plan
The majority (92%~97%) agreed with all four priorities of the council plan for 2020-2024. Residents did feel that to deliver the plan the council needs to improve the way it communicates with residents and that they need to invest and source more funds for the area.
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 56
Appendices
Appendices Appendix A: Questionnaire
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 57
Appendix A: Questionnaire
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 58
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 59
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 60
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 61
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 62
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 63
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 64
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 65
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 66
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 67
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 68
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 69
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 70
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 71
Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 72