Best Value User Satisfaction Survey

8/8/2019 Best Value User Satisfaction Survey

1/32

Best Value User Satisaction

Surveys 2006-07

General Survey National Report


2/32

Best Value User SatisactionSurveys 2006-07General Survey National Report

May 2007Department for Communities and Local Government


3/32

Communities and Local GovernmentEland HouseBressenden PlaceLondonSW1E 5DUTelephone: 020 7944 4400

Website: www.communities.gov.uk

Crown Copyright, 2007

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced ree o charge in any ormat or medium or research, private study

or or internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not

used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title o the

publication specifed.

Any other use o the contents o this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply or a Click-UseLicence or core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Oce oPublic Sector Inormation, Inormation Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ.Fax: 01603 723000 or email: [email protected]

I you require this publication in an alternative ormat please email [email protected]

Communities and Local Government PublicationsPO Box 236

WetherbyWest YorkshireLS23 7NBTel: 08701 226 236Fax: 08701 226 237Textphone: 08701 207 405Email: [email protected] online via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk

May 2007

Product Code: 07LGSR04610


4/32

5

Introduction

Background

All English local authorities are statutorily required to undertake surveys on a three-yearly

basis to collect data or Best Value Perormance satisaction indicators. The rst roundo these surveys ran in 2000-01, the second in 2003-04 and this report publishes nationalresults rom the third round in 2006-07.

These survey-based measures orm part o the wider suite o BVPIs, which councilsare statutorily required to report. Local authorities collect these survey data ollowing amethodology and a timetable prescribed by Communities and Local Government and theAudit Commission. Following data collection, authorities submit their data to the AuditCommission or collation and urther analysis at national and regional aggregate levels.

There are ve BVPI surveys: a general household survey; a survey o local authority benet

claimants, a survey o local authority tenants, a survey o planning applicants, and a surveyo library users. This report publishes an initial set o results or all authorities rom theGeneral Survey only.

This report updates an earlier report which presented results or single tier and uppertier authorities, as these authorities were asked to submit their data earlier than usual sothat it could be used or Comprehensive Perormance Assessment (CPA) 2006. This reportincludes results or District and single and upper tier councils and reports the nationalaverages or those indicators which Districts are required to report.

General Survey

Fieldwork or the General Survey took place in authorities across England betweenSeptember and November 2006. This survey ocuses on our key areas: Corporate Health,Environment & Waste, Transport and Cultural & Recreational Services. The General Surveycollects thirteen Best Value Perormance Indicators. To refect the responsibilities odierent authority types, some indicators are not relevant to all authorities (Table 1,

Annex A). Authorities collect data or the General Survey using a standardisedquestionnaire template.

In addition to questions used to collect data or BVPIs, there are several non-statutoryindicators and questions. These include question modules on quality o lie in the localarea, anti-social behaviour and respect, and participation and local decision making.National results are presented or these questions, some o which constitute indicators orLocal Area Agreements.


5/32

Best Value User Satisaction Surveys 2006-07

6

About this report

This report publishes nationally aggregated BVPI results, using data rom 387 English localauthorities1. The report includes an indicator by indicator commentary o 2006-07 resultsor eleven BVPIs collected by the General Survey2. It also includes time-series comparisonswith 2000-01 and 2003-04 results, as well as results by authority type and regional

breakdowns. All relevant BVPI data is presented in tables inAnnex A. A brie technicalnote o the methodology can be ound atAnnex B.

The report updates the General Survey Initial Topline Report or Single and Upper-TierLocal Authorities, published on the 15th February 20073 to include results rom DistrictCouncils. Where trends presented in the Single and Upper Tier Local Authorities reportare signicantly dierent rom the national results, the dierences are highlighted in thisreport. The report presents regional statistics or the BVPI user satisaction indicators inthe General Survey. This report does not repeat the transport indicators (BVPI103 andBVPI104), or which national results were presented in a previous report or Single andUpper Tier Local Authorities.

This report also presents key results or questions in the BVPI General Surveys used asindicators or Local Area Agreements (LAAs)4. These questions cover anti-social behaviour,quality o lie and participation and local decision making.

The Isles o Scilly did not conduct the survey National results or transport indicators BVPI 03 and BVPI04 are published in a previous report3 Available rom http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=5060894 Indicators used in Round 3 o Local Area Agreements are described in Appendix A o guidance published at:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=64930


6/32

7

Results

Summary o Best Value Perormance Indicator Results

54% satised with the overall service provided by the local authority a decline o

1 percentage point since 2003-04.

34% o complainants satised with the handling of their complaints animprovement o 1 percentage point since 2003-04.

68% satised with the cleanliness standard (keeping land clear of litter and waste)in their area an improvement o 8 percentage points since 2003-04.

79% satised with household waste collectiona decline o 5 percentage points since2003-04.

70% satised withwaste recycling (local facilities) an improvement o 2 percentagepoints since 2003-04.

79% satised withwaste disposal (local tips) an improvement o 4 percentage pointssince 2003-04.

58% satised with sports and leisure facilities an improvement o 4 percentagepoints since 2003-04.

73% satised with libraries an improvement o 6 percentage points since 2003-04.

41% satised with museums and galleries a decline o 1 percentage point since2003-04.

41% satised with theatres and concert halls a decline o 6 percentage points since2003-04.

73% satised with parks and open spaces an improvement o 2 percentage pointssince 2003-04.


7/32


8

Corporate Health Indicators

Figure 1: Corporate health: public satisaction 2000-01 to 2006-07

%s

atisfied

Overal l satisfaction Compla intshandling

2000-01

2003-04

2006-07

80

60

40

20

0

Overall satisfaction

Average overall satisaction with local authorities has allen by one percentage point,rom 55% satised in 2003-04 to 54% in 2006-07. This represents an 11 percentage pointdecline on 2000-01 levels (Figure 1). Between 2003-04, overall satisaction declinedby 4 percentage points in Counties, by 2 percentage points in Unitary authorities andMetropolitan Boroughs, and by 1 percentage point in District councils; London Boroughshave however seen an improvement o 2 percentage points (Table 2).

Within this overall picture, 77 authorities show statistically signicant improvement since2003-04, whilst 121 authorities show statistically signicant decline. 189 authorities show nosignicant change since 2003-045.

Overall satisaction varies by age, gender, ethnicity, and stated disability (Table 3). Olderage groups are more likely to express satisaction with their local authority than youngerage groups, and women are more likely to express satisaction than men. Variation byethnicity is more complex: respondents identiying themselves as Black are slightly morelikely to be satised than the average, and those identiying themselves as Mixed, Asianor other non-White ethnicities are slightly less likely to be satised than the average6.The Department is undertaking more detailed analysis to understand these trends anddetermine whether other actors (such as concentration o particular ethnic groups in

particular areas) are involved.

Complaints handling

Satisaction with complaints handling shows a 1 percentage point increase since 2003-04,previously this indicator had seen a drop o 7 percentage points between 2000-01 and2003-04 (Figure 1, Table 4).

5 Change in each authority tested using a t-test; statistical signifcance is reported at the 95% confdence level.6 White mirrors the average due to the high proportion o those identiying as White in the population.


8/32

9

Environment and Waste Indicators

Figure 2: Environment and waste services: public satisaction 2000-01 to 2006-07

%s

atisfied

Cleanliness ofpublic land

Waste collection Local recyclingfacilities

Waste disposal/local tips

2000-01

2003-04

2006-07

100

80

60

40

20

0

%s

atisfied

Cleanliness ofpublic land

Waste collection Local recyclingfacilities

Waste disposal/local tips

2000-01

2003-04

2006-07

100

80

60

40

20

0

Three o the our environment and waste indicators show increased public satisaction:satisaction with keeping land clear o litter and reuse and local recycling acilities andwaste disposal (local tips) now exceed 2000-01 levels (Figure 2). Satisaction with wastecollection shows a 5 percentage point decline since 2003-04.

The most marked increases in satisaction with environment and waste are seen in LondonBoroughs, which show improvement in all environment and waste indicators and greaterimprovement than other types o authority, although in absolute terms residents o LondonBoroughs remain least satised with waste services (Tables 5 to 8). There are considerablevariations in perormance on these indicators or dierent types o authority, or examplesatisaction with waste collection in London Boroughs has risen by 4 percentage points,

whilst in Districts satisaction has declined by 7 percentage points.

Transport Indicators

National gures have already been reported in the Initial Topline Report or Single andUpper Tier Local Authorities7 as District councils do not report transport indicators.

Cultural and Recreational Service Indicators

O the cultural and recreational service indicators, three indicators show an increase in

satisaction (sports and leisure acilities, libraries, and parks and open spaces). The othertwo indicators show declines (Figure 3).

Levels o satisaction with sport and leisure acilities, parks and open spaces and withlibraries have increased or single and upper tier authorities overall since 2003-04 and nowexceed the 2000-01 levels o satisaction or these indicators (Tables 9, 10 and 13).

Satisaction with museums and galleries shows a slight decline (Table 11). Satisaction withtheatres and concert halls has declined by 6 percentage points since 2003-04, refecting aconsiderable decline o 8 percentage points or District councils (Table 12).

Available rom http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=506089


9/32


10

Figure 3: Culture and recreational services: public satisaction 2000-01 to 2006-07

2000-01

2003-04

2006-07

%s

ati

sfied

%s

atisfied

Sports & Leisurefacilities

Libraries

Theatres & concerthalls

Parks & openspaces

Museums &galleries

2000-01

2003-04

2006-07

2000-01

2003-04

2006-07

2000-01

2003-04

2006-07

80

60

40

20

0

80

60

40

20

0

Local Area Indicators

The survey includes a number o questions relating to the local area, including indicatorson quality o lie, social cohesion, respect and anti-social behaviour (Table 14). Theseindicators orm part o the set o indicators or Local Area Agreements.

Quality of life

75% are satised with their area as a place to live. There is some variation regionally,with the South West achieving highest average levels o satisaction and London registeringthe lowest.

Social cohesion

An indicator o social cohesion was also included which reports that nationally, 79% opeople denitely or tend to agree that their local area is a place where people o dierentbackgrounds get on well together. Initial analysis o this question indicates thatvariation ismore likely to occur on smaller geographical levels than presented in this report.

Respect and anti-social behaviour

Nationally, there is considerable variation in peoples perceptions o anti-social behaviour

in their area. 62% o residents eel parents not taking responsibility or the behaviour otheir children is a very or airly big problem, whilst 57% identiy teenagers hanging aroundon streets and 43% identiy people using or dealing drugs as problems in their local area.


10/32

11

Inormation Provision

Nationally, 47% o residents eel their council keeps residents very or airly well inormedabout the services and benets it provides, which represents a decline o 9 percentagepoints rom 2003-04 (Table 18a). People who eel more inormed, tend to be moresatised with their council overall (Table 18b).

Participation and Local Decision Making

For the rst time, questions concerning the opportunities or participation and localdecision making have been included in the survey (Table 17). Nationally, 32% o peopleagree that they can infuence decisions aecting their local area; 28% are satised withopportunities or participation in decision making, whilst 26% would like to be moreinvolved in decisions the council makes that aect their local area. Londoners are morelikely to agree that they can infuence local decision making, and more likely to want to bemore involved in local decision making. These early results suggest that there appears to

be a relationship between overall satisaction with the authority as a whole, opportunitiesor participation and the degree to which respondents agree they can infuence localdecisions (Table 19).


11/32


12

Initial observations and urther analysis

Overall satisaction with local government has declined by a small amount since 2003-04,ollowing greater decline between 2000-01 and 2003-04. In contrast, many specic serviceshave seen signicant improvements in public satisaction rom 2000-01.

The relationship between satisaction and service perormance, as measured by objectiveperormance indicators and assessments is complex. Looking across councils, satisactioncorrelates with measures o perormance such as Comprehensive Perormance Assessment(CPA) better councils achieve higher levels o public satisaction. Over time however,whilst objective measures show signicant improvement rom 2000-018, this has not beenrefected in the publics view o local government.

There are a wide range o actors that may aect how people eel about their localauthority and its services. Some o these, such as demographic characteristics, howinormed people are, and views on participation and local decision making have been

initially explored in this report. Other actors may include:

Service use & direct experience

Perceived value or money

Expectations in relation to other public and private services

Characteristics o the area or example deprivation or ethnic diversity

Perormance on particular issues or example liveability

The Department is conducting urther analysis to establish what the most important actorsare in determining the publics views o local government and their local area, and whysome people are more satised than others. This work will contribute to understandingabout how councils and their partners can respond to public views and concerns, and howto improve reputations in line with services.

8 http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/cpa/stcc/stccscores.asp


12/32

13

Annex A

Introduction

The questions on which the General Survey Best Value Perormance Indicators are based

all include a 5-point satisaction response scale (very satised, airly satised, neithersatised nor dissatised, airly dissatised and very dissatised). BVPIs are based on thosewho indicate that they are satised. All gures included in the tables or the BV indicatorsshow those satised (i.e. % very satised plus % airly satised) as a percentage o thoseresponding to the question. Those who did not answer are excluded rom the basenumber. Results at a national, authority type or regional level are based on average scoresor authorities within those groups with a requirement to report the relevant indicators.For questions that do not use the satised scale given above, the derivations o the %gures are given in notes at the base o the table. The numbers o councils reporting eachindicator is given, refecting dierences in the types o authority required to report eachindicator and missing or qualied data.

List o Tables

1. Best Value Perormance Indicators collected by the General Survey.

2. Overall Satisaction BVPI3 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2006-07 national results.

3. Overall Satisaction BVPI3 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2006-07 by demographiccharacteristics age, gender, ethnicity and disability.

4. Satisaction with complaints handling BVPI4 2000-01 to 2006-07 national results.

5. Satisaction with cleanliness o public land BVPI89 2000-01 to 2006-07 nationalresults.

6. Satisaction with household waste collection BVPI90a 2000-01 to 2006-07 nationalresults.

7. Satisaction with waste recycling (local acilities) BVPI90b 2000-01 to 2006-07 resultsand by authority type.

8. Satisaction with waste disposal (local tips) BVPI90c 2000-01 to 2006-07 nationalresults.

9. Satisaction with sports and leisure acilities BVPI119a 2000-01 to 2006-07 nationalresults.

10. Satisaction with libraries BVPI119b 2000-01 to 2006-07 national results.

11. Satisaction with museums and galleries BVPI119c 2000-01 to 2006-07 nationalresults.

12. Satisaction with theatres and concert halls BVPI119d 2000-01 to 2006-07 nationalresults.


13/32


14

13. Satisaction with parks and open spaces BVPI119e 2000-01 to 2006-07 nationalresults.

14. Satisaction with area, respect and social cohesion 2006-07 national results.

15. Anti-social behaviour 2006-07 national results (1).

16. Anti-social behaviour 2006-07 national results (2).

17. Inormation provision and local decision making 2006-07 national results.

18a. Inormation provision overall 2003-04 and 2006-07

18b. A comparison o inormation provision and overall satisaction BVPI3 2003-04 to2006-07.

19 (a,b,c). Levels o satisaction (BVPI3) by participation and local decision-making 2006-07.


14/32

Annex A

15

Table 1: Best Value Perormance Indicators collected by the General Survey

Best Value Perormance Indicators Authority Types

BVPI3 Overall satisaction with the authority as a whole All

BVPI4 Satisaction with complaints handling (o those makingcomplaints)

All

BVPI89 Satisaction with cleanliness o public land Districts, Metropolitan Boroughs,London Boroughs, Unitaries,City o London.

BVPI90a Satisaction with household waste collection Districts, Metropolitan Boroughs,London Boroughs, Unitaries,City o London.

BVPI90b Satisaction with waste recycling (local acilities) Districts, Metropolitan Boroughs,London Boroughs, Unitaries,City o London.

BVPI90c Satisaction with waste disposal (local tips) County Councils, MetropolitanBoroughs, London Boroughs,

Unitaries, City o London.BVPI03 Satisaction with transport inormation County Councils, Metropolitan

Boroughs*, London Boroughs**,Unitaries, City o London**.

BVPI04 Satisaction with bus services County Councils, MetropolitanBoroughs*, London Boroughs**,Unitaries, City o London**.

BVPI9a Satisaction with sports and leisure acilities All

BVPI9b Satisaction with libraries All

BVPI9c Satisaction with museums/galleries All

BVPI9d Satisaction with theatres/concert halls AllBVPI9e Satisaction with parks and open spaces All

* On behal o PTA** On behal o Transport or London


15/32


16

Table 2: Overall Satisaction BVPI3 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2006-07 national results

Takingeverythingintoaccount,howsatisedordissatisedareyouwiththewaytheauthorityrunsthings?

% satised 2000-01 2003-04 Change2000-01 to

2003-04

2006-07 Change2003-04 to

2006-07

National average 65 55 -10 54 -1

Number o councils reportingindicator

30 385 38

County Councils 6 54 -8 50 -4

Unitary Authorities 6 5 -0 50 -

Metropolitan Boroughs 6 54 -8 5 -

London Boroughs 55 5 -3 54 +

District Councils 68 56 - 55 -

East 6 55 - 54 -

East Midlands 65 53 - 54 +

North East 66 55 - 53 -

North West 64 53 - 50 -3

South East 68 58 -0 55 -3

South West 66 55 - 54 -

West Midlands 66 55 - 54 -

Yorkshire & Humber 63 56 - 5 -5London 55 5 -3 54 +

5th percentile 60 50 -0 49 -

50th percentile 66 55 - 53 -

5th percentile 60 - 58 -


16/32

Annex A

17

Table 3: Overall Satisaction BVPI3 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2006-07 by age, gender, ethnicity anddisability

Takingeverythingintoaccount,howsatisedordissatisedareyouwiththewaytheauthorityrunsthings?


2003-04

2006-07 Change2003-04 to

2006-07



30 38 38

8-4 years 59 50 -9 49 -

5-34 years 59 50 -9 50 No change

35-54 years 6 53 -9 5 -

55-64 years 6 5 -0 56 -

over 65 years 64 -8 64 No change

Men 63 5 - 5 No change

Women 6 5 -0 55 -

White 65 55 -0 54 -

Mixed 5 49 -8 5 +3

Asian 58 50 -8 53 +3

Black 5 54 -3 5 +3

Other ethnicities 56 5 -5 50 -

No long term illness 65 55 -0 53 -

Long term illness that does not limitactivities

6 55 - 5 -3

Long term illness that limits activities 66 56 -0 56 No change

Note: Results are weighted by age, gender and ethnicity to correct or dierential response bias. Results are also weightedto account or dierential sample sizes between authorities; this does not adjust or dierent population sizes or or

dierent proportions o particular groups between authorities.


17/32


18

Table 4: Satisaction with complaints handling BVPI4 - 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2006-07 nationalresults

Howsatisedordissatisedareyouwiththewayinwhichyourcomplaint(s)was(were)handled?*


2003-04

2006-07 Change2003-04 to

2006-07

National average 40 33 -7 34 +1


36 385 38

County Councils 38 3 -6 34 +

Unitary Authorities 40 3 -8 3 No change

Metropolitan Boroughs 39 3 - 3 No change

London Boroughs 40 9 - 3 +

District Councils 40 33 - 35 +

East 4 3 -9 36 +4

East Midlands 39 33 -6 34 +

North East 4 3 -0 34 +3

North West 40 3 -8 33 +

South East 4 34 - 35 +

South West 39 34 -5 34 No change

West Midlands 38 34 -4 35 +

Yorkshire & Humber 40 33 - 3 -

London 40 9 - 3 +

5th percentile 36 9 - 3 +


5th percentile 44 36 -8 3 +

*This indicator relates only to those respondents that have made a complaint in the last months


18/32

Annex A

19

Table 5: Satisaction with cleanliness o public land BVPI89 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2006-07national results

hasadutytokeepclearolitterandreuseallopenpubliclandwhichitcontrols.Howsatisedareyouthattheauthorityhaskeptthislandclearolitterandreuse?


2003-04

2006-07 Change2003-04 to

2006-07



339 350 353

County Councils County Councils do not have responsibility or this indicator

Unitary Authorities 58 5 - 64 +

Metropolitan Boroughs 54 54 No change 6 +

London Boroughs 53 5 - 65 +3District Councils 6 63 -4 69 +6

East 6 6 -5 +9

East Midlands 65 59 -6 6 +8

North East 58 60 + 6 +

North West 58 55 -3 6 +

South East 66 63 -3 0 +

South West 6 65 - 0 +5

West Midlands 64 6 - 6 +5

Yorkshire & Humber 60 59 - 66 +

London 53 5 - 65 +3

5th percentile 56 54 - 6 +8


5th percentile 6 -4 3 +6


19/32


20

Table 6: Satisaction with household waste collection BVPI90a - 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2006-07national results

Pleaseindicatewhetheryouaresatisedordissatisedwitheachotheollowingelementsotheservice,whichweprovide...thewastecollectionserviceoverall.


2003-04

2006-07 Change2003-04 to

2006-07



336 350 353


Unitary Authorities 84 85 + 9 -6

Metropolitan Boroughs 85 85 No change 8 -3

London Boroughs 4 -3 5 +4


East 88 84 -4 8 -3

East Midlands 88 84 -4 6 -8

North East 88 8 - 83 -4

North West 8 85 - 8 -

South East 86 84 - 8 -6

South West 89 88 - 8 -

West Midlands 88 85 -3 8 -4

Yorkshire & Humber 8 8 No change 80 -

London 4 -3 5 +4

5th percentile 84 80 -4 4 -6

50th percentile 88 86 - 8 -5



20/32

21

Table 7: Satisaction with recycling (local acilities) BVPI90b 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2006-07national results

Pleaseindicatewhetheryouaresatisedordissatisedwitheachotheollowingelementsotheservicewhichweprovide...theprovisionolocalrecyclingacilitiesoverall.


2003-04

2006-07 Change2003-04 to

2006-07

National average 66 68 +2 70 +2


336 349 353


Unitary Authorities 64 66 + 69 +3

Metropolitan Boroughs 59 6 +3 6 +5

London Boroughs 56 5 -4 6 +9

District Councils 69 + +

East 0 69 - +

East Midlands 68 69 + 69 No change

North East 59 6 +8 0 +3

North West 64 68 +4 0 +

South East 0 0 No change +

South West No change 3 +

West Midlands 69 69 No change +

Yorkshire & Humber 6 6 +6 69 +

London 56 5 -4 6 +9

5th percentile 60 63 +3 66 +3

50th percentile 68 69 + 0 +

5th percentile 3 4 + 5 +

Annex A


21/32


22

Table 8: Satisaction with waste disposal (local tips) BVPI90c 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2006-07national results

Pleaseindicatewhetheryouaresatisedordissatisedwitheachotheollowingelementsotheservicewhichweprovide...thelocaltipoverall.


2003-04

2006-07 Change2003-04 to

2006-07



40 49 49

County Councils 6 8 +6 83 +

Unitary Authorities +6 80 +3

Metropolitan Boroughs 5 8 +3 8 +4

London Boroughs 60 6 + +0

District Councils District Councils do not have responsibility or this indicator

East 80 +9 8 +

East Midlands 5 +3 80 +5

North East 80 +9 83 +3

North West 6 8 +5 83 +

South East 6 +4 9 +3

South West 4 8 + 8 No change

West Midlands 9 + 83 +4

Yorkshire & Humber 8 +6 8 +4

London 60 6 + +0

5th percentile 65 0 +5 6 +6

50th percentile 8 +6 80 +

5th percentile 8 83 +5 84 +


22/32

Annex A

23

Table 9: Satisaction with sports and leisure acilities BVPI119a 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2006-07national results

Pleaseindicatehowsatisedordissatisedyouarewitheachotheollowingservicesprovidedorsupportby...sports/leisureacilitiesandevents.


2003-04

2006-07 Change2003-04 to

2006-07



345 36 38

County Councils 54 53 - 5 +4

Unitary Authorities 58 56 - 5 +

Metropolitan Boroughs 56 54 - 55 +

London Boroughs 45 44 - 48 +4

District Councils 5 55 +3 60 +5

East 53 53 No change 59 +6

East Midlands 5 5 No change 55 +3

North East 53 55 + 60 +5

North West 55 5 + 59 +

South East 55 5 + 60 +3

South West 5 55 +3 60 +5

West Midlands 53 53 No change 58 +5

Yorkshire & Humber 53 56 +3 56 No change

London 45 44 - 48 +4

5th percentile 4 48 + 54 +6

50th percentile 54 54 No change 58 +4

5th percentile 59 60 + 63 +3


23/32


24

Table 10: Satisaction with libraries BVPI119b 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2006-07 national results

Pleaseindicatehowsatisedordissatisedyouarewitheachotheollowingservicesprovidedorsupportby...libraries.


2003-04

2006-07 Change2003-04 to

2006-07



4 49 3

County Councils 69 -3 4 +5

Unitary Authorities 0 68 - +4

Metropolitan Boroughs 68 -4 +4

London Boroughs 64 6 -3 6 +6

District Councils 3 69 -4 4 +5

East 4 69 -5 5 +6

East Midlands 0 6 -3 +5

North East 6 68 -8 4 +6

North West 4 3 - 6 +3

South East 68 -4 +4

South West 69 68 - 5 +

West Midlands 6 -4 5 +8

Yorkshire & Humber 65 66 + 0 +4London 64 6 -3 6 +6


50th percentile 0 69 - 3 +4

5th percentile 5 -3 +5


24/32

Annex A

25

Table 11:Satisaction with museums and galleries BVPI119c - 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2006-07national results

Pleaseindicatehowsatisedordissatisedyouarewitheachotheollowingservicesprovidedorsupportby...museumsandgalleries.


2003-04

2006-07 Change2003-04 to

2006-07



63 33 38

County Councils 49 4 - 40 -

Unitary Authorities 53 4 -6 46 -

Metropolitan Boroughs 54 49 -5 49 No change

London Boroughs 4 35 -6 34 -


East 48 40 -8 4 +

East Midlands 4 39 -8 36 -3

North East 53 43 -0 4 -

North West 5 48 -3 44 -4

South East 49 40 -9 39 -

South West 49 46 -3 46 No change

West Midlands 5 46 -6 4 -4

Yorkshire & Humber 53 48 -5 48 No change

London 4 35 -6 34 -

5th percentile 4 3 -0 9 -




25/32


26

Table 12:Satisaction with theatres and concert halls BVPI119d 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2006-07national results

Please indicate how satised or dissatised you are with each o the ollowing servicesprovided or support by ...theatres and concert halls.


2003-04

2006-07 Change2003-04 to

2006-07



38 36 386

County Councils 53 45 -8 4 -3

Unitary Authorities 5 53 -4 50 -3

Metropolitan Boroughs 54 49 -5 46 -3

London Boroughs 44 38 -6 3 -

District Councils 5 4 -4 39 -8

East 5 44 -8 40 -4

East Midlands 49 4 - 3 -5

North East 5 45 - 38 -

North West 50 49 - 40 -9

South East 56 5 -5 44 -

South West 54 50 -4 43 -

West Midlands 50 5 + 43 -8

Yorkshire & Humber 5 50 - 46 -4

London 44 38 -6 3 -

5th percentile 43 36 - 9 -




26/32

Annex A

27

Table 13:Satisaction with parks and open spaces BVPI119e 2000-01, 2003-04, and 2006-07national results

Please indicate how satised or dissatised you are with each o the ollowing servicesprovided or support by ...parks and open spaces.


2003-04

2006-07 Change2003-04 to

2006-07



34 35 38

County Councils 6 0 +3 3 +3

Unitary Authorities 69 4 +5 4 No change

Metropolitan Boroughs 6 6 +6 68 +

London Boroughs 65 69 +4 3 +4

District Councils 6 +0 3 +

East 66 +6 5 +3

East Midlands 60 0 +0 0 No change

North East 55 68 +3 69 +

North West 6 +9 No change

South East 6 6 +9 6 No change

South West 63 +9 4 +

West Midlands 6 0 +8 +

Yorkshire & Humber 60 68 +8 0 +

London 65 69 +4 3 +4

5th percentile 5 66 +9 68 +

50th percentile 63 +9 4 +

5th percentile 0 + No change


27/32


28

Table 14: Satisaction with area, respect and social cohesion 2006-07 national results

Satisactionwithareaasaplace

tolive

Whetherareaisaplace

wherepeopleodierent

backgroundsget

onwell

Thinkingaboutthislocalarea,howmuchoaproblemare

parentsnottaking

responsibilityorthebehaviourotheirchildren

peoplenottreatingeachotherwithrespectandconsideration

% satised % agree* % stating bigor airly bigproblem**

% stating bigor airly bigproblem**

National average 75 79 62 48

Number o councilsreporting indicator

38 38 38 38

County Councils 8 8 59 44

Unitary Authorities 6 65 5

Metropolitan Boroughs 68 4 6 54

London Boroughs 69 9 64 54

District Councils 80 60 46

East 9 60 46

East Midlands 4 9 6 4

North East 6 5

North West 6 64 50South East 6 80 6 48

South West 8 8 5 4

West Midlands 5 8 6 48

Yorkshire & Humber 5 5 60 46

London 69 9 64 54

5th percentile 69 6 56 4



**% o those stating defnitely agree or tend to agree out o those stating either defnitely agree, tend to agree,tend to disagree and defnitely disagree. Those stating dont know, too ew people in local area or all the samebackground are excluded rom the base.

** % o those stating a very big problem or a airly big problem out o those that answered any option except or

dont know.


28/32

Annex A

29

Table 15: Anti-social behaviour 2006-07 national results (1)


...noisyneighboursorloudparties

...teenagershangingaroundonthestreets

...rubbishandlitterlyingaround

...peoplebeingdrunkorrowdyinpublicspaces

% stating bigor airly bigproblem*






38 38 38 38


Unitary Authorities 9 59 4 35



District Councils 5 55 39 9

East 5 56 38 8


North East 8 63 4 34

North West 6 46 33

South East 6 56 40 3

South West 3 50 38 3West Midlands 5 56 43 9


London 4 60 53 36

5th percentile 50 35 5



* % o those stating a very big problem or a airly big problem out o those that answered any option except ordont know.


29/32


30

Table 16: Anti-social behaviour 2006-07 national results (2)


Howwellinormeddoyoueelabout

whatthecouncilisdoingto

tackleanti-socialbehaviourin

yourlocalarea

...abandonedorburntoutcars

...vandalism,gratiand

otherdeliberate

damagetopropertyorvehicles

...peopleusingordealingdrugs




% stating veryor airly wellinormed**



38 38 38 38

County Councils 9 34 40





East 0 3 40 3

East Midlands 38 44 3

North East 39 50

North West 8 38 46 3

South East 39 39 3

South West 9 33 4


Yorkshire & Humber 36 46 4

London 5 4 45 3

5th percentile 6 3 35



** % o those stating a very big problem or a airly big problem out o those that answered any option except ordont know.

** % o those stating very well inormed or airly well inormed out o those that answered any option except or

dont know.


30/32

Annex A

31

Table 17: Inormation provision and local decision making 2006-07 national results

Overall,howwellinormeddoyouthinkyourcouncilkeepsresidentsabout

theservicesandbenetsitprovides?

Overall,howsatisedor

dissatisedareyouwiththeopportunities

orparticipationinlocal-decisionmakingprovidedbyyourcouncil?

Doyouagreeordisagreethat

youcaninfuencedecisionsinyour

localarea?

Generallyspeaking,wouldyouliketobemoreinvolvedinthedecisions

yourcouncilmakesthataectyourlocalarea?

% very or airlywell inormed*

% satised % Denitely ortend to agree**

% want to bemore involved

regardless o theissue***



386 38 38 38






East 49 9 3 6


North East 4 3 33 4

North West 4 3 5

South East 49 8 3 5

South West 4 8 3 4



London 43 30 40 35

5th percentile 4 5 9 350th percentile 46 8 3 5


*** % o those stating very well inormed or airly well inormed out o those that answered any optionexcept or dont know.

*** % stating defnitely agree or tend to agree out o those answering any option except or dont know*** % stating yes out o those answering yes, no or depends on the issue.


31/32


32

Table 18a: Inormation provision overall 2003-04 to 2006-07

Overall,howwellinormeddoyouthinkyourcouncilkeepsresidentsabouttheservicesandbenetsitprovides?

2003-04 2006-07 change 2003-04 to2006-07

Very well inormed 0 -3Fairly well inormed 46 40 -6

Not very well inormed 30 36 +6

Not inormed at all 4 8 +4

Table 18b: Levels o overall satisaction with the authority (BVPI3) by inormation provision 2003-04 to 2006-07

Overall,howwellinormeddoyouthinkyourcouncilkeepsresidentsabouttheservicesandbenetsitprovides?

BVPI3 Overall Satisaction with Authority (%)

2003-04 2006-07

Satisfed Neither Dissatisfed Satisfed Neither Dissatisfed

Very well inormed 89 8 3 89 8 3

Fairly well inormed 3 6 3 5

Not very well inormed 38 4 44 40 6

Not inormed at all 3 3 40 3 36 4

Table 19: Levels o overall satisaction (BVPI3) by opportunities or participation and infuencinglocal decision making 2006-07

9a Overall, how satised or dissatised are you with the opportunitiesor participation in local decision making provided by your council?

% Satised withcouncil overall (BVPI3)

Very satisfed 88

Fairly satisfed 9

Neither satisfed nor dissatisfed 50

Fairly dissatisfed 36

Very dissatisfed

9b Do you agree or disagree that you can infuence decisions aectingyour local area?


Defnitely agree

Tend to agree 4

Tend to disagree 5

Defnitely disagree 8

9c Generally speaking, would you like to be more involved in thedecision your council makes that aect your local area?


Yes 49

No 63

Depends on the issue 54


32/32

Annex B

Technical Note

Authorities are required to carry out the Best Value User Satisaction surveys to a

standardised methodology. The methodological guidance species a postal research mode,a random or stratied random sample using the Small Users Postal Address File (PAF)as the sampling rame, and the requirements or questionnaire wording and maximisingresponse rates. Each authority conducts a local survey and submits ull data to the AuditCommission. Local surveys are audited by the Audit Commission, and or 2006-07 all singletier and county councils General Surveys have been judged to be methodologically robust.

All data is weighted by age and gender by 2006 mid-year estimates and ethnicity by the2001 census. An additional household size weight is applied to account or the use othe PAF as the sampling rame. Data is weighted centrally by a contractor on behal o theAudit Commission and the Department.

Following the 2003-04 topline report, the results presented in this report are weighted byage, gender and ethnicity to ensure that the achieved sample is representative o the targetpopulation. The data presented in this report is not weighted by household size, as the2000-01 round allowed or dierent sampling rames to be used and so it is not possible toapply this weight across all three rounds o the survey.

Similarly, results presented here are an aggregate mean o the scores or the authoritiesreporting that indicator. This means that each authority is equally represented in the toplinescores and the population size o each authority is not taken into account when calculating

these scores.

Each authority is required to achieve a sample size o 1,100 resulting in a maximumcondence interval o +/-3% at the 95% condence level. The sample sizes in theseaggregate scores are thereore very large (with a total o over 500,000 responses in eachyear). This gives extremely high statistical power in determining change between years,even within subgroups, meaning that most o the changes over time will be statisticallysignicant9.

Further analytical work is being conducted by the Department to understand theunderlying actors that are responsible or the trends shown in this report.

BVPI user satisaction results or single and upper tier authorities were published on theAudit Commission website on the 15th February 200710. Data or all authorities will bemade available on the same page. Data will also be made available on the BVPI website(www.bvpi.gov.uk) in due course. Please note that authority level scores are weighted byage, gender, ethnicity and household size and aggregate results may thereore dier slightlyrom the time-series results presented in this report, which do not apply the householdsize weight.

Documents

Best Value User Satisfaction Survey