Neighbourhood Partnership Consultation DRAFT REPORT v2.0 Consultation Research and Intelligence Team April 2013 1 CONTENTS Introduction 2 Methodology 2 Analysis 2 Response 2 - 5 Main Findings 6 - 25 SUMMARY 6 - 7 Do you feel you know what’s going on in your area? 8 Do you attend local meetings about local issues? 9 If you don’t attend local meetings about local issues, what stops you? 10 Heard of Your local Neighbourhood Partnership? 11 Heard of Neighbourhood Forums? 12 Taken part in Neighbourhood Partnership / Forum 13 Taken part in other local meetings 14 What like if : Participation in ‘Neighbourhood Partnership / Forum’ or ‘Taken part in other local meetings’ combined 15 What Like if: Attend ‘Meetings on Local issues’ only 16 How could be improved if: If attend Neighbourhood Partnership / Forum or Other Local meetings 17 How could be improved if: Attend ‘Meetings on Local issues’ only 18 Aware NP make decisions on highways etc 19 Do you think it is a good idea for local people to be involved in these decisions 20 Do you think enough decisions about council services are made locally? 21 Would you like to be involved/continue to be involved in local decision-making? 22 How would you like to be involved in local decision-making? 23 What is the best time / day to have community meetings? 24 How do you find out information about your neighbourhood? 25 OPEN COMMENT ANALYSIS 'What do you think should be decided or influenced locally in the future? 26 If you attend neighbourhood partnership / neighbourhood forums/local meetings, how do you think that forums and other local meetings could be made better? 27 Equalities Profile 28 Appendix A ACORN Profile of Respondents by NP area and Overal l Appendix B Equality Analysis on selected questions 2 Neighbourhood Partnership Consultation Final Report Introduction The consultation was commissioned by the Neighbourhood Partnership Management Team and undertaken by BCC Research Consultation and Intelligence Team. The consultation ran from 1 st February 2013 until 1 st April 2013. The following text ws listed on the Consukltation Finder entry: “The Mayor of Bristol is dedicated to giving local communities more influence over their neighbourhoods. We want to develop our Neighbourhood Partnerships and to bring more influence and decision-making about local services to local communities. In order to do this, we would like to hear from our citizens about what they would like more control and responsibility for in their neighbourhoods, and about how they would like to take part in local decision making. The information gained from this survey will be used alongside detailed consultation within each neighbourhood to improve our Neighbourhood Partnerships. We want to ensure that we design our service based on what our citizens tell us.” Methodology An online questionnaire and background information was available via the City Council Consultation Finder portal on the Council website: https://www.citizenspace.com/bristol/neighbourhoods/npreview The survey link was widely publicized and a paper copy of the questionnaire was also made available for completion by those with restricted access to the internet. The online questionnaire was also available via SNAP Mobile enabling fieldworkers in each of the neighbourhood partnership areas to gather responses in the community using ipad/tablets. Analysis Responses to each question are shown in both tablular and chart form. The tables display both counts and percentages whilst the charts shown percentages only. Where appropriate responses are shown by Neighbourhood Partnership Area and by ‘overall’ for comparison. Note: missing values are excluded in most tables. The total (base) used is given in each table. The main observations from each question are bulleted underneath each table. 3 Response There were 3101 returns in total. 161 from the fieldwork surveys and 2940 from the online survey. Data Collection Neighbourhood Partnership Area Approach Tablet Online Total missing Count 25 215 240 % 10.4 89.6 100.0 Outside area Count 1 25 26 % 3.8 96.2 100.0 Avonmouth and Kingsweston Count 2 235 237 % .8 99.2 100.0 Henbury and Southmead Count 24 236 260 % 9.2 90.8 100.0 Henleaze, Stoke Bishop and Westbury-on- Count 2 170 172 Trym % 1.2 98.8 100.0 Horfield and Lockleaze Count 1 89 90 % 1.1 98.9 100.0 Eastville, Hillfields and Frome Vale Count 22 95 117 % 18.8 81.2 100.0 Bishopston, Cotham and Redland Count 1 266 267 % .4 99.6 100.0 Cabot, Clifton and Clifton East Count 45 76 121 % 37.2 62.8 100.0 Ashley, Easton and Lawrence Hill Count 5 420 425 % 1.2 98.8 100.0 St George East and St George West Count 7 89 96 % 7.3 92.7 100.0 Bedminster and Southville Count 25 99 124 % 20.2 79.8 100.0 Filwood, Knowle and Windmill Hill Count 1 208 209 % .5 99.5 100.0 Brislington East and Brislington West Count 0 162 162 % .0 100.0 100.0 Bishopsworth, Hartcliffe and Whitchurch Count 0 319 319 Park % .0 100.0 100.0 Hengrove and Stockwood Count 0 236 236 % .0 100.0 100.0 Total Count 161 2940 3101 % 5.2% 94.8% 100.0% 4 The overall response by neighbourhood partnership area is shown below: Neighbourhood Partnership Area Frequency Percent Outside area 26 .8 Horfield and Lockleaze 90 2.9 St George East and St George West 96 3.1 Eastville, Hillfields and Frome Vale 117 3.8 Cabot, Clifton and Clifton East 121 3.9 Bedminster and Southville 124 4.0 Brislington East and Brislington West 162 5.2 Henleaze, Stoke Bishop and Westbury-on-Trym 172 5.5 Filwood, Knowle and Windmill Hill 209 6.7 Hengrove and Stockwood 236 7.6 Avonmouth and Kingsweston 237 7.6 missing 240 7.7 Henbury and Southmead 260 8.4 Bishopston, Cotham and Redland 267 8.6 Bishopsworth, Hartcliffe and Whitchurch Park 319 10.3 Ashley, Easton and Lawrence Hill 425 13.7 Total/Base 3101 100.0 Response by Neighbourhood Partnership Ashley, Easton and Lawrence Hill Bishopsworth, Hartcliffe and Whitchurch Park Bishopston, Cotham and Redland Henbury and Southmead missing Avonmouth and Kingsweston Hengrove and Stockwood Filwood, Knowle and Windmill Hill Henleaze, Stoke Bishop and Westbury-on-Trym Brislington East and Brislington West Bedminster and Southville Cabot, Clifton and Clifton East Eastville, Hillfields and Frome Vale St George East and St George West Horfield and Lockleaze Outside area 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 percent 5 Main findings SUMMARY • The consultation attracted a good response • There were good levels of responder awareness of what was going on their area but there were notable differences between the NP areas. Highest: Bedminster and Southville and Lowest Brislington East and Brislington West . • About a third of respondents said they attended local meetings. Again there were notable differences between the NP areas. Highest attendance in Henleaze, Stoke Bishop and lowest in Hengrove. • The main reason for non attendance was lack of time (1 in 5). Time of day was identified by approx 1 in 8 respondents and 1 in 10 would prefer online options. • Overall approx 2 in 3 had heard of their Neighbourhood Partnership but there were large discrepancies in awareness between NP areas. Highest awareness in Henleaze,Stoke Bishop and lowest awareness in Hengrove and Stockwood. • Overall approx 2 in 3 heard of Neighbourhood Forums. Highest awareness in Henleaze,Stoke Bishop and Westbury-on-Trym. The lowest awareness was in Hengrove and Stockwood. • Overall approximately 1 in 5 had taken part in Neighbourhood Partnership / Forum. There were wide differences between NP areas. Higest participation in Cabot, Clifton and Clifton East and Lowest participation in Hengrove and Stockwood. • Overall approximately 1 in 3 had taken part in ‘other local meetings’. There were wide differences between NP areas. Highest participation in Horfield and Lockleaze and lowest participation in Hengrove and Stockwood. • Of respondents who attended either ‘Neighbourhood Partnership / Forum’ or ‘Other local meeting’, they particularly liked aspects of findings out what was going on in their neighbourhood (2 in 3) influencing (1 in 2) and speaking to providers (1 in 2). There was less liking of ‘concerns being taken seriously’ (1 in 3) and of ‘organisation issues’ (1) • Suggestions for improving NP/local meetings highlighted ‘better advertising’ as the main issue (1 in 2) followed by (1 in 3) suggesting ‘improved feedback’, ‘linking to other group meetings in the area’ and better links to ‘community groups’. • Overall approx 1 in 2 were aware that NP make decisions on highways etc. Highest awareness in Cabot, Clifton and Clifton East and Lowest 6 awareness in Hengrove and Stockwood • There was an overwhelming majority of respondents who thought that ‘it is a good idea for local people to be involved in these decisions’. This was consistently high across all NP areas. • Only 1 in 5 respondents though that ‘enough decisions about council services are made locally’. Highest level of agreement in Cabot, Clifton and Clifton East (1 in 3) and lowest level in Eastville, Hillfields and Frome Vale (1 in 7) • Overall approx 1 in 2 wish to be more involved in local decision making. Less differential between NP areas. Highest in Horfield and Lockleaze (2 in 3) andLowest in Hengrove and Stockwood (1 in 3) • Preference for evening meetings at mixture of times. Far less interest in weekend meetings. • Most (1 in 2) found information about their neighbourhood via ‘word of word of mouth’ and ‘local newspapers’. 1 in 5 hear via BCC website and 1 in 7 via social media • The top 5 suggestion s from the open question: What do you think should be decided or influenced locally in the