2

CUMBRIA JOINT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

A Scrutiny Review of Cumbria Place Survey 2008 Task Group Members: Cllr Keith Hitchen - Copeland Borough Council Cllr Keith Morgan - Cumbria Associations of Local Councils Cllr John Thompson - Eden District Council Cllr Vivien Rees - South Lakeland District Council Cllr Mary Wilson - South Lakeland District Council Officer Support: Vic Milbourne - Joint Scrutiny Manager Kieran Barr - Senior Consultation and Engagement Advisor,

Cumbria, County Council Ian Payne - Head of Environment, Allerdale Borough Council Janice Carrol - Waste Services Manager, Copeland Borough

Council Tony Pearce - CN Research Acknowledgements: The Task Group would like to take this opportunity to thank all participants in the review for their time and input into the review. The Task Group would also like to thank the people of Egremont, Wigton, Whitehaven and Workington for their participation in the Focus Group activities. For further information about this report please contact: Tel: (01228) 226564 Email: vic.milbourne@cumbriacc.gov.uk

3

CONTENTS 1. Methodology/Acknowledgements..............................................................4 2. Recommendations.....................................................................................5 3. Introduction................................................................................................6 4. Task Group Discussions............................................................................8 5. Focus Groups............................................................................................18 6. Conclusions...............................................................................................22 Appendix 1: National Indicator Set – extract of 18 indicators measured in

Place Survey (page 24) Appendix 2: Citizen’s Panel Environment Themed Questionnaire – October

2009 (pages 25-37).

4

METHODOLOGY Officer Interviews:

20 August ‘09 Kieran Barr Senior Consultation & Engagement Advisor, Cumbria County Council

1 October ‘09 Ian Payne Head of Environment, Allerdale Borough Council

22 October ‘09 Janice Carrol Waste Services Manager, Copeland Borough Council

Focus Groups:

17 November ‘09 Tony Pearce Wigton and Workington (Allerdale)

19 November ‘09 Tony Pearce Egremont and Workington (Copeland)

Four focus group sessions were conducted by CN Research. Focus Groups De-brief:

9 December ‘09 Tony Pearce Senior Market Research Consultant, CN Research

Environment-Themed Questionnaire: The review group contributed questions on refuse collection and street cleanliness to this Annual Themed Citizenship Panel questionnaire.

5

SECTION 1.0: RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 Cumbria’s Local Authorities should examine how they currently

endeavour to engage with the public to inform service design or reconfiguration. This means involving the public as a first part of the process of service change, rather than consulting on a list of options at a later stage.

1.2 Authorities should consider how they engage with colleagues from

neighbouring authorities in Cumbria as part of the wider consultation process for service change.

1.3 Authorities should consider the possibilities of harmonising service

delivery at or near district boundaries, where this is practicable. 1.4 Cabinet/responsible elected members should consider whether and

how they engage in information-sharing on key service issues with colleagues in other local authorities across Cumbria.

1.5 Where street cleanliness services are subject to change, local authority

branding should be considered as part of that process to raise the public profile of that service.

1.6 The Cumbria Strategic Partnership should consider how member and

public engagement informs the Local Area Agreement and Sustainable Community Strategy refreshment process, to help shape local targets that have a greater resonance with local people and elected members.

1.7 The Joint Scrutiny Committee should consider how it engages with the

public as part of its scrutiny review practice and consider the merits of establishing its own Community Engagement Framework and protocols to this end.

1.8 The Cumbria Joint Scrutiny Committee includes in its Work Programme

the outcomes of the 2010 Cumbria Place Survey, when that information is available.

6

SECTION 2.0: INTRODUCTION 2.1 At the first meeting of the Cumbria Joint Scrutiny Committee (22 July

2009) members received a presentation from the Head of Communications and the Senior Consultation and Engagement Officer (Cumbria County Council) on the outcomes of the Cumbria Place Survey 2008.

2.2 Members were interested to hear the responses of Cumbrian

communities on the following aspects of life in the county:

o the local area; o local public services; o information on services; o local decision-making; o volunteering and involvement; o respect and cohesion; o community safety; o anti-social behaviour; o health.

The Place Survey response rate was 44%, with 11,261 residents returning completed questionnaires. This was considered a good response rate.

2.3 The Committee compared the Survey findings against the information reported in the Local Area Agreement (LAA) performance report and noted that the service areas scoring the lowest for public satisfaction in the Survey were, by contrast, scoring well against set targets for service delivery in the LAA.

2.4 Members of the Joint Scrutiny Committee established a review group of 5 members from across Cumbria to examine the issues behind respondents’ opinions on the three following service areas:

o Refuse collection; o Street Cleanliness; o Bus Services.

These service areas had shown the highest and lowest public

satisfaction levels across Cumbria in the Place Survey; members wanted to examine the reasons behind the countywide variance, with a view to sharing good practice examples and identifying factors behind lower satisfaction with some services.

2.5 The Place Survey was conducted every 2 years, across the country,

and designed to gather public opinion against 18 National Indicators (attached at Appendix 1). In common with previous years, a downward trend in satisfaction with local councils continued, both locally and nationally. In addition, the Survey revealed that people’s perception of

7

their influence on community life was also diminishing. It was recognised that there exists a direct relationship between feelings of disempowerment and satisfaction with local services.

2.6 A key message from the Place Survey was that Communication and

Information were critical factors in influencing public satisfaction with council services. Where people felt informed, or that they could easily access service information when they need it, satisfaction rates were higher. This positive association was exemplified by the council tax service, provided by district authorities.

8

SECTION 3.0: TASK GROUP DISCUSSIONS A. 20 AUGUST 2009 3.1 The first meeting of the review group examined more closely the public

satisfaction levels on the three service areas of refuse collection, street cleanliness and bus services. Members considered the Place Survey results for each service area and noted the variation in satisfaction levels, as shown below:

Percentage of people satisfied with council’s performance in collecting domestic rubbish % satisfied North West

average (%) England average (%)

Rank (out of 352 councils)

Cumbria 76 76 77 204 Allerdale 83 - - 89 Barrow 82 - - 113 Carlisle 71 - - 281 Copeland 67 - - 312 Eden 83 - - 103 SLDC 74 - - 241

Percentage of people satisfied with council keeping public land clear of litter and refuse % satisfied North West

average (%) England average (%)

Rank (out of 352 councils)

Cumbria 55 52 58 242 Allerdale 63 - - 91 Barrow 51 - - 308 Carlisle 53 - - 278 Copeland 46 - - 339 Eden 59 - - 174 SLDC 56 - - 225

Percentage of people satisfied with their local bus services % satisfied North West

average (%) England average (%)

Rank (out of 352 councils)

Barrow 63 55 55% 67 Carlisle 52 - - 158 Cumbria 46 - - 236 South Lakeland 43 - - 267 Allerdale 42 - - 279 Copeland 37 - - 321 Eden 33 - - 341

National analysis of Place Survey data showed that these service areas were strongly linked to public perception of a council’s performance and satisfaction with an area as a place to live.

9

3.2 The three service areas had in common the fact that they were all highly visible to the public, particularly refuse collection, of which the public had the most regular and direct experience as service users. Street cleanliness was a factor that local residents and tourists visiting an area notice immediately, particularly where unsatisfactory. As for bus services, although highly visible, this was not a service area for which local authorities were directly responsible and was considered the least likely of the 3 service areas that members could influence. Members recognised the inherent challenges around providing this service in a county like Cumbria.

3.3 As the task group began their discussions and officer interviews, it

quickly became apparent that the two service areas members could influence were those provided directly by local authority staff, namely refuse collection and street cleanliness. Although bus services were a key issue, particularly for Cumbrians living in sparsely populated/rural areas, it was problematic to influence. These were commissioned by the County Council, but private companies provided the service and this was affected by issues of commercial viability. Members noted that there were community based efforts to address the issue in rural areas, with Community Buses and Rural Wheels initiatives. For this reason, members decided to focus their efforts on the other two service areas and leave bus services out of this scrutiny review.

3.4 The review group noted that, with regard to street cleanliness, the

Place Survey question referred specifically to ‘public land’. Members questioned how respondents might have interpreted this and whether other factors influenced the public response. Members learned of a consultation exercise by Waltham Forest Council that found public perception of street cleanliness included not just litter and detritus but also other ‘cosmetic’ factors, including boarded up shops, cracked paving slabs and skips. This was undertaken to help inform service reconfiguration for street cleansing and helped Waltham Forest Council identify areas that needed specific, targeted attention.

3.5 With regard to refuse collection, members observed that satisfaction

was higher where a weekly collection service was in place. Whilst the reliability of this service across the County was not refuted, the lack of flexibility overall was a concern for members. Members acknowledged that the variety of need across communities was not necessarily reflected in service design. For instance, the number and size of bins allotted per household was the same despite variations in the number of people per dwelling and individual circumstances.

3.6 Members contributed a number of questions to the Citizenship Panel’s

Environment Themed Survey, which was due for dispatch to the public in October 2009. Members agreed to draw up pertinent questions, based on their discussions on the service areas and submit these to the Senior Consultation & Engagement Adviser with a request they be included. The outcomes of the questionnaire would not be available

10

until around mid-January 2010. The survey is attached for information at Appendix 2.

11

B. 1 OCTOBER 2009 3.7 The review group met with the Head of Environment at Allerdale

Borough Council. Members had provided the officer with a brief for discussions which included the following key questions and points:

o How compliments, comments and complaints inform service

improvement and change at Allerdale’s Environment Department; o What were the key elements of Allerdale’s high public satisfaction

levels for street cleanliness and refuse collection in the Place Survey;

o How service activities had tackled any variations in satisfaction levels across the Allerdale area;

o What activities or service change were currently in progress or planned.

3.8 The officer provided members with a presentation entitled ‘Perception

and Reality in Environmental Quality’, which captured work undertaken in the borough and highlighted marked differences in perceptions of environmental quality between more affluent and deprived areas of Allerdale. The variance in satisfaction levels between more affluent and deprived areas was a key finding of the Place Survey.

3.9 Members found a number of data sources were used to help direct

environmental service improvements at Allerdale which included:

o Performance Indicators (service targets)*; o Quality of Life Survey; o Local Environmental Quality Survey of England (2008); o Environmental Consultation Survey (December ’08).

[* specifically, Best Value Performance Indicator 199 and National

Indicator 195] Allerdale used data from these sources to inform their Voluntary Local

Performance Management Framework. 3.10 Data relating to the street cleaning service’s performance indicators

was collated by local inspectors and looked at litter, detritus, graffiti, fly posting and tipping on ‘public’ land only. Meanwhile, the Local Environmental Quality Survey of England (LEQSE) was conducted by inspectors from ENCAMS (now called ‘Keep Britain Tidy’). The criteria for determining what types of land were included in the inspection was different to those used by the local inspectors, with definitions identified at a national level. The outcomes of the LEQSE contributed to action planning on street cleanliness in Allerdale.

3.11 The Environmental Consultation Survey was intended to provide the

authority with feedback on the services within Allerdale, with an aim of providing a ground-level view of residents’ issues. The feedback from

12

respondents was described as less favourable than that shown in the Place Survey, but was ‘self selecting’: out of 80 questionnaires, 24 were completed and returned and this indicated residents with specific issues to raise were more likely to have taken the opportunity to respond.

3.12 On the strength of responses received, Allerdale decided that a more

regular dialogue with residents was needed, rather than a single, annual exercise. Members concluded from this that customer need should be the driving force behind service change and design.

3.13 One initiative in Allerdale that had sought to embrace local need was

‘Pride of Patch’, which members felt was a good example of partnership and locality working. The principle behind this was making the best use of available resources – financial and staffing – to deliver co-ordinated ‘street scene’ services for the borough.

3.14 The Pride of Patch work was ongoing in five localities, with Principal

Agencies and Partner Agencies providing their respective services in a co-ordinated, information-sharing approach. The Principal and Partner Agencies are listed below and the long term aim of this initiative was to have each service operate as the ‘eyes and ears’ for other services: issues identified by one service operative could be communicated to the appropriate partner for resolution and action.

Principal Agencies Partner Agencies

Allerdale Borough Council County Council: highways stewards, response teams, highways sweeping, verge maintenance;

Focsa Services (UK) Police – PCSOs (Police Community Support Officers)

ISS Parish Councils

Voluntary Groups

Probation Services

3.15 Complaints from Allerdale residents for both refuse collection and

street cleanliness were dealt with by a contact centre using the ‘Mayrise’ IT system for recording issues and actions. Whilst refuse complaints were dealt with on a case-by-case basis (as they were specific to individual properties) street cleanliness complaints were likely to come from a number of individuals. A geographical mapping system in the Environmental Department helped pinpoint specific areas and to direct activities where needed.

13

3.16 The weekly refuse collection was popular in Allerdale but satisfaction for recycling services was lower. One factor for this lower satisfaction was thought to be a high public expectation in more affluent areas of the borough.

3.17 Meanwhile efforts to encourage recycling had involved focused efforts

on kerbside collection schemes. Collections of cans, plastics and glass were introduced in areas with low car ownership. Without a car, residents would find it difficult take their recycling to designated ‘bring’ sites (these are large receptacles for recycling usually sited in supermarket car parks).

3.18 Across the borough there was a total of 44,800 household, with 35,000

having garden bins, 33,000 with paper bins and 23,000 with the purple bag scheme. Members thought this went some way to explaining the different levels of satisfaction between refuse collection and recycling.

3.19 Members concluded that there was a culture of consistent public

consultation at Allerdale’s Environment Services and genuine endeavour to use this to inform service improvement. Members were particularly keen on the Pride of Patch initiative as a good model for local partnership working.

14

C. 22 OCTOBER 2009 3.20 Members met the Waste Services Manager at Copeland Borough

Council and received a presentation that focused upon the following:

o Developments in street cleansing services over the last 12 months; o Developments in Communication with front line staff and linking

personal staff development to service and corporate planning; o Outcomes of the Place Survey analysis for Copeland, with priorities

arising from public responses across the borough.

Readers are asked to note that discussions did not cover refuse collection services on this occasion.

3.21 Since April 2009, there had been changes to the way environmental

cleansing services were delivered in Copeland. The service had an extensive remit that covered over 500km of streets and roads (including car parks and open spaces; 230,000 sq m of amenity beaches; 600 litter and dog waste bins; 5 sites of council public conveniences; 50 recycling sites). In addition, the council tackled around 400 incidents of fly tipping each year and supported voluntary community clean-ups. There were regular voluntary beach clean-ups, with support also provided for some of these by the National Park Authority.

3.22 Copeland monitored its environmental performance against similar

authorities through the Association of Public Service Excellence benchmarking activities (APSE). The last available collated figures were for 07/08 and these showed 2% of Copeland’s streets surveyed fell below the average across the benchmarked authorities. Costs per annum for the council were lower in relation to the APSE group (£10 per head compared with £14 overall) and costs per household (£22 compared with £33). The number of litter and dog bins are also better than average (7.5 litter bins per 1000 people compared with 7.2; 2.3 compared with 1.9 for dog bins). Fly tipping incidents were also fewer, at 10 per 1000 people against an average across other authorities of 40 per 1000.

3.23 Copeland’s last Local Environmental Quality Survey was for 07/08 and

showed some anomalous data for ‘watersides’. According to the national survey classifications Copeland did not have any watersides but had still received a rating for the cleanliness of these areas. This raised the issue that the ENCAMS officers who had conducted the survey may have been assessing stretches of land for which the council were not responsible. Members suggested that there was a clear argument for local officer involvement in these surveys, either as part of the assessment process, or at a de-briefing session with the external assessors. This would clarify the issues and scoring that each area attained and highlight issues for attention that were within the local authority’s responsibility.

15

3.24 One clear issue arising from the Local Environmental Quality Survey - and in common with the experience at South Lakeland District Council, Barrow Borough Council and Eden District Council - was the fact that public perception of street cleanliness was influenced by other factors including condition of roads and pavements, which was specifically a County Council responsibility. Additionally, whilst bus stop conditions were included in the survey although these were not part of the environmental cleansing remit in Copeland. These examples helped to illustrate that public perception of street cleanliness is not just about local council-owned issues and that some of the LEQSE outcomes provided feedback on issues over which local authorities had no control.

3.25 Members reflected that the public did not distinguish between what

they observed and those issues that were the responsibility of their local authority. This supported the view that, while the Place Survey provided an important and useful source of information on local perceptions, priorities and issues, it was work at an area/locality level that could tackle local concerns and improve service provision to local people.

3.26 Copeland’s street cleaning services had had some radical changes in

the last few years. Two projects in particular interested the review group, exemplifying good practice in service design and reconfiguration, whilst highlighting the crucial issue of funding for services. The first project ran from 05-07 and was part funded by NW Coalfields, with matched funding from Copeland Council to target ‘grot spots’ and support voluntary clean-up activities. The second project - ‘Cleaner, Safer, Greener South Workington’ - ran for 18 months and targeted South Whitehaven for environmental improvements, ending in April 08.

3.27 The second project allowed the purchase of an additional mechanical

sweeper and a 2-man mobile cleaning team. Both projects provided opportunities to trial more innovative and efficient approaches to street cleaning. Mobile staff had more freedom to clean areas, which they determined on sight required attention, whilst dealing with litterbins, fly tipping and other issues. A Waste Awareness Officer was also appointed to visit schools, toddler and parent groups etc and to educate the community on environmental issues, which included recycling.

3.28 The projects allowed a more flexible approach to street cleaning and

helped forge improved relationships with council partners, that included Housing Associations, Police and Fire & Rescue. The South Whitehaven project outcomes were supported by the results of a customer satisfaction survey, where 77% of respondents reported a noted improvement with street cleanliness. Other outcomes included a 28% reduction in anti-social behaviour related fires and the removal of identified fly tipping within 48 hours. The additional equipment

16

purchased as part of the project now formed part of the core service, but the flexibility afforded by the additional funding has not been possible after the projects ended.

3.29 Officers had evaluated the two projects’ outcomes, followed by an

operational service review, using focus groups and mapping exercises for mechanical sweeper activities. This analysis helped to identify gaps and overlaps in service provision.

3.30 The street cleaning service in Copeland had been brought back in-

house in the late 1990s following an earlier review of duties under the Environmental Protection Act. A revised national Code of Practice for local authority environmental duties in 2006 introduced the following:

o Set standards for land maintenance; o Cleaning based on need and not operational necessity; o Bringing education and enforcement into cleansing; o Reducing the number of defined land use ‘zones’ from 12 to 4

[these were high, medium, low use and ‘special circumstance’ areas].

3.31 Copeland was now divided into 4 areas for the purposes of the current

practice of ‘Area Based Cleansing’; this approach had meant a significant culture change for the service. Three out of the four identified areas had two teams of two people who were trained to recognise the National Indicator 195 cleanliness standards rated A-D [A-B: acceptable; C-D: unacceptable]. Team staff met regularly with colleagues to discuss operational issues and the shift systems have been revised, with all teams working 10:30am–6:30pm, except one that covered 7.00am-3:00pm. In addition, litter and dog bins would soon be mapped on a GIS system.

3.32 Staff development had included individual performance targets linking

to service and corporate objectives, which included targets to reduce fuel consumption and dealing courteously with the public (specifically for recycling and refuse staff). The ‘Area Based Cleaning’ system had improved staff morale, reduced sickness levels and, as teams were now dedicated to individual areas, increased pride and self-awareness in the work, which led to increased productivity and other service delivery improvements. Other outcomes had included greater efficiencies, a reduction in overtime and service vehicle damage and defects, fewer service complaints and improved relationships between front-line and management staff.

3.33 Environment Officers regularly monitored cleanliness standards against

NI 195 and had identified lay-bys as a particular area of concern. Over the next 6 months, planned activities included:

• operations review; • N195 refresher sessions for front-line staff;

17

• ongoing equipment training; • staff suggestion scheme; • customer survey; • a fly tipping project to identify hot spots and work with the

enforcement team. 3.34 Interestingly, street cleanliness did not emerge as a high priority issue

in the Place Survey results for Copeland but came equal fifth with shopping facilities, behind activities for teens, road and pavement repairs, job prospects and public transport.

18

SECTION 4.0: FOCUS GROUPS 4.1 The task group were keen to engage with members of the public to

explore specific issues that had arisen from their discussions. Liaising with district colleagues, the Joint Scrutiny Manager had advertised for public participation through neighbourhood fora. No volunteers were forthcoming and this highlighted one of the challenges around public engagement.

4.2 Through discussions with colleagues involved regularly with public

engagement activities, members were alerted to the work of CN Research. This was an independent market research company that had worked with a number of authorities in Cumbria including: Allerdale Borough Council, Barrow Borough Council, Carlisle City Council, Copeland Borough Council, Cumbria County Council, Eden District Council, South Lakeland District Council and the Lake District National Park Authority. Four task groups were commissioned to be conducted in the Allerdale and Copeland areas, with a brief to elicit views and ideas for improvements specifically on refuse collection and street cleanliness. [The full report of activities and findings is available from the Joint Scrutiny Manager].

4.3 This work produced qualitative data on the two services areas, which

complements the quantitative data from the Place Survey. Focus groups were particularly beneficial to elicit more detail on public opinion, as they were interactive and conducted by experienced professionals who were independent of local authorities. This provided an environment for participants to be honest and open about their views and concerns. The focus group activity included participants from a wide demographic base. In total 33 people aged from 18 to 74 (with 18/15 ratio of female to males) attended the four Focus Groups.

4.4 In order to get a balance of urban and rural opinion the focus groups

were conducted in the following areas:

Allerdale Copeland Workington Whitehaven Wigton Egremont

Although the numbers involved in the focus groups did not mean the

views expressed had the statistical significance of the Place Survey, the similarities in views and opinions expressed reinforced the reliability of the focus group findings.

4.5 Common views amongst all groups included satisfaction with the type

of waste receptacles provided and the frequency of refuse collections; participants appreciated the reliability of the service in both district areas. Issues of concern that were raised across all 4 groups included: bin size and the ‘task and finish’ part of the refuse collection service.

19

Some older participants expressed the desire for smaller bins, as they did not produce as much rubbish and found the bins difficult to manoeuvre. Meanwhile, younger participants with families felt that there should be an option for larger bins or more than one for households with families, whose waste output was necessarily higher than households with fewer people. The returning of receptacles after waste collection was a common concern for participants.

4.6 The most significant theme that arose from the focus groups was the

importance of communication and information on services. A good example of this was the use of stick-on labels for bins used in Allerdale, which was useful for reminding residents of collection days. This tied in with the key findings from the Place Survey on the importance of communication and information on services.

4.7 Whilst there seemed to be a difference in how the complaints systems

were viewed by participants from the two district areas, there were positive points across both areas. For Copeland, participants appreciated the increased bin collection over the Christmas period, the brown bin service for garden waste and the practice of having more than one garden bin for households with larger gardens. Allerdale participants cited good communications, a good complaints system and the ‘crunch munch’ facilities (in Aspatria) where larger household items could be taken for disposal as particularly good.

4.8 On street cleanliness, the most emotive issue for participants was dog

fouling, and this was reflected in a consensus across all groups that better enforcement for this and litter should be implemented. In terms of satisfaction with street cleanliness, the highest levels were in Wigton, slightly lower in Workington (Allerdale) and lower in Whitehaven and Egremont (Copeland).

4.9 All participants saw street cleanliness as a less ‘visible’ service than

refuse collection, with knowledge and experience of the service generally low across all groups. However, participants had observed that this service was focused in and around town centres whilst outlying areas did not receive the same attention. Whilst there was general understanding that there was a need to focus the service activities on areas with higher foot traffic, some participants expressed feelings of unfairness at this.

4.10 Suggested improvements from the Whitehaven (Copeland) group

included:

o village-based recycling; o more dog bins; o free dog bags scheme (as operated in Allerdale); o more mechanised cleaning and greater equity between town

centres and outlying areas; o more enforcement for dog fouling and litter.

20

Egremont (Copeland) participants suggested the following improvements:

o more proactive approach to fly-tipping; o more litter and dog bins; o better enforcement for dog fouling; o regular road cleaning for housing estates; o better sweeping machines.

Workington (Allerdale) participants suggested:

o litter collections from the back of houses; o road sweeping to follow refuse collections; o a campaign to reduce dog fouling; o increased road sweeping with more litter and dog bins; o more recycling facilities for outlying areas and recycling for paper

and plastics. Wigton (Allerdale) participants suggested:

o better promotion for the free dog bags; o more dog bins and related signage; o better promotion of recycling centres.

4.11 The outcomes of the Focus Groups illustrated a number of points that

should be borne in mind when seeking the public’s views on service provision, as part of the wider process of improving services for local communities. These are summarised below.

Flexibility 4.12 Individual circumstance plays a significant role in public opinion:

different age groups, levels of prosperity and local prospects all contribute to the variety of opinion and experience of local services. The different needs of individual groups point to a need for more flexibility and tailoring of services such as refuse collection.

Benefits 4.13 Focus Group activity provided a forum that elicited direct and honest

views from participants drawn from the local community. This was a two-way process: innovative ideas may be forthcoming from the public that local authorities would not otherwise be aware of and, by showing that local views are being sought by local authorities, participants can understand how their input is valued and used to inform discussions on service improvement.

21

Communication 4.14 The Focus Group approach sends a clear message to participants that

their views are important to local authorities and provides a relaxed forum for them to speak their minds, whilst not feeling they need to be guarded in expressing their views.

4.15 The value of public input on service delivery should not be

underestimated as a possible source of innovation and, by highlighting different experiences and views across an identified geographical area, this can show gaps in existing provision as well as showing common factors that are important for service users.

4.16 The interactive process of Focus Groups was particularly fruitful in

allowing the public to communicate their opinions on a particular service. This helped elaborate on those views provided through quantitative information gathering through surveying local people, which the Place Survey and the Citizenship Panel does on a regular basis in Cumbria.

4.17 Members concluded that the merits of seeking public views on service

delivery was clear and that formal, established ways of liaising with service users should be used at the earliest opportunity for service re-design or change. It seemed to members that the experiences and views of service users was a valuable resource for local authorities and earlier involvement with the public was preferable to working up options for service change and then consulting with the public.

4.18 Members felt that, in trying to involve the public as part of this scrutiny

review, vital lessons had been learned in terms of how to get the best possible engagement and this would inform similar approaches in future scrutiny review undertaken by the Joint Scrutiny Committee.

22

SECTION 5.0: CONCLUSIONS Public Involvement and Service Design 5.1 Service design and improvement that was informed directly by public

involvement was likely to result in greater public satisfaction with those services. Where public need was a driving factor in service design, this provided a ‘bottom-up’ approach which took local need as a starting point. The public were a valuable resource for ideas and feedback on existing services.

5.2 By taking a group of local residents across a wide range of ages,

backgrounds and geographical spread, across an identified area and getting their opinions on local services, local authorities develop a greater understanding of how services might address pockets of dissatisfaction at a local level.

5.3 Members of the task group felt strongly that determining local priorities

for service provision and addressing public concerns around existing services cannot be achieved without public involvement. However, members were aware that individual views on service provision were influenced by both personal circumstances and local area.

5.4 Members also wanted to highlight to scrutiny colleagues the

importance of engaging with the public through scrutiny work and how this helped to inform the production of meaningful recommendations that, in turn, should lead to improvements for local services.

5.5 Where services deal directly with the public, ie: complaints systems,

these should be as consistent and reliable as possible. A system that allowed a complaint to be tracked from first contact to resolution was the preferred model.

5.6 Where available resources meant that services could not be as flexible

as they might be, public engagement should include communication on budgetary restrictions; where public consultation was part of service reconfiguration, resource issues should be made clear so that participants were made acutely aware of the challenges for public service providers.

5.7 Local authorities should seek to use existing communication channels:

for example community newsletters to get information through to the public. In addition, the recognition that providing comprehensive information on line, whilst commendable, is not necessarily accessed by all quarters of the community.

Service Delivery 5.8 Good practice for service delivery included: staff training and

empowerment, to ensure that public contact with staff was a positive

23

experience and tasking staff with ownership of service standards. Shaping services that were responsive to both staff and public feedback, exploring all possibilities for flexibility in service provision, leading to more efficient working practices, were also key.

5.9 The differences between the 2008 Place Survey satisfaction levels

versus target attainment shown in the LAA raised the issue that the operational targets may be focused on aspects of service delivery that the public may view as less important to them as service users.

5.10 Whilst the Place Survey provided an important and useful snapshot of

public opinion on a wide range of public issues – and a good starting point for service providers – it was the work undertaken at a locality level that provided greater insight into the factors behind the opinions expressed in this survey.

24

Extract from the National Indicator Set:

18 Performance Indicators gathered from Cumbria’s Place Survey.

National Indicators (LAA indicators highlighted in bold)

C

umbr

ia C

C

Sco

re (%

) C

onfid

ence

in

terv

al

Qua

rtile

pe

rfor

man

ce*

Nor

th W

est

aver

age

(%)

All

Eng

land

av

erag

e (%

)

NI1: % of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area 78.3 +/-1.1 2 73.6 76.4

NI2: % of people who feel that they belong to their neighbourhood 69.3 +/1.0 1 59.5 58.7

NI3: Civic participation in the local area - % who have taken part in listed activities within the last 12 months 15.0 +/0.8 2 12.9 14.0

NI4: % of people who feel they can influence decisions in their locality 28.8 +/1.0 2 27.4 28.9

NI5: Overall / general satisfaction with local area - % satisfied 84.6 +/0.8 1 76.9 79.7

NI6: % participating in regular volunteering 26.3 +/1.0 1 22.2 23.2

NI17: Perceptions of anti-social behaviour - % who feel ASB is high based on score calculated from responses regarding ASB problems

15.5 +/0.8 1 22.9 20.0

NI21: Local council and police are dealing with local concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime issues - % agree 31.2 +/1.0 1 25.7 26.3

NI22: % who agree that in their local area parents take enough responsibility for the behaviour of their children 35.0 +/1.0 1 27.4 29.6

NI23: Perceptions that people in the area treat one another with respect and consideration - % who state people not doing so is a problem

26.1 +/1.0 1 34.1 31.2

NI27: Understanding of local concerns about anti-social behaviour and crime issues by the local council and police - % who agree their views are sought on these issues.

30.3 +/1.0 1 25.6 24.8

NI37: % aware of civil protection arrangements in the local area 21.7 +/0.9 1 13.9 15.3

NI41: Perceptions of drunk or rowdy behaviour as a problem - % who state this is a problem 25.7 +/1.0 1 31.9 29.0

NI42: Perceptions of drug use or drug dealing as a problem % who state this is a problem 27.1 +/1.0 2 34.8 30.5

NI119: Self-reported measure of people’s overall health and well-being - % describing health as good 76.0 +/0.9 3 73.4 75.8

NI138: Satisfaction of people over 65 with both home and neighbourhood 90.2 +/1.3 1 82.5 83.9

NI139: The extent to which older people receive the support they need to live independently - % who believe this support is available 38.3 +/1.0 1 31.9 30.0

NI140: Fair treatment by local services - % who agree they have been treated fairly in the last year 73.2 +/1.0 2 70.1 72.4

* Quartile performance based on comparison with all county councils, metropolitan boroughs, unitary authorities and London boroughs.

APPENDIX 1

25

Your views on neighbourhood and home Before we ask you about some specific aspects of where you live, we’d like to know how you feel about your home and local area.

Q1 Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with… PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY FOR EACH STATEMENT

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither/Nor

Fairly dissatisfi

ed

Very dissatisfi

ed

Don’t know/ Can’t say

…your local area as a place to live? � � � � � �

…your home as a place to live? � � � � � �

Your local parks and open spaces Parks and open spaces are important in making somewhere a good place to live. We want to hear more about how you think we’re doing in this area. Q2 Without using a car or public transport, how easy is it for you to get to your nearest park or open space? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY Very easy � Fairly difficult � Fairly easy � Very difficult � Neither easy nor difficult � � Q3 Think about the last 12 months, how frequently have you used a local park or open space (not including passing through them on the way somewhere else or for work)? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY Most days � Every few months � At least once a week � Less than that � At least once a month � Never � Q4 Thinking about the park or open space you visit most often, what kind of space is this? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY Large public park � Children’s playground � Village green or common land � Open countryside � Playing field or school field � Other

(specify)………….............. �

APPENDIX 2

26

Q5 Thinking about the park or open space you visit most often, why do you visit the space: PLEASE TICK � ALL THAT APPLY Spend time with family/children � Participate in sport/exercise � Exercise dog(s) � Relaxation � Watch sports � Other

(specify)…………………… �

Q6 Thinking about the park or open space that you visit most often how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following: PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY FOR EACH STATEMENT

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither/Nor

Fairly dissatisfi

ed

Very dissatisfi

ed

Don’t know/ Can’t say

Cleanliness � � � � � � Children’s play

facilities � � �

� � � Lighting � � � � � � Grass cutting � � � � � � Safety � � � � � � Plants and flowers � � � � � � Seating � � � � � � Rubbish bins � � � � � � Dog waste bins � � � � � � Personally feeling

safe and confident � � � � � �

Health and safety hazards � � � � � �

Signs and notices � � � � � � Levels of anti-social

behaviour � � � � � �

Behaviour of young people using the park � � �

� � � Behaviour of adults

using the park � � � � � �

Q7 Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of the parks and open spaces in your local area? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY

27

Very satisfied ................................ � Fairly dissatisfied................................� Fairly satisfied................................ � Very dissatisfied ................................ � Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied............................�

Q8 Please tell us what single thing you would do to improve the parks and open spaces in your local area: WRITE ANSWER BELOW

Keeping your streets clean We know that keeping the streets clean is an important issue, and that in some parts of the county many people think the council needs to do better. We’d like to hear a bit more about what you think so we can try and improve the things that matter to you.

28

Q9a Think about your local area, how much of a problem are the following? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY FOR EACH STATEMENT

Major problem

Minor problem

Not a problem

Top 3

Buildings in poor condition � � � � Poorly maintained grass verges � � � � Cracked or damaged pavements � � � � Boarded up/empty buildings � � � � Fly-posters � � � � Street furniture (benches, lampposts,

signs etc) in poor condition � � � � General litter and rubbish on the

streets � � � � Poorly maintained roads � � � � Fly-tipping � � � � Dog fouling � � � � Graffiti � � � � Chewing gum � � � � Litter specifically from take-aways � � � � Alcohol related mess (eg. vomit,

urine, bottles and cans etc) � � � �

Abandoned motor vehicles � � � � Criminal damage (example: damaged

telephone boxes) � � � �

Q9b Look at the list in Q9a above: choose the 3 that would be your top priorities for the council to deal with. Put a tick in the boxes in the shaded column to indicate your top 3. PLEASE TICK � THREE BOXES ONLY Q10 Sometimes private land is allowed by its owners to become unsightly due to rubbish or litter accumulating. Would you agree or disagree that local councils should take action against private land owners to get them to clean up? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY Strongly agree � Disagree � Agree � Strongly disagree � Neither agree nor disagree �

29

Q11 Would you agree or disagree that local councils should do more to penalise, for example through fixed-penalty fines, people who drop litter or do not clean up after their dogs? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY Strongly agree � Disagree � Agree � Strongly disagree � Neither agree nor disagree �

Q12 The Environmental Protection Act 1990 allows local councils to set the fine for dropping litter at between £50 and £80. What level do you think the fine should be? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY Less than £50 � £80 � £50 � More than £80 � £65 �

Q13 Please tell us how well you think the council is performing in each of the following: PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY FOR EACH STATEMENT

Excellent

Good Average

Poor Very poor

N/A

Mechanical road sweeping � � � � � � Pavement cleansing � � � � � � Cleaning of grass areas etc � � � � � � Frequency of litter bin emptying � � � � � � Road gully emptying � � � � � � Town centre cleansing (think about

your nearest town centre) � � � � � �

Refuse collection and recycling We’d like to hear more about what you think about your domestic refuse collection.

30

Q14 Please tell us how well you think the council is performing in each of the following: PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY FOR EACH STATEMENT

Excellent

Good Average

Poor Very poor

N/A

Attitude of your refuse collectors � � � � � � Information provided about the

service by the council � � � � � � Reliability of refuse collection � � � � � � Frequency of refuse collection � � � � � � Bins being returned to location � � � � � � Removal of spillage/litter � � � � � � Ease of using bins and receptacles

provided by the council � � � � � � Kerbside recycling scheme � � � � � � Recycling bring sites (e.g. at

supermarkets) � � � � � � Household waste recycling centres

(tips) � � � � � � Special assistance available to you (if

required) � � � � � �

Q15 Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your… PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY FOR EACH STATEMENT

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither/Nor

Fairly dissatisfi

ed

Very dissatisfi

ed

N/A

Refuse collection service � �

� � � �

Recycling services � � � � � � Q16 Do you have any further comments you would like to make about your refuse collection or recycling service? WRITE ANSWER BELOW

Housing The availability and affordability of housing that meets the needs of local people is a big issue in many parts of Cumbria. The following questions go into some more detail to help us find out what you think on some key issues. Development of new homes

31

Q17 Thinking about your local area, which of the following statements is closest to your view on the number of ... PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY Too many are

being built About the right number are being built

Not enough are being built

a) affordable new homes being built.

� � �

b) new homes, of any type, being built.

� � �

Q18 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements, in relation to your local area? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY FOR EACH STATEMENT

Strongly

agree

Agree Neither/

Nor

Disagree

Strongly

disagree

Don’t know

New housing developments should always include a proportion of “affordable housing” � � � � �

�

More new housing should have restrictions on its sale to ensure they can only be bought by local people � � � � �

�

More new housing should be built for rented accommodation � � � � � �

To meet housing need more building should be permitted on “greenfield” (previously undeveloped) sites � � � � �

�

Q19 Do you have any further comments you would like to make about new housing development? WRITE ANSWER BELOW

32

Q20 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding private rented accommodation? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY FOR EACH STATEMENT

Strongly

agree

Agree Neither/

Nor

Disagree

Strongly

disagree

Don’t know

Private landlords should be forced to register with the council � � � � � �

If private landlords do not comply with relevant regulations their registration should be revoked and they should be prohibited from letting property

� � � � � �

Accessing health services

Q21 How would you describe your health in general? Would you say it is… PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY

Very good Good Fair Poor Very poor

� � � � �

Q22 In the past 12 months have you had any difficulties accessing any healthcare service

because of… PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY

Often Occasionally Not at all a) distance? � � � b) lack of transport available? � � � Q23 If you answered “Often” to Q22, please can you provide details of the difficulties you faced? WRITE ANSWER BELOW

Q24 Would you be prepared to talk to your local chemist/pharmacist about a minor

illness rather than seeing your GP? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY

Have done this before already �

Would consider this in future �

Would never do this �

33

Q25 Thinking about the chemist/pharmacy you usually use, how much of a problem for

you are the following: PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY

Major problem (Prevents you visiting personally)

Minor problem (Causes inconvenience but does not stop you visiting personally)

Not an issues

Distance to travel � � � Lack of public transport

available � � �

Lack of parking � � � Inconvenient opening hours � � � Lack of disabled facilities � � � Lack of private consultation

area � � �

My own ability to get out the house without help � GO to Q26a � �

Other problem (please specify) ………………………………………………………………

Q26 If you are usually unable to attend the chemist/pharmacy in person, how do you

normally get your prescribed medicines? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY

Delivered by pharmacy � Not applicable � Collected by family

member/friend �

Other (specify) Q27 In your opinion, what would be the most convenient location for a

chemist/pharmacy? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY

On the high street � Supermarket � GP surgery � Hospital � Leisure facility � Other (specify)…………………………….. Your money: loan sharks and credit unions At this time when many people and families are struggling financially, councils would like to know more about your situation so they can do more to help.

34

The question below (Q28) asks about illegal money lenders or Loan Sharks. To be clear, while lending money without being legally registered (“Loan sharking”) is illegal, the individual who receives a loan from a Loan Shark is NOT breaking the law. Your answers to these questions are strictly confidential. Q28 Have you ever borrowed money from… PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY Yes No Don’t know A doorstep lending company (A person or company that is legally registered with the Office of Fair Trading to lend money)?

� � �

An unregistered doorstep lender – often referred to as a “Loan Shark”

� � �

If you need confidential help and advice about dealing with Loan Sharks you can call the Illegal Money Lending Team on 0300 555 2222 or email stoploanshark@cumbriacc.gov.uk Q29 At the moment, how well informed do you feel about the services that can be provided by Credit Unions? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY Very well informed � Not informed at all � Fairly well informed �

Not very well informed �

What are credit unions? Credit unions are financial co-operatives owned and controlled by their members. They offer savings schemes and value loans plus they are local, ethical and know what their members want. Credit Unions provide a safer and cheaper option for people to borrow money with much lower levels of interest compared to that of doorstep lenders and loan sharks. There are currently nine credit unions in Cumbria which cover towns on the west coast and Carlisle, there are plans underway to expand this coverage. Q30 Based on the information provided above how interested would you be in becoming a member of a Credit Union if one covered your area? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY Very interested � Not interested � Quite interested � Don’t know �

35

You can find out more about Cumbria’s Credit Unions at www.cumbriacreditunions.co.uk or contact Debt Recovery and Money Advice (DRAMA) on 01900 607500 Your energy bills In the current economic climate we know that household budgets are being stretched and that fuel bills can be a burden. Q31 How much would you agree or disagree with the following statement: “At the moment I find it difficult to pay the energy bills (gas and electricity) for my home each month.” PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY Strongly agree � Disagree � Agree � Strongly disagree � Neither/ Nor � Q32 How well informed do you feel about how you can reduce your energy bills at home? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY Very well informed � Not very well informed � Fairly well informed � Not at all informed � The Cumbria Energy Efficiency Advice Centre (CEEAC) provides free, impartial energy efficiency advice for householders across the whole of Cumbria. http://www.energyinfo.org.uk 0800 512 012 Your environment: managing radioactive waste safely In order to answer the following questions you will need to read the background information below. At the moment Allerdale Borough Council, Copeland Borough Council and Cumbria County Council have started a conversation with central government about the long term disposal of radioactive waste. Government wants to find somewhere that this waste can be stored long term and has asked for local authorities to express an interest in talking to them about whether or not they might offer to host a suitable site. It is very early in this process and at the moment the councils in Cumbria are gathering information from stakeholders and the general public to help them to decide whether they want to take further steps in the discussions with government or whether they should withdraw from the discussions. Cumbria is unique in the UK because it already stores 70% of the country’s radioactive waste at Sellafield. So whatever location is eventually chosen for the disposal site there will be implications for the county – either due to the need to move the waste that is already here or to create new facilities in Cumbria.

36

Q33 Before reading the information above were you aware that this process was beginning? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY Yes �

No �

Q34 How interested are you in this issue? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY Very interested � Not very interested � Fairly interested � Not at all interested � Neither/Nor �

Q35 Given your current level of understanding about these issues, which of these statements would best reflect your current point of view? PLEASE TICK � ONE BOX ONLY I am opposed to storing radioactive waste in Cumbria and think the waste currently stored here should be moved out of the county

�

I am opposed to storing more radioactive waste in the county but think we should leave what’s already here where it is

�

I am unsure about the best solution but think that councils should continue to talk to government about the potential for developing a disposal facility in Cumbria, while retaining the right to withdraw from discussions

�

I broadly support the idea of developing a disposal facility in Cumbria but not made up my mind yet

�

I think the development of a disposal facility would be a positive step for Cumbria

�

None of the above statements reflect my opinion well enough � Please note that you can find out more and keep up to date with all developments with this project at www.westcumbriamrws.org.uk. The questions in this survey are just one part of the work the councils are doing to find out the views of local people. For more opportunities to have your say check the website. Q36 Do you have any further comments you would like to make about managing radioactive waste? WRITE ANSWER BELOW

37

Q37 Do you have any further comments about any of the issues raised in this questionnaire? WRITE ANSWER BELOW