sutton residents survey report 040110

Title to go here

Residents’ Survey 2009London Borough of Sutton

2

Contents

Background, methodology and technical notes………slide 3Executive summary……………………………………...slide 12Key trends and areas of focus..………………………..slide 151) Quality of life and the area…………………………..slide 222) Community safety…………………………………….slide 443) Local public services …. …………………………….slide 534) Corporate Health ……………………………………..slide 625) Informing residents…………………………………....slide 776) Local democracy……………………………………...slide 887) Contacting the Council..……………….....................slide 958) Environmental issues ………………………………..slide 1039) Economic optimism…………………………………..slide 11110) Safeguarding children………………………………slide 117

3

Background

This report presents the findings from the 2009 Residents’ Survey conducted by Ipsos MORI on behalf of the London Borough of Sutton.

Having conducted several previous waves of residents’ research, this survey has an important role to play for the Council in terms of tracking residents’ satisfaction.

Specifically, the objectives of this survey were to:

– measure residents’ satisfaction with the Council and the services it provides;

– explore the attitudes of residents to the objectives of the Council; and

– explore attitudes of residents to action taken by the Council.

4

Methodology

Ipsos MORI conducted interviews with 802 adults aged 16+ living in the London Borough of Sutton.

Interviews were conducted face-to-face using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI).

Quotas were set on age, gender and work status to match the profile of the population of Sutton. Data are also weighted to these profiles.

Fieldwork took place between 5th October and 19th November 2009.

5

Technical note Where results do not sum to 100, this may be due to multiple

responses, computer rounding or the exclusion of don’t knows/not stated.

An asterisk (*) represents a value of less than one half or one percent, but not zero.

Throughout the questionnaire, local residents were asked to think about their local area when responding to questions - defined as the area within 15 to 20 minutes walking distance from the respondents’ home.

“Net” figures represent the balance of opinion on attitudinal questions and provides a useful means of comparing the data for a number of variables. (E.g. in the case of a “net agree” figure, this represents the percentage who agree about a particular issue, less the percentage who disagree. For example, if 38% of residents agree they can influence Council-run services, and 62% disagree, the “net agree” figure is -24.)

6

Guide to statistical reliability

The variation between the sample results and the “true” values (the findings that would have been obtained if everyone had been interviewed) can be predicted from knowledge of the sample sizes on which the results are based and the number of times that a particular answer is given.

For example, on a question where 50% of the people respond with a particular answer, the chances are 95 in 100 that this result would not vary, plus or minus, by more than 3.5 percentage points.

NB: Strictly speaking the tolerances shown here apply only to random samples; in practice good quality quota sampling has been found to be as accurate.

Approximate sampling tolerances applicable to percentages at or near these levels

10% or 90%

30% or 70%

50%

2.1 3.2 3.5

Size of sample which survey result is based (802)

7

Guide to statistical reliability 2

When results are compared between sub groups (e.g. males versus females), different results may be obtained. The difference may be “real”, or it may occur by chance (because not everyone was interviewed). To test if the difference is a real one - i.e. if it is “statistically significant” - we have to know the size of the samples, the percentage giving a certain answer and the degree of confidence chosen.

For example, if 50% of males (base size: 358) give a particular answer, and 53% of females (base size: 444) give the same answer, there is not a statistically significant difference between the responses of the two groups.

If however, 58% of females give the same answer, then this is a statistically significant difference (since there is more than a 7.0 percentage point difference between the two).

Differences required for significance at or near these levels

10% or 90%

30% or 70%

50%

358 males vs. 444 females

4.2 6.4 7.0

709 White vs. 91 BME

6.6 10.1 11.0

8

To inform our analysis, residents were placed into one of six Local Committee Areas based on the ward in which they lived. The breakdown used was as follows:

1) Beddington and Wallington:

Beddington North; Beddington South; Wallington North; Wallington South

2) Sutton:

Sutton Central; Sutton North; Sutton West

3) Sutton South, Cheam and Belmont:

Belmont; Cheam; Sutton South

4) Carshalton and Clockhouse:

Carshalton Central; Carlshalton South and Clockhouse

5) St Helier, the Wrythe and Wandle Valley:

St Helier; the Wrythe; Wandle Valley

6) Cheam North and Worcester Park:

Worcester Park; Nonsuch; Stonecut

Area analysis

9

Sample Profile

Women

Sample Profile for Sutton: Key demographics

20%

17%

21%

42%

58%

17%

50%

50%

18%

16%

7%

55%

45%

17%

22%

13%

47%

53%

14%

19%

Men

16-24

25-34

35-44

Residents’ Survey sample (unweighted)

Population (Census 2008 mid-year estimates)

65+

Full-time

Not full-time

Gender

Age

Work status

55-64

Base: All valid responses. Source: Age and gender from 2008 Mid Year estimates. Work status from 2001 Census.

Base size 2009

358

444

60

127

146

161

136

172

338

464

45-54

10

Comparative data Where possible, comparisons have been made between:

- Sutton’s 2005 Residents’ Survey (based on 1,013 residents interviewed face-to-face between 20th June and 12th August 2005).

- Sutton’s 2007 Residents’ Survey (based on 813 residents interviewed face-to-face between 12th October and 19th November 2007).

- Sutton’s 2008/09 Place Survey (postal)

- National and London-wide 2008/09 Place Survey (postal)

However, comparisons between the postal and face-to-face survey methodologies should be treated with caution due to the difference in collection methods, and the impact this has been shown to have on results. They should therefore be treated as indicative comparators only.

Please also note that where comparisons have been made between the 2009 Residents’ Survey and the 2008/09 Place Survey, the 2009 Residents’ Survey data has been re-based to include ‘all valid responses’ as prescribed by CLG for all Place Surveys.

For comparison, we have also included data from our normative database from other face-to-face surveys Ipsos MORI has carried out in London since 2006. This is anonymised, but we have shown on the charts which are inner London and which are outer London boroughs.

11

Acknowledgements and publication of data

Ipsos MORI would like to thank the 802 residents of Sutton who took part in the survey.

We would also like to thank Ben Unsworth from Sutton Council for his help in getting the questionnaire into field and for his input throughout the survey process.

As the London Borough of Sutton has engaged Ipsos MORI to undertake an objective programme of research, it is important to protect the organisation’s interests by ensuring that it is accurately reflected in any press release or publication of the findings. As part of our standard terms and conditions, the publication of the findings of this PowerPoint report is therefore subject to the advance approval of Ipsos MORI. Such approval will only be refused on the grounds of inaccuracy or misrepresentation.

12

Executive summary

13

Executive Summary: Local area and quality of life

The proportion of residents reporting satisfaction with the area remains at a high level (90%), and there has been an improvement in perceived safety after dark .

Cohesion also remains strong in Sutton, with more than eight in ten agreeing that people from different backgrounds get on well together.

Residents are most likely to cite activities for teenagers as most in need of improvement in the area, while crime is seen as the most important issue generally.

There have been some significant improvement in reported recycling behaviour, with more residents saying that they recycle a range of materials than in 2007.

14

Executive Summary: The Council and local services

The proportion of residents saying they are satisfied with Sutton Council remains broadly at the high level set in previous years (72%). This is particularly encouraging given the fall in satisfaction recorded nationally (and particularly in outer London) by the 2008/09 Place Surveys.

Furthermore satisfaction has also increased with some key Council-run services, such as street cleaning and secondary education, and parks and open spaces.

Despite this, the proportion of residents agreeing that the Council provides value for money has fallen since 2007 (from 44% to 40%) – this may be related to a drop in the proportion of residents saying that they feel informed by the services provided by the Council.

In line with 2007, around two in five residents feel that they can influence Council-run services. However, as in previous years, only one in five want to be more involved in doing do.

Of those who have contacted the Council, most are positive about their experience. There has been an increase in the proportion saying that they used the call centre to contact the Council from 2007, with fewer visiting Council offices in person.

15

Key trends and areas of focus

16

Key trends since 2005 – Quality of life

2005 2007 2009

The area has got better to live in over the past two years

10 10 9

Feel safe after dark 46 50 60

Agree that residents from different backgrounds get on well

81 82 84

There has been little shift in the proportion saying the area is getting better since 2005, but fewer say the area has got worse than in previous years.

However, more residents feel safe walking alone in their local area after dark in 2009 than in 2007.

Sutton residents are as likely to agree in 2009 than in previous years that people from different backgrounds get on well together.

17

Key trends since 2005 – Sutton Council

2005 2007 2009

Satisfaction with the way Sutton Council runs things

67 69 72

Council gives good value for money 42 44 40

Sutton Council is NOT remote and impersonal

36 36 35

The level of satisfaction with the Council overall has shown little change since 2005, but has maintained a relatively high level.

Likewise, the proportion of residents who do not see the Council as too remote and impersonal has not changed.

However, there has been a drop of four percentage points since 2007 in terms of perceived value for money.

18

Key trends since 2005 – Feeling informed and getting involved

2005 2007 2009

Feel informed about the services and benefits provided by Sutton Council

61 58 45

Would like to have more of a say in what the Council does

22 15 19

Feel able to influence Council-run services

35 35 38

The proportion of residents who want to get more involved is lower than in 2005, but has crept up slightly since 2007.

However, while there has been no change in residents’ perceived ability to influence Council-run services, the extent to which they feel informed by Sutton Council has dropped since 2007.

19

Feeling informed and being engaged

Considering longer-term trends, residents’ views on whether they feel well informed, or would like to be more involved, may warrant particular attention:

One of the most significant falls in the 2009 survey is in the proportion of residents who feel informed about the services and benefits provided by Sutton Council: this has fallen from two-thirds (65%) of residents in 1999 to just under six in ten (58%) in 2007, and now sits at around two in five (45%). Furthermore, this compares slightly less favourably to other areas - half (49%) of those questioned in face-to-face surveys in Outer London Boroughs by Ipsos MORI in 2009 feel informed.

This is particularly important given that the majority of residents would like to know what the Council is doing, but are happy to let it get on with its job. Similar to 1999, six in ten agree with this statement (60% in 1999, compared to 62% in 2009).

20

Feeling informed and being engaged cont… Despite a small rise from 2007, the proportion of residents who would

like more of a say in what the Council does and the services it provides remains lower than in 1999 (24% in 1999, 15% in 2007 and 19% in 2009). Those who would like more of a say are more likely to be dissatisfied with their local area and with Sutton Council overall; so it is worth noting the small increase in desire for involvement since 2007.

Feeling informed about Council services and benefits is strongly related to higher levels of satisfaction with the local area, Sutton Council and perceived value for money. While satisfaction with the authority has risen, perceptions of value for money have slipped, and this may be linked to falling levels in the proportion of residents feeling informed.

There may be an opportunity to reverse this falling trend by making better use of the direct information provided by Sutton Council (which is accessed by half (51%) of residents) and the Council website (which one in three (32%) access).

21

Roads, pavements, traffic and parking

Again, looking at longer-term trends, there also appears to be particular concern about the use and state of Sutton’s roads and pavements:

Having risen between 2003 and 2007, satisfaction with road and pavement maintenance has fallen considerably in 2009. Given this is a highly visible service closely associated with the Council, it may be appropriate to target action in areas where these concerns are most prominent.

Close to three in ten (28%) feel that traffic congestion is an area most in need of improvement within Sutton. Furthermore, around a quarter (23%) feel that road repairs are also an area of concern.

When it comes to environmental issues, Sutton residents are most likely to feel that parking is a problem in their area. A third (33%) of residents cite this as a particular concern compared to a quarter (25%) in 2007. Speeding traffic remains the second highest individual concern (27% cite it as an issue). Dog fouling has also risen as a general concern (from 11% in 2007 to 16% in 2009).

% satisfied with 2003 2005 2007 2009

Road maintenance 54 59 63 54

Pavement maintenance 54 57 63 50

22

Main Findings 1: Quality of life and the area

23

Summary

Nine in ten residents (90%) are satisfied with their local area.

Most residents (60%) think that their local area has not changed much in the last two years. Although one in four (25%) think that it has got worse, this has declined from three in ten (29%) in 2007 and close to four in ten (37%) in 2005.

The level of crime (46%), public transport (40%) and clean streets (39%) are seen as the most important things in making an area a good place to live.

However, with the exception of level of crime (27% of residents cite this), the things most in need of improvement tend to differ from those seen as more important: these being activities for teenagers (31%), traffic congestions (28%).

Linked to this, tackling crime and anti-social behaviour is the service most residents think is important to invest in (65%).

In line with previous years, more than eight in ten (84%) agree that people from different backgrounds get on well together.

24

25%

64%

4%4%1%*%

9 in 10 residents are satisfied with their local area

Neither/nor

Very satisfied

Fairly dissatisfied

Fairly satisfied

Very dissatisfied

Q1 Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live?

Net satisfaction score +84

Base: All residents (802) Sutton Residents’ Survey. Fieldwork Dates 5 th October to 19th November 2009

Satisfied

90%

Don’t know

25

90

90

87

83

79

76

74

73

73

Inner LB 2009

Sutton 2009

Inner LB 2008

Outer LB 2009

Inner LB

Inner LB 2008

Outer LB 2007

Outer LB 2006

Outer LB 2008

Sutton performs well compared with other Boroughs, particularly those in outer London

% Satisfied with area

Source: Ipsos MORI normative database. Face-to-face surveys carried out in London since 2006. Data have been anonymised


26

90 80 75 79 73

1410126

And this compares favourably to the 8 in 10 recorded in the 2008/09 Place survey – and greater than outer London

Q Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live?

% Satisfied % Dissatisfied

**Sutton08/09

Place SurveyInne

rOute

rLondo

n

* Sutton 2009 Residents’

survey

*Base: All excluding “Don’t know” (800) Sutton Residents’ Survey. Fieldwork Dates 5 th October to 19th November 2009. **Base: All valid responses 2008/09 (1205).

Please note that due to the different methodologies, comparisons should be seen as indicative only

Place Survey data 2008/09

27

90%

6%

55-64 year olds, C2DE and social renting residents are less likely to be satisfied with their local areaQ1 Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place

to live?

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Age

Socio-economicgroup

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

ABC1

C2DE

Tenure

Social rented

Owner occupier

Private rented 94%

82%

91%

87%

92%

91%

81%

89%

92%

92%

Proportion who are satisfied

16-34


28

Residents from St. Helier, the Wrythe and Wandle Valley are less likely to feel satisfied with their local area

26

25

40

14

18

25

66

67

54

80

63

61

3

4

3

7

6

5

4

3

2

10

7

1

1

1

1

3

% Very satisfied % Fairly satisfied %Neither nor

% Fairly dissatisfied %Very dissatisfied Don't know

Beddington and Wallington

Sutton

Sutton South, Cheam and Belmont

Carshalton and Clockhouse

St Helier, the Wrythe and Wandle Valley

Cheam North and Worcester Park

% Satisfied

92

92

94

93

81

87

% Dissatisfied

5

3

2

0

13

8



Base

179

152

124

76

134

137

29

What impacts on satisfaction with local area?

Perceptions of cohesion and safety appear to be related to satisfaction with local area: those who believe that people from different backgrounds get on well together and those who feel safe when walking outside after dark are more likely to be satisfied with their local area as a place to live that those who do not (92% and 93% compared to 72% and 87% respectively ).

Residents who feel informed about Sutton Council overall are also more positive, with more than nine in ten of those who feel informed being satisfied with their local area (94% compared to 86% of those who not feel informed).

Attitudes towards Sutton Council are also important: eight in ten (81%) of those who disagree that the Council provides value for money and six in ten who are dissatisfied with the Council overall (61%) are satisfied with their local area, compared with nine in ten overall (90%).

30

9%

60%

25%

5%1%

1 in 4 (25%) think the area has got worse over the last 2 years, although this is fewer than in 2007 (29%) and 2005 (37%)

Area has got better

Area has not changed

much

Area has got worse

Have lived here less than two

years

Q2 On the whole, do you think that over the past two years, this area has got better or worse to live in, or haven’t things changed much?

Don’t know/can’t remember

% Got better

% Not changed

much

% Got worse

2005 10 44 37

2007 10 49 29

2009 9 60 25

-16 Net Better


31

29

25

10

9

Inner LB 2008

Outer LB 2009

Outer LB 2007

Sutton 2009

Although the proportion satisfied with the area is greater than elsewhere in London, in terms of perceived positive change, Sutton is performing worse than other London Boroughs

% Believe the area has got better

Q On the whole, do you think that over the past two years, this area has got better or worse to live in, or haven’t things changed much?


32

9%

60%

25%

6%

Perceptions that the area has got worse increase with age; however male, BME and those renting privately are more positive

Got worse

Got better

Age

Gender

Ethnicity

35-44

45-54

55-64

Male

Female

65+

White

BME

Tenure

Social rented

Owner occupier

Private rented

Proportion who say ‘got worse’

16-34

6%

30%

27%

11%

27%

29%

21%

34%

41%

35%

22%

9%

Q2 On the whole, do you think that over the past two years, this area has got better or worse to live in, or haven’t things changed much?

Not changed much


Lived here less than 2 years /

don’t know

33

Aspects of life that are seen as important are not necessarily the same as those that are seen as in need of improvement locally

46

40

39

33

31

31

30

23

18

17

17

16

14

27

8

19

8

8

9

11

16

31

12

28

14

23

The level of crime

Public transport

Clean streets

Parks and open spaces

Education provision

Health services

Shopping facilities

Affordable decent housing

Activities for teenagers

Facilities for young children

The level of traffic congestion

Job prospects

Road and pavement repairs

% Most important generally % Most need improving

Q3 From the list, which four or five, if any, would you say are most important in making somewhere a good place to live?Q4 Thinking about this local area, which of the things below, if any, do you think most need improving?

The ‘Level of Crime’ is the most important issue (46%), activities for teenagers is the area most in need of improvement (31%)


The most important

issues tend not to be

those perceived as most in need

of improvement

34

Level of crime is seen as the most important but activities for teenagers most in need of improving. Clean streets and housing are also priorities for residents

0

10

20

30

40

0 10 20 30 40 50

% Most need improving locally

% Important generally

Cultural facilitiesEducation

Access to nature

Public transport

Community activities

Sports & leisure

Facilities for young children

Parks and open spacesWages/ cost

of living

Race relations

Pollution

Job prospects

Health services

Shopping

Traffic congestion

Road/pavement maintenance

Affordable decent housing

Clean streets

Activitiesfor teenagers

Level of crime

Mean: 21

Mean: 13

Most important

Most needs improving


35

What needs improving locally – by Local Committee AreaSt. Helier, the Wrythe and

Wandle Valley

Activities for teenagers 41%

Level of crime 30%

Traffic congestion 28%

Road and Pavement repairs 24%

Affordable decent housing 21%




Level of crime 22%


Sports and leisure facilities 15%

Carlshalton and Clockhouse



Job prospects 18%


Facilities for young children 15%

NB Residents in Carlshalton and Clockhouse, and Sutton South, Cheam and Belmont are more likely to say “none of these” (14% and 11%

respectively, vs 5% overall)


36

What needs improving locally – by Local Committee Area



Level of crime 19%

Clean streets 19%



Sutton

Level of crime 38%



Clean streets 23%






Level of crime 31%

The level of pollution 24%

37

Tackling crime and anti-social behaviour is the top priority for residents in terms of investment priorities

65

41

41

33

31

30

27

25

22

20

Tackling crime and ASB

Supporting elderly and vulnerable people

Regenerating run-down areas

Improving educational standards

Helping people to develop skills and find work

Providing more out-of-school activities and facilities

Building new council housing and affordable homes

Providing safer roads for pedestrians and cyclists

Helping local businesses to prosper

Making the streets cleaners

Q35. Which of these services do you think are the most important for the Council to invest in?


38

27%33% 35%

73%

36%

45%

36%

69%

51%

33%29%

68%

57%

30%26%

59%53%

24% 22%

59%

Tackling crime and ASB Supporting elderly andvulnerable residents

Improving educationsstandards

Helping people todevelop skills and find

work

16-34 35-44 45-5455-64 65+

Investment priorities differ by age

Tackling crime and ASB is a particular concern for middle age groups; older residents are more

likely to be concerned about support for the elderly; and younger age groups are more likely

to be concerned about education and skills


Q35. Which of these services do you think are the most important for the Council to invest in?

39

10%

74%

6%2%

7%

In line with 2007, more than 8 in 10 agree that people from different backgrounds get on well together

Definitely agree

Tend to disagree

Tend to agree

Definitely disagree

Q81 To what extent do you agree or disagree that your local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together?

Net agree score +76

% Agree%

DisagreeNet agree

2005 81 7 +74

2007 82 10 +72

2009 84 8 +76

Don’t know


40

84

83

81

77

74

65

64

Sutton 2009

Inner LB 2008

Inner LB 2009

Inner LB 2009

Outer LB 2009

Outer LB 2008

Outer LB 2007

Cohesion appears to be a strength in Sutton, particularly when compared to outer London Boroughs

% Agree



41

91 84 75 78 75

22 259 16 25

London


Inner Outer

Perceptions of community cohesion are more positive than in the 2008/09 Place survey


% Agree % Disagree

**Sutton08/09

Place Survey


survey

*Base: All excluding responses of “Don’t know”, “Too few people” and “All same backgrounds” (734) Sutton Residents’ Survey. Fieldwork Dates 5th October to 19th November 2009. **Base: All valid responses 2008/09 (982).


42

Carshalton and Clockhouse residents are the most likely to feel people from different backgrounds get on well together


2

10

22

8

8

11

94

75

63

74

73

70

3

6

5

6

8

5

3

2

2

8

1

8

8

11

9

6

% Definitely agree % Tend to agree

% Tend to disagree % Definitely disagree

% Don't know % Too few / all same backgrounds


Sutton





% Agree

% Disagree

Net agree

Base

96 3 +93 76

85 6 +79 179

85 8 +77 124

82 7 +75 137

81 10 +71 152

81 13 +68 134


43

76%

80%

86%

77%

85%

White residents and those living in owner occupied homes are the most likely to agree that people from different backgrounds get on well together


84%

8%Disagree

Agree

Proportion who agree

Ethnicity

White

BME

Tenure

Social rented

Private rented

Owner occupier


44

Main Findings 2: Community safety

45

Summary

Almost all residents feel safe during the day (96%), although those living in social rented accommodation are less likely to say this.

Generally, levels of perceived safety after have improved since previous years. Around a third feel unsafe (32%) – this is highest in the Beddington/Wallington and St Helier areas.

Sutton compares well with other London Boroughs, both outer and inner, in terms of perceived safety.

In terms of being a victim of crime, residents are most likely to be worried about ASB (58%) – this is reflected in their priorities for policing in the area.

46

1

8

3

24

43

44

53

16 8 1

Around a third of residents feel unsafe at night, but more residents feel safe than in previous years

Q68/69 How safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in your local area…

% Never go out

% Fairly safe % Fairly unsafe

% Very unsafe

During the day

At night

2009 2007 2005

96 95 92

60 52 47

Women, BME residents, and social renters are more likely to feel unsafe in the day

Women and those living in Beddington/Wallington and St Helier are more likely to feel unsafe after dark

% Safe

% Very safe

% Don’t know


47

96

92

92

90

88

84

Sutton 2009

Inner LB 2008

Outer LB 2007

Inner LB 2009

Outer LB 2009

Outer LB 2008

Perceived safety during the day is higher in Sutton than elsewhere in London

% Safe

Q How safe do you feel walking outside in this neighbourhood alone in the daytime?


48

74

60

54

54

52

43

42

Inner LB 2009

Sutton 2009

Inner LB 2008

Inner LB 2009

Outer LB 2007

Outer LB 2009

Outer LB 2008

Sutton residents are also among the most likely to feel safe after dark in London, and much higher than other outer London Boroughs

% Safe

Q How safe do you feel walking outside in this neighbourhood alone after dark?


49

Residents from the St. Helier, and Beddington /Wallington areas are more likely to feel unsafe after dark

16

9

17

9

30

14

35

35

36

54

43

73

30

31

25

22

18

10

12

10

9

9

4

6

15

11

6

7

1

2

11

% Very safe % Fairly safe % Fairly unsafe % Very unsafe

% Never go out % Don't know


Sutton





% Unsafe

42

41

34

31

18

14


Q69 How safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in your local area alone after dark?

Base

179

134

137

152

124

76

50

10%

38%

20%

9%

22%

1%

In line with 2007, around half say they feel safe on public transport after dark

Very safe

A bit unsafe

Fairly safe

Very unsafe

Q70 How safe do you feel travelling on public transport in this area alone after dark?

% Safe % Unsafe

2005 35 31

2007 44 29

2009 48 28

Don’t know


Never use

Again, it is women and those living in Beddington/Wallington and St Helier who are more likely to feel unsafe

51

% Not at all worried

14139998685

4441

39333030

2917

12

3841

4451

444755

5149

4

5

7

7

15

14

10

24

32

2

1

1

Sutton residents are most concerned about anti-social behaviour, but around half are also concerned about burglary and vandalism Q71-79 And now could you tell me how worried you are about being the victim of each of these crimes in the area?

% Don’t know

% Fairly worried % Not very worried

2009 2007 2005

58 64 71

54 47 55

49 52 60

42 46 49

39 35 42

38 35 39

35 37 42

25 26 33

18 18 22

% Worried% Very worried


Burglary

Anti-social behaviour

Robbery in the street

Vandalism

Theft (incl contents of car)

Theft of car

Rape/sexual assault

Attack (other than robbery or rape)

Racist attacks

52

Q80 Which two or three, if any, should be given the highest priority?

52%38%

30%26%25%24%

17%17%

12%11%

3%

5%*%

This is reflected in preferred policing priorities

Anti-social behaviour

Drug related crime

Town centre crime

Sex offences

Hate crimes

Street robbery

Vandalism

Theft

Disorder / disturbances

Domestic violence

Graffiti

Other

Don’t know

(22) (26) (24) (13) (13) (7) (6) (2) (4)

(18) (20) (37) (60)

2007 %


53

Main Findings 3: Local Public Services

54

Summary

There is a high level of satisfaction with the majority of universal services in Sutton, but there appear to be concerns about road and pavement maintenance – while more are satisfied than dissatisfied, satisfaction has fallen since 2007.

In terms of leisure and cultural facilities, satisfaction is highest with libraries and parks and open spaces, and this has increased since 2007– this increases further among users.

Residents are also considerably more likely to be satisfied with education services than dissatisfied, particularly primary and secondary schools, and adult education.

Encouragingly, there is a high level of satisfaction with recycling and this has increased since 2007.

Parks and bus services are the most frequently used services, but others are also used often – two in five use libraries or sports facilities at least once a month, and a third use the local tip.

55

9

18

8

12

9

29

82

80

71

67

67

65

54

50

8

30

Universal services: residents are satisfied on balance, but there are some concerns over road and pavement maintenance, satisfaction with which has fallen since 2007. Significant increases in satisfaction since 2005 can be seen with street cleaning, and maintenance of grass verges and trees


Q5-12 I would like you to tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the quality of each of these in your local area?

% Satisfied

Street lighting

Refuse collection

Pavement maintenance

Road maintenance

Maintenance of trees

Care of the environment

Maintenance of grass verges

Street cleaning

(83)

(88)

(65)

(57)

(52)

(62)

(59)

(57)

(84)

(81)

(67)

(62)

(62)

(60)

(63)

(63)

2007 2005


56

6

5

6

5

46

42

42

27

23

5

Education and care services: Satisfaction is highest with primary schools, with fewer residents expressing an opinion about childrens’ services and social services. A significant improvement can be seen in perceptions of secondary education.



% Satisfied

Primary schools

Social services

Adult education /

SCOLA

Services for under 5s*

Secondary schools

(29)

(24)

(45)

(18)

(n/a)

(45)

(38)

(39)

(28)

(27)

2007 2005

Base: All residents (802) Sutton Residents’ Survey. Fieldwork Dates 5 th October to 19th November 2009 * Please note that, in 2007, the statement read “Borough services for the under 5s”

57

4

15

9

14

85

72

54

51

32

6

Leisure and cultural services: Residents are most satisfied with parks and open spaces – these have seen a significant rise in satisfaction since 2007. However, a decline in satisfaction can be seen with theatres, arts and events



% Satisfied


Theatres/arts/events

Sports and

swimming facilities

Playgrounds

Libraries

(72)

(69)

(54)

(40)

(44)

(75)

(69)

(55)

(47)

(48)

2007 2005


58

3

89

87

5

Users are more satisfied than the public at large



% Satisfied


(571) (76)

(86)

(81)

(86)

2007 2005

Base: All users Sutton Residents’ Survey. Fieldwork Dates 5 th October to 19th November 2009

Libraries

(320)

59

10

79

57

10

Environmental services: Levels of satisfaction with green garden waste are maintained from 2007, while satisfaction with recycling has increased



% Satisfied

Recycling

Green garden waste

(81)

(69)

(74)

(56)

2007 2005


60

10

42

19

1

Other services: Again, levels of satisfaction are maintained from 2007



% Satisfied

Register office

Council housing / Sutton Partnership Housing*

(31)

(15)

(39)

(21)

2007 2005


* Please note that, in 2005 and 2007, the statement read “Council housing”

61

Parks and local bus services are most likely to be frequently used, but around two in five also use sports facilities and libraries at least once a month

49

46

24

16

14

7

1

24

16

16

23

19

26

6

5

13

11

12

18

16

32

14

12

6

6

7

10

11

9

16

10

4

7

17

17

13

10

28

27

4

13

25

16

26

17

36

45*

Q27-34 Please indicate how frequently you have used the following public services provided or supported by Sutton Council

Almost every day/At least once a week

About once a month Within the last 6 months

Within the last year Longer ago Never used/ don’t know

Local tips/ household waste recycling centres

Local bus services

Parks/ open spaces


% At least once a month

Sports/leisure facilities

Libraries

Local transport info

Theatres/concert halls

Museums / galleries

32

63

73

39

39

34

6

5

62

Main Findings 4: Corporate health

63

Summary

Overall satisfaction with the Council is at a similarly high level to previous years (72%), and compares well with other London Boroughs. This is against a backdrop of decline in satisfaction with local authorities recorded in the 2008/09 Place Survey.

Although residents are less likely to speak highly of the Council, the balance is still positive – many would be neutral (49%).

Residents are more likely to disagree than agree that the Council is too remote and impersonal,

There has been a fall of four percentage points since 2007 in the proportion of residents agreeing that the Council provides value for money (from 44% to 40%).

There are some notable geographical differences, however, with those living in St Helier more likely to be negative about Sutton Council.

64

67%

18%

7%2%1%5%

Around seven in ten residents are satisfied with the way the Council runs things

Neither/nor

Very satisfied

Fairly dissatisfied

Fairly satisfied

Very dissatisfied

Q36 And now, taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Sutton Council runs things?

Net satisfaction score +63


% Satisfied

2005 67

2007 69

2009 72

65

84

72

67

67

65

53

51

43

Inner LB 2009

Sutton 2009

Inner LB 2008

Outer LB 2006

Outer LB 2009

Outer LB 2007

Inner LB 2009

Outer LB 2008

Sutton Council is outperforming other outer London Boroughs in this respect

% Satisfied with the council



66

7350 49 55 46 45

23192210

And satisfaction is higher than in the Place Survey


**Sutton08/09

Place SurveyInne

rOute

rLondo

n



survey National Average


*Base: All excluding “Don’t know” (797) Sutton Residents’ Survey. Fieldwork Dates 5 th October to 19th November 2009. **Base: All valid responses 2008/09 (1,205).

Please note that due to the different methodologies, this should be seen as indicative only

67

72%

9%

C2DE and social renting residents are less likely to be satisfied with the Council

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

Age

Socio-economicgroup

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

ABC1

C2DE

Tenure

Social rented

Owner occupier

Private rented 83%

57%

74%

64%

78%

74%

73%

73%

71%

72%

Proportion who are satisfied

16-34



68

Residents from St. Helier, the Wrythe and Wandle Valley are least likely to feel satisfied with the Council

5

8

5

3

3

8

80

69

71

66

65

56

8

15

15

26

19

20

4

5

3

5

9

14

2

3

3

2

2

4

% Very satisfied % Fairly satisfied %Neither nor

% Fairly dissatisfied %Very dissatisfied % Don't know


Sutton







% Satisfied

85

78

76

69

68

64

% Dissatisfied

4

7

7

5

13

17

Base

76

152

124

137

179

134

69

30%

49%

14%4%

1%3%

More residents would speak highly of the Council than negatively, but most would be neutral

Be neutral if asked

Speak highly without being asked

Be critical if asked Speak highly if asked

Be critical without being asked

Q37 Which of the following statements comes closest to how you feel about Sutton Council?

Net advocacy score +15


Speak highly

33%ABC1 residents, and those living in the Carshalton and Clockhouse area, are more likely to be advocates of the Council (38% and 54% respectively compared to 33% overall).

70

22%

37%

30%

5%2%4%

As in previous years, most residents do NOT agree that the Council is too remote and impersonal

Neither/nor

Strongly agree

Tend to disagree

Tend to agree

Strongly disagree

Net agree score -9


% Agree

2005 30

2007 26

2009 26

No opinion

Q48 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The council is too remote and impersonal

Social renters, and those who live in St Helier, are more likely to agree with this statement (35% and 34%).

71

39%

32%

19%

6%3%1%

Value for money: two in five agree that the Council provides it – a slight decline on previous years

Neither/nor

Strongly agree

Tend to disagree

Tend to agree

Strongly disagree

Net agree score +15


% Agree

2005 42

2007 44

2009 40

No opinion

Q49 To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The council gives local residents good value for money

72

55

40

36

35

32

Inner LB 2009

Sutton 2009

Outer LB 2009

Outer LB 2008

Inner LB 2009

But, Sutton compares favourably with other London Boroughs in terms of perceived Council VfM

% Agree



73

41 36 35 4330 33

34263125

Q49 To what extent do you agree with following statement:

Sutton council gives local residents good value for money?

The Residents’ Survey result also compares well with the Place Survey

% Agree % Disagree

**Sutton08/09

Place SurveyInne

rOute

rLondo

n



survey National Average



74

40%

25%

White residents, those not working full-time, and those aged 65 or over are more likely to agree that the Council provides VfM

Disagree

Agree

Age

Ethnicity

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

White

BME

Work status

Not working FT

Working FT

44%

36%

27%

42%

50%

44%

37%

36%

37%

Proportion who agree

16-34



75

Residents from St. Helier, and Beddington / Wallington are most likely to DISAGREE that the Council provides value for money

1

1

3

1

51

46

39

36

37

31

37

25

36

22

36

37

10

14

15

27

19

23

2

5

4

11

7

9

3

1

4

1*

3

% Strongly agree % Tend to agree %Neither nor

% Tend to disagree % Strongly disagree % No opinion


Sutton






% Agree

51

47

41

39

38

32

% Disagree

12

19

20

38

22

30


Base

76

124

152

134

137

179

76

What impacts on satisfaction with Sutton Council and perceptions of value for money?

Perceptions of value for money and satisfaction with Sutton Council appear to be related. Three in ten (29%) of those who disagree that Sutton Council provides value for money are dissatisfied with the Council overall compared to just two per cent of those who agree.

Satisfaction with the Council is also higher among those who feel informed about the benefits and services it provides (87% satisfied vs 60% of those who do not feel informed).

Ability to influence Council-run services is also important. Eight in ten of those who feel able to influence services are satisfied with Sutton Council compared to two in three of those who do not feel able to do so (81% vs 65%).

77

Main Findings 5: Informing residents

78

Summary

As in the Place Survey, residents are most likely to say they feel informed about how to vote. However, they are more likely in the Residents’ Survey to feel informed about how public services are performing, the standards they should expect, how to influence decisions, and how to complain. They are also more likely to feel informed overall.

However, the proportion of residents saying they feel informed by the Council has fallen steadily over time (from 58% in 2007 to 45% in 2009), and Sutton now lags behind other London Boroughs in this respect. This is important when we consider the association between levels of being informed and satisfaction with the Council.

Residents obtain most of their information about the Council from the local authority itself, through newspapers, magazines and leaflets (51% say they receive information this way).

79

27

3

6

4

3

3

4

53

45

41

41

42

37

33

13

38

37

39

40

39

45

3

10

11

12

10

16

13

4

4

5

4

5

4

5

% Very well informed % Fairly well informed% Not very well informed % Not very well informed at all% Don't know

Residents are highly informed about registering to vote; they are least informed about how to get involved in local decision-making

Q38-44 How well informed do you feel about each of the following?

How and where to register to vote

How your council tax is spent

How you can get involved in local decision-making

What standard of service you should expect

How well local public services are performing

How to complain about local public services

% Informed

80

48

47

45

45

40

37

What to do in a large-scale emergency


80

% Informed (Sutton Residents’)

% Informed (Place – Sutton)

Residents are more likely to say they feel informed about the performance and expected standards of local services in the Residents’ Survey than the Place Survey

How and where to register to vote

How your council tax is spent

How you can get involved in local decision-making

What standard of service you should expect

How well local public services are performing

How to complain about local public services

What to do in the event of a large scale emergency,

eg pandemic flu

% Informed (Place – LBs) Base Sutton

Residents’*

Base Sutton Place**

776 123

769 1,072

768 1,198

769 1,108

773 1,033

802 1,250

770 1,108

Q38-44 How well informed do you feel about each of the following?

*Base: All excluding “Don’t know”. Sutton Residents’ Survey. Fieldwork Dates 5 th October to 19th November 2009. **Base: All valid responses 2008/09.


80%

50%

49%

48%

47%

40%

39%

94%

36%

51%

40%

36%

13%

28%

90%

38%

62%

39%

35%

15%

32%

81

3%

49%39%

7% 3%

About the same proportion of residents do feel informed about local services as those who do not

Very well informed

Not very well informed

Fairly well informed

Not well informed at all

Q45 Overall, how well informed do you feel about local public services?

Net informed score +6

Younger residents (aged 16-24), and those living in St

Helier and Cheam North / Worcester

Park, are most likely to say they are not informed (59%, 56% and

56% respectively, compared to 52%

overall)

Don’t know


82

5337 37 39

12

47

This is a more positive picture than that painted by the Place Survey


**Sutton08/09

Place SurveyLondo

n



survey

National Average

Q45 Overall, how well informed do you feel about local public services?



83

45%

58%

61%

63%

The extent to which residents feel informed by the Council about its services has fallen over time. This is important because we know that how well informed people are is associated with how satisfied they are with the Council

Q46 How well informed do you feel Sutton Council keeps you about the services and benefits it provides?

2009

Very/Fairly well informed

2007

2005

2003


84

67

60

60

51

49

45

36

Inner LB 2009

Outer LB 2006

Inner LB 2009

Inner LB 2008

Outer LB 2009

Sutton 2009

Outer LB 2007

And Sutton residents feel less informed by their local authority than elsewhere in London

% Informed about council services



85

45%

52%

Older residents and those of higher socio-economic status are more likely to feel informed about the Council

Not informed

Informed Proportion who are informed



Age

Socio-economic group

40%

48%

53%

48%

46%

45%

38%

35-44

45-54

55-64

65+

ABC1

C2DE

16-34

86

Residents from St. Helier, and Cheam North / Worcester Park, are least likely to feel informed about Sutton Council

2

1

6

6

5

68

55

45

39

25

25

25

38

30

37

57

57

4

6

11

17

10

1

8

1

2

6*

12

% Very well informed % Fairly well informed % Only limited info

% Doesn't tell us much % Don't know


Sutton






% Informed

69

56

51

44

30

27

%

Not informed

29

44

40

55

69

67


Base

76

152

124

179

134

137

87

Most residents obtain information about the Council from the authority’s own information channels

51%

45%

32%

21%

7%

4%

1%

1%

Information provided by the council (newspaper, magazine, leaflets)

Local media (newspapers, TV, radio)

Council website / Internet

Word of mouth (e.g. family / friends)

Direct contact with the Council

From a local councillor

None of these

Don’t know


Q47 From which of the following sources, if any, do you obtain most of your information about Sutton Council and the services it provides?

Those aged 55 and over are more

likely to use Council information (60%), while those under 35 are most

likely to use the Internet (42%).

88

Main Findings 6: Local democracy

89

Summary Around two in five residents agree that they can influence Council-

run services (38%) – this is in line with previous waves of the Residents’ Survey.

The majority of residents (62%) like to know what the Council is doing, but are happy to let it get on with its job. A relatively small proportion would actually like to be more involved (19%).

When considering how they would like to have a say in the running of services, the most popular means of doing so is to complete questionnaires (42%), although a similar proportion say they would attend public meetings (39%).

In terms of getting involved, two in five say that they would just like more information (42%). However, one in five would like more consultation (20%) and one quarter say they would like to get involved online (27%).

90

36%

31%

14%

17%2%

Residents are more likely to disagree that they can influence Council-run services than agree, with around one in six saying that they do not know

Tend to disagree

Tend to agree

Definitely disagree

Net agree score -7


% Agree

2005 35

2007 35

2009 38

Don’t know

Q66 To what extent do you agree or disagree that you can influence council run services within your local area?

Definitely agree

91

By local committee area, residents in the Carshalton / Clockhouse, Sutton South / Cheam /Belmont, and Sutton areas are most likely to agree that they can influence council services

6

1

3

58

43

45

29

25

25

22

25

33

33

33

38

12

7

6

15

18

8

19

15

20

17

18*

25

% Definitely agree % Tend to agree % Tend to disagree

% Definitely disagree % Don't know


Sutton






% Agree

58

49

46

32

25

26

%

Disagree

34

32

39

48

58

56

Q66 To what extent do you agree or disagree that you can influence council run services within your local area?

Base

76

124

152

179

137

134

92

19%

62%

13%1%2%

3%

When it comes to the Council, although most want to be kept informed, few residents want to be involved

Like to know what it’s doing but happy to let it get on with its job

Already work for / involved with the CouncilNot interested in what it does or

how it does its jobWould like more of a sayNot interested as long as it

does its job


% Would like a say

2005 22

2007 15

2009 19

None/Don’t know

Q64 Which of the following statements comes closest to your own attitudes towards Sutton Council?

Although there are no differences by demographic sub

groups, those living in the Carshalton / Clockhouse and

St Helier areas are most likely to want to have more of a

say (38% and 26% respectively

compared to 19% overall).

93

Two in five say they would like to have more of a say by completing questionnaires, with a similar proportion saying they would attend public meetings

42

39

29

28

25

1

1

2

Completing questionnaires like this

Attending local public meetings

Meeting a local Councillor

Contacting Sutton Council via email, website or text

Phone call with a Councillor

Other

None of these

Don’t know


Q65 How would you personally prefer to have more of a say?

White residents are more likely

than BME residents to say

that they would like either a meeting or phone call with a councillor (33%

and 29%).

94

To be more involved, two in five say they would like more information, while a quarter would like to participate online

42

27

20

15

8

7

7

By receiving more information about what the Council is doing

Through the Council website / online

Through more / better consultation

By talking direct with Councillors

Through talking direct with frontline Council staff

None of these

Don’t know


Q67 And in which of the ways on this card, if any, would you like to get involved in the running of Council services within your local area?

-Residents who are working full-time are more likely than those not doing so to want to get involved online

-Those not working full-time are more likely to want to talk directly with Councillors

-Residents from C2DE backgrounds are more likely than ABC1 residents to say they want to receive more information about what the Council’s doing.

95

Main findings 7: Contacting the Council

96

Summary

Of the 46% that have contacted the Council in the last two years, most have done so through the call centre (76%).

Those who have contacted the Council tend to be positive about staff – in particular, most report staff to have been helpful.

Residents are slightly less positive about the speed with which the council responded to their query (25% say that the authority was slow), and a similar proportion were dissatisfied the outcome of their contact (27%).

97

76%

13%

5%

4%

2%

2%

2%

65%

23%

3%

9%

6%

2%

1%

2%

1%

72%

15%

1%

8%

4%

1%

2%

4%

1%

*%

By phone through the call centre

In person at Council Offices

In writing by email

In writing by letter

In person at local Access Point*

Via the Internet

Through someone else

Other

Don't know/can't rememer

% 2009

% 2007

46% of residents have contacted the council in the last two years. Of these, the majority used the telephone – significantly more than in 2007

Q51 How did you last get in contact with Sutton Council?

% 2005% change from 2007

+11

-10

+2

-5

-4

0

+1

-2

-1

Base: All who have contacted the Council in the last two years (383)

Fieldwork Dates 5th October to 19th November 2009 * In 2007 and 2005, this option read ‘One Stop Shop’

98

15

16

76

81

75

18

% Helpful % Unhelpful

Q52 Thinking about the last time you contacted Sutton Council did you find them…

2007

2005

2009

Of those who contacted the Council, three quarters say that they found staff to be helpful

Base: All who have contacted the Council in the last two years (383).

Fieldwork Dates 5th October to 19th November 2009

Base: all who contacted the Council in the last

two years

472

330

383

99

18

20

70

72

68

21

% Interested in your problem

% Uninterested in your problem

2007

2005

2009

Seven in ten say that staff were interested in their problem


two years

472

330

383




100

28

25

62

66

64

30

% Quick to respond % Slow to respond

2007

2005

2009

Two thirds of those who have contacted the council say that staff were quick to respond, but a quarter say they were slow


two years

472

330

383




101

20

20

74

76

71

20

% Easy % Difficult

2007

2005

2009

Seven in ten say that it was easy to get hold of the right person at the Council


two years

472

330

383

Q53 Again, thinking about the last time you contacted Sutton Council, was getting hold of the right person easy?



102

25

27

66

70

65

26


2007

2005

2009

Two thirds were satisfied with the final outcome, although a quarter were dissatisfied


two years

472

330

383

Q54 And were you satisfied or dissatisfied with the final outcome?



103

Main findings 8: Environmental issues

104

Summary

Residents are most concerned about parking (33%), and speeding traffic (27%) in their local area. Parking and dog fouling are seen as more problematic than in 2007.

More residents claim to recycle in 2009 than in 2007 – this increase applies to several items, particularly glass and garden waste. Furthermore, there has been an increase in the proportion saying that they compost garden waste since 2007.

This is reflected in the proportions saying they separate recyclables at the roadside – more so than in 2007.

There are mixed views over incentivising, but more residents say that this would encourage them to separate waste than do not (57% compared to 41%, in line with 2007 levels).

105

Parking and speeding traffic are the largest concerns for residents

0

10

20

30

40

0 10 20 30 40 50

% Of most concern

% Problems in your area

Speeding traffic

Fly tipping

Noise pollution

Dog fouling

Parking

Weeds

Litter

Vandalism

Graffiti

Congestion

Mean: 20

Mean: 11


Abandoned vehicles

Air pollution

Q55 Which of the following, if any, are problems in your area?Q56 Which one or two are of most concern to you?

106

33%

27%

18%

16%

13%

11%

7%

25%

27%

20%

11%

10%

13%

8%

28%

22%

24%

9%

6%

11%

16%

Parking

Speeding traffic

Vandalism

Dog fouling

Congestion

Litter

Graffiti

% 2009

% 2007

Concern about parking, dog fouling and congestion have increased since 2007

Q56 Which one or two are of most concern to you?

% 2005Percentage

point change from

2007

+8

0

-2

+5

+3

-2

-1


107

Q57 Which of the following, if any, do you currently regularly recycle?

94%

88%

87%

83%

68%

59%

41%

35%

23%

85%

72%

66%

72%

51%

38%

40%

28%

15%

90%

80%

71%

69%

62%

58%

30%

37%

13%

The proportion claiming to recycle has increased since 2007 in the case of all materials asked about, especially glass and garden waste

Paper

Cardboard

Plastics

Glass

Steel & Aluminium Cans

Textiles

Green garden waste*

Food waste

Electrical items

Percentage point change

from 2007

+9

+16

+21

+11

+17

+21

+1

+7

+7Base: All residents (802) Sutton Residents’ Survey. Fieldwork Dates 5 th October to 19th November 2009

2009 2007 2005

* Please note that, in 2007 and 2005, this statement read “Doorstep collection of green garden waste”

108

Encouragingly, significantly more residents now say they already separate items for collection than in 2007, with most of the reminder willing to do so in future

43%

79%

36%

33%

14%

33%

18%

5%

14%

3%

12% 4%

1%

3%

1%3%

Already do Very willing Fairly willingNot very willing Not at all willing Don't know

Q59-61 How willing, if at all, would you be to separate the following for collection at the kerbside?

Food waste

Glass

Textiles

% Change 2007-9

(Already do)

+12

+28

+6


109

Q62 To what extent would a financial incentive for separating those items for collection from your kerbside, encourage you to do so?

20%

37%

25%

16%2%

In line with 2007, residents appear receptive to being incentivised,– particularly younger residents and those in social rented accommodation

% A great deal/fair amount

% Not very

much / not at all

Net great deal/fair amount

2007 57 40 +17

2009 57 41 +16

Don’t know


Not very much

A fair amount

A great dealNot at all

110

Q63 Do you currently compost items such as vegetable peelings, grass cutting and prunings?

There has been an increase in the proportion of residents who compost. Older residents and those in owner occupied accommodation are more likely to do so


49%

26% 73%

50%

1%

1%

Yes No Don't know

2007

2009

111

Main findings 9: Economic optimism

112

Summary

Residents are divided as to whether the economic condition of the country will improve over the next 12 months: three in ten believe it will improve (30%), a similar number feel the economy will get worse (29%), though residents are most likely to believe that things will stay the same (34%).

Sutton residents appear less positive than the national average where more than four in ten (44% October 2009 and 46% November 2009) believe that the economic condition of the country will improve compared to three in ten of Sutton residents (30%). However it should be noted that 2009 has been a particularly volatile year for measuring economic optimism.

Optimism about the economy is highest among male residents and those from BME backgrounds, those in full-time employment and who line in private rented or owner occupied accommodation.

113

30%

34%

29%

8%

Opinion is divided as to whether or not the economy will improve over the next 12 months

Get worse

Improve

Stay the same

Don’t know

Q82 Do you think that the general economic condition of the country will improve, stay the same, or get worse over the next 12 months?


114

Sutton residents appear less positive than the national average recorded during fieldwork

46%

28%

23%

3%

44%

31%

23%

2%

Ipsos MORI Political Monitor

Do you think that the general economic condition of the country will improve, stay the same, or get worse over the next 12 months?

*EOI: Economic Optimism Index (improve minus get worse) in percentage points

**Oct Base: 996 British adults 18+, 16th-18th Oct ’09; ***Nov Base: 1,006 British adults 18+, 13th-15th Nov ’09

Sutton Residents’ Survey. Sutton residents 16+ (802), 5th October to 19th November 2009

30%

34%

29%

8%

Sutton Residents’ survey

EOI* +1

Oct 2009** Nov 2009***

EOI* +23

EOI* +21

Improve Stay the same Get worse Don’t know

115

However, it should be noted that national economic optimism has been turbulent throughout 2009

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Jan-

09

Feb

-09

Mar

-09

Apr

-09

May

-09

Jun-

09

Jul-0

9

Aug

-09

Sep

-09

Oct

-09

Nov

-09

Dec

-09

Improve

Stay the same

Get worse

Source: Ipsos MORI Political Affairs Monitor Jan ’09 – Dec ’09: c1,000 adults aged 18+

Do you think that the general economic condition of the country will improve, stay the same, or get worse over the next 12 months?

%

116

30%

34%

29%

8%

Those working full-time, males, BME residents and those not living in social housing are more likely to be optimistic

Get worse

Improve

Work status

Gender

Ethnicity

Not working full-time

Male

Female

White

BME

Tenure

Social rented

Owner occupier

Private rented

Proportion who think the economy will improve

Working full-time

Stay the same


Q82 Do you think that the general economic condition of the country will improve, stay the same, or get worse over the next 12 months?

Don’t know

30%

17%

32%

42%

28%

24%

35%

26%

33%

117

Main findings 10: Safeguarding children

118

The police and social services/the Council are seen as the most suitable organisations to contact if residents are concerned about the wellbeing of a vulnerable adult/child

54

45

5

2

2

8

*

*

The police

Social service/the Council

Friends/neighbour/family of the vulnerable adult/child

Healthcare services

School/college

Other (specify)

I would not contact anyone

Don’t know


Q83 I would like you to imagine you were concerned about the wellbeing of a vulnerable adult or child you knew in your area.

If you wanted to alert someone to the situation, who would you contact, if anyone?

119

Males and those from BME backgrounds are more likely to contact

the Police

By subgroup – gender, ethnicity and social group appear to impact on who residents would contact

65%

52%

48%

60%

40%

49%

50%

41%Male

Female

Male

Female

% the police % social services/the Council

White

BME

ABC1

C2DE


Females and those from ABC1 households are more likely to contact

social services/the Council

sutton residents survey report 040110

Technology

owner occupied

wandle valleycheam

valid responses

green garden

general economic

local public

200809 place

face surveys