1 / 29

Residents Survey 2006 Presentation of main findings

Residents Survey 2006 Presentation of main findings. The latest Best Value Performance Indicators General Residents Survey ( 3 yearly surveys 2000, 2003, 2006) 2,500 questionnaires were mailed to a random sample from Post Office Address File (PAF)

dyan
Télécharger la présentation

Residents Survey 2006 Presentation of main findings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Residents Survey 2006Presentation of main findings

  2. The latest Best Value Performance Indicators General Residents Survey ( 3 yearly surveys 2000, 2003, 2006) 2,500 questionnaires were mailed to a random sample from Post Office Address File (PAF) Overall 1,297 returns were received, a response rate of 52% (57% in 2005, 58% 2004, 60% 2003) The data was weighted to represent population of Borough The questionnaire was set by DCLG (with some additional questions added) Method

  3. Overall satisfaction has gone down 4% from the last statutory survey in 2003, this compares with an average reduction of 4% across the Surrey districts where we have comparable data The next slides will show some overall performance details, then performance within the key Corporate Plan areas, where possible this has been benchmarked against available Surrey Districts data. Overall

  4. Overall Satisfaction - Comparison across 8 Surrey Districts 2006 Average 57% Highest 68% Lowest 50% Change from 2003 Average –4% Best +2% Worst -10% RBBC - 4%

  5. Caring for our Local Environment Recycling, Street Cleanliness

  6. Overall Satisfaction - Comparison across 8 Surrey Districts Average 64% Highest 70% Lowest 60%

  7. Overall Satisfaction - comparison across 8 Surrey Districts Average 71% Highest 83% Lowest 52%

  8. Change 2003 to 2006 - Comparison across 7 Surrey Districts Average Change -13% Best -2% Worst -38% RBBC - 10%

  9. Overall Satisfaction - Comparison across 7 Surrey Districts 2006 Average 70% Highest 75% Lowest 60% Change from 2003 Average +5%Best +14% Worst -1% RBBC +14%

  10. Regeneration and New Neighbourhoods

  11. Agents – 64% Residents – 79% Overall Satisfaction - Comparison across 6 Surrey Districts 2006 Average 73% Highest 87% Lowest 50% Change from 2003 Average –2% Best +4% Worst -21%

  12. Self Reliant and Thriving Communities Reducing Crime, Healthy Living, Community Engagement, Affordable Housing

  13. Overall Satisfaction - Comparison across 6 Surrey Districts 2006 Average 81% Highest 87% Lowest 73% Change from 2003 Average 0%Best +8% Worst -7%

  14. Overall Satisfaction - comparison across 8 Surrey Districts: Average 19% Highest 26% Lowest 14%

  15. Overall Agree - comparison across 8 Surrey Districts: Average 23% Highest 29% Lowest 19%

  16. Overall - comparison across 8 Surrey Districts Yes Average 22% Highest 25% Lowest 20% Depends on issue Average 58% Highest 61% Lowest 56%

  17. Value for Money Ensuring that the Council provides excellent value for money

  18. Overall agree - comparison with 7 other Surrey Districts: Efficient and well run Average 49% Highest 54% Lowest 42% Good value for money Average 37% Highest 43% Lowest 31%

  19. Where indicators have declined this tends to be in accordance with national trends On many indicators the council is performing above average Research Conclusion

  20. Some significant improvements in service satisfaction in Benefits and Planning. Investment in Street Cleanliness has resulted in significant improvements in satisfaction year on year from 2003. (LPSA priority). Performance on waste and recycling reflects budget led decisions to defer further investment. Perception of crime and disorder is improving against actual crime figures. Major challenges on improving information (through campaigns) and encouraging participation to meet Local Government White Paper expectations. CMT Conclusions

  21. This data will form part of the evidence base that will help monitor the Corporate Plan It will enable the Council to improve Service provision by targeting resources to specific problem areas It provides us with evidence to make representations to improve the performance of partner organisations (eg: SCC highways maintenance) It will enable us to benchmark the data with other Councils and against past survey results on our own services – and also give us the ability to learn from best practice It will help us to understand changes in Residents perceptions over time It will help identify areas to target communication where there is a gap between perception and actual performance What will we do with it?

More Related