CRAWLEY CITIZENS’ PANEL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2002 …€¦ · CRAWLEY CITIZENS’ PANEL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2002 FINAL REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2002 - Prepared for: - Carrie Burton, Corporate

CRAWLEY CITIZENS’ PANEL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2002

FINAL REPORT

- SEPTEMBER 2002 -

Prepared for: - Carrie Burton, Corporate Policy Manager

(Community Engagement) Claire Lee, Policy Officer (Consultation)

Crawley Borough Council

Prepared by:- Dawn Hands

Research Director and

Andrew Meredith Account Manager

Bostock Marketing Group Limited 7 Holt Court North

Heneage Street West Aston Science Park

Birmingham B7 4AX

Tel: 0121 333 6006 Fax: 0121 333 6800

Table of contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CRAWLEY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2002...................................... I HEADLINE SURVEY FINDINGS............................................................................................. I

CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................ I VIEWS ON THE TOWN AND NEIGHBOURHOODS ........................................................... I SERVICE USE AND SATISFACTION.................................................................................. I VIEWS ABOUT THE COUNCIL .......................................................................................... II COMMUNICATION WITH THE COUNCIL .......................................................................... II

KEY MESSAGES .................................................................................................................. III CRAWLEY PEOPLE........................................................................................................... III KEY PRIORITIES ............................................................................................................... III AREAS OF CONCERN ......................................................................................................IV CUSTOMER SERVICE ......................................................................................................IV POSITIVE MESSAGES.......................................................................................................V

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1

1.1 CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH ..............................................................................1 1.2 METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................1

2.0 PROFILE OF THE PANEL ...........................................................................................5 2.1 GENDER AND AGE..................................................................................................5 2.2 EMPLOYMENT STATUS ..........................................................................................6 2.3 OCCUPATION OF EMPLOYED PANEL RESPONDENTS.......................................7 2.4 HOME OWNERSHIP.................................................................................................8 2.5 HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS.........................................................................................9 2.6 BENEFITS...............................................................................................................12 2.7 INTERNET ACCESS...............................................................................................12 2.8 ETHNICITY .............................................................................................................14 2.9 CAR OWNERSHIP..................................................................................................15 2.10 PUBLIC TRANSPORT ............................................................................................16 2.11 LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN THE BOROUGH......................................................16

3.0 QUALITY OF LIFE .....................................................................................................19 3.1 SATISFACTION WITH THE LOCAL AREA.............................................................19 3.2 CHANGES TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD ...............................................................20 3.3 COMMUNITY SAFETY ...........................................................................................22 3.4 DESCRIBING CRAWLEY .......................................................................................24 3.5 ATTITUDES TOWARDS CRAWLEY.......................................................................27 3.6 IMPROVING CRAWLEY .........................................................................................28

4.0 RESPONDENTS VIEWS OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES......................................35 4.1 AWARENESS OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES....................................................35 4.2 LEVEL OF USE OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES .................................................36 4.3 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES AND FACILITIES.............................................39 4.4 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES...................................................51

5.0 PERCEPTIONS OF THE COUNCIL...........................................................................55 5.1 SATISFACTION WITH THE COUNCIL ...................................................................55 5.2 ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE COUNCIL ................................................................59

6.0 CONTACT WITH THE COUNCIL...............................................................................61 6.1 CONTACT WITH COUNCIL IN LAST YEAR AND REASONS................................61 6.2 METHOD OF CONTACT.........................................................................................62 6.3 COUNCIL STAFF....................................................................................................64 6.4 KEEPING RESIDENTS INFORMED.......................................................................65 6.5 CONTACTING COUNCILLORS..............................................................................68 6.6 ‘CRAWLEY LIVE’ ....................................................................................................69 6.7 ‘FASTWAY’ .............................................................................................................71

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY .............................................................................73 7.1 WARD LOCATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS ...........................................................73 7.2 SATISFACTION WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD AND CRAWLEY................................73 7.3 KEY PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT – SAFETY, HEALTH AND THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................................74 7.4 SERVICE SATISFACTION – HIGHS AND LOWS ..................................................75 7.5 CONTACTS AND COMMUNICATION WITH COUNCIL .........................................77

APPENDICES........................................................................................................................... APPENDIX 1 - QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................................................

Crawley Borough Council Page i Household Survey 2002 - Final Report Executive Summary

BMG September 2002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CRAWLEY HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2002

HEADLINE SURVEY FINDINGS

CONTEXT

� In order to update the 1999 Crawley household survey and to renew the membership of the Citizens’ Panel, BMG carried out 1,013 face to face interviews with Crawley Borough residents between March and April 2002. A representative cross-section of residents were interviewed to ensure that the views of the panel reflect those of the borough as a whole.

VIEWS ON THE TOWN AND NEIGHBOURHOODS

� Views of Crawley remain fairly positive, but residents have tended to become more neutral about the town since 1999. Crawley is seen as a place with a thriving economy, good shopping and a generally good quality of life. However, there are concerns about the availability of affordable housing, community safety, health services and facilities for young people.

� Opinions of the town’s shopping facilities and leisure and cultural amenities have declined since 1999, which could be related to rising expectations and competition elsewhere.

� Residents in Central wards, and Bewbush/ Broadfield are most dissatisfied with their neighbourhoods, and those in Central wards are most likely to feel that their neighbourhoods have gone downhill over the past few years.

� Community safety, particularly at night, and local health services emerge as clear priorities for improvement according to residents. Other priority areas noted are facilities and opportunities for young people, improving education standards and improving the local environment.

SERVICE USE AND SATISFACTION

� Residents are aware of most leisure and cultural facilities in the town. Other high visibility services include recycling facilities, planning and building control, concessionary travel, housing and benefits.

� Leisure and cultural facilities are also the most widely used of the non-universal local services, along with local bus services and recycling facilities.

� A number of local services have seen improvements in satisfaction since 1999, notably facilities for children and young people, car parks, concessionary travel, planning and schools.

Crawley Borough Council Page ii Household Survey 2002 - Final Report Executive Summary

BMG September 2002

� However, several services have experienced a deterioration in satisfaction levels, notably refuse collection, recycling facilities, leisure centres, hospitals and housing/council tax benefit administration. Residents appear to have become more neutral in their opinion of some services, which is of concern.

� When comparing Crawley’s satisfaction ratings with those achieved by other authorities in the Audit Commission family group, several core Borough Council services attain only average levels of satisfaction, including recycling and street cleanliness. The refuse collection service performs very poorly, with the lowest rating in the family group.

� In contrast, planning, local bus services and parks and open spaces compare very favourably – topping the comparative ratings.

� In terms of the importance residents place on specific services, health and cleanliness services are clearly given priority – two thirds name hospitals as one of the most important services, while over a third name refuse collection.

VIEWS ABOUT THE COUNCIL

� Relatively few people are critical of Crawley Borough Council. However, there has been an increase in the number of people with no views one way or the other. Three in five were satisfied with the Council’s performance but this is not particularly high when compared with family group authorities.

� Residents show less interest in what the Council does, and less desire to be involved than in 1999. However, this may be related to people feeling more informed (see ‘communication’ below).

COMMUNICATION WITH THE COUNCIL

� A quarter of residents contacting the Council still do so in person – high compared to other authorities. However, there has been some shift towards telephone contact.

� Those who have had direct contact with the Council are very satisfied with staff service, particularly with politeness and helpfulness. Overall satisfaction with customer service has increased since 1999. However, the Council performed poorly in terms of actual response to enquiries – satisfaction with the speed of response has decreased significantly since 1999.

� Residents least satisfied with the speed of response are generally people who have greater contact with the Council.

Crawley Borough Council Page iii Household Survey 2002 - Final Report Executive Summary

BMG September 2002

� The borough has high levels of residents who have access to the internet compared to national figures. However, contact with the council using email remains very limited and the Council website is not widely used.

� High levels of awareness and readership of ‘Crawley Live’, the Council magazine, have helped to significantly increase the proportion of panel members who think that the Council keeps them informed about the services and benefits it provides. However, there remains a section of the population who feel uninformed.

KEY MESSAGES

CRAWLEY PEOPLE

� A high proportion of residents have lived in Crawley for significant periods of time. There is therefore a long term population who know the town well and have seen changes and developments over time.

� There are clear differences in opinion between different areas of the town, with residents in Broadfield, Bewbush and central wards generally experiencing most dissatisfaction.

� There appears to be more dissatisfaction at a neighbourhood level than with the town as a whole.

KEY PRIORITIES

� Residents have clearly identified several areas they regard as key priorities – community safety, health, local environment and education.

� Affordable housing and facilities for young people are also of high importance.

� In terms of specific services, the hospital is a highly important, and topical, issue for local residents. Refuse collection is also seen as a core service.

� Many of the areas identified by residents as key priorities can only be addressed successfully by various organisations working in partnership to deliver improvements. This re-emphasises the importance of partnership working to the Borough Council.

Crawley Borough Council Page iv Household Survey 2002 - Final Report Executive Summary

BMG September 2002

AREAS OF CONCERN

� Residents have become slightly less positive about their neighbourhood and Crawley as a whole.

� Satisfaction with the Council’s overall performance, while generally positive, does not compare particularly well with other authorities. There is certainly room for general improvement in service delivery which will influence overall perceptions of the Council

� Some core Borough Council services have experienced drops in satisfaction and require more urgent attention – notably refuse collection (which is also regarded as highly important) and benefit administration. Satisfaction with recycling facilities has also deteriorated, but the subsequent introduction of the red box scheme should go a long way to addressing this. It is important that the scheme is successful and monitored closely, especially as recycling is a high visibility service.

� Residents have become less satisfied with a number of the town’s amenities, for example, libraries, shopping facilities and leisure centres. This could be related to rising expectations, private sector competition or comparison with facilities elsewhere. Qualitative work outside this survey has shown that residents value the high standard of amenities the town has historically offered, and it will be important to do everything possible to maintain high quality, up-to-date facilities for the town.

CUSTOMER SERVICE

� Crawley Borough Council offices still receive a high number of personal visits from residents, in comparison with other authorities. Although there has been a slight shift towards telephone contact, personal service remains significant for the Council, and this should be borne in mind when developing the customer contact centre.

� Residents praise the polite and helpful service they receive from Council staff. However, the Council is less efficient at addressing the customer’s query – many expressing dissatisfaction with the time taken to respond. Measures to speed up response times should be considered, although the contact centre will be looking to address this.

� The Council is not currently maximising the potential of e-communication. Levels of internet access in Crawley are high, but relatively few residents have looked at the Council’s website or communicated via e-mail. The availability of these channels of communication could be publicised and their use encouraged, provided the back-up support is in place to provide a swift response to e-mail enquiries.

Crawley Borough Council Page v Household Survey 2002 - Final Report Executive Summary

BMG September 2002

POSITIVE MESSAGES

� A number of services have continued to receive high ratings or seen improvements – notably facilities for children and young people, which is a priority area for residents.

� The local bus service rates highly compared to other authorities, as does the planning and development control service.

� Although there has been a slight fall in satisfaction with parks, open spaces and sports pitches since 1999, Crawley’s green areas fare very well when compared with family group authorities with comparatively very high satisfaction.

� Residents feel more informed than in 1999 and there are high levels of awareness and readership of Crawley Live, the council magazine.

Crawley Borough Council Page vi Household Survey 2002 - Final Report Executive Summary

BMG September 2002

Crawley Borough Council Page 1 Household Survey 2002 - Final Report

BMG September 2002

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 CONTEXT OF THE RESEARCH

� In 1999, driven by the modernisation agenda for local government, and the desire to listen and respond to the Crawley community, the council undertook its first major market research exercise – a comprehensive face to face household survey. This provided a valuable insight into the views of residents about the town and local services, and at the same time established the Crawley Citizens’ Panel – a research tool comprising 1000 residents who have been consulted regularly about local issues over the past three years.

� The council adopted its first Consultation Strategy in 2002, which re-stated its commitment to listen and respond to the local community using a variety of consultation methods. The Crawley Citizens Panel forms the backbone of the council’s wider consultation programme and has operated very successfully. The panel has been consulted on a wide range of issues – both corporate and service specific. It has played a significant part in consultation for best value reviews, corporate vision, and service delivery issues, and the demand for public involvement in these areas continues to be high.

� In 2002 the council took the decision to update the data obtained from the 1999 household survey, and to renew the citizens panel to enable its role as a key consultation mechanism to continue successfully, and allow another group of residents to participate. In addition a ‘booster’ sample of council tenants were recruited on to the panel to provide a resource which will enhance the council’s work on tenant participation and involvement.

� BMG were commissioned to carry out this work, with two principal research objectives:

♦ To update the data obtained in 1999, analyse it to identify any changes over time, and to benchmark against comparator authorities

♦ To renew the membership of the Citizens’ Panel and to ensure it reflects the population profile of the town, with a booster sample of council tenants.

1.2 METHODOLOGY

Panel Recruitment and Sampling

� Face to face interviews were completed, lasting on average 20 minutes, with 1,013 residents of the Borough of Crawley. Participants were invited to join the Citizens’ Panel and also answer questions on various aspects of


BMG September 2002

Council services. Interviews were carried out on resident’s doorsteps from mid March to late April 2002.

� In order to ensure that the views of the panel reflect those of the borough as a whole, a representative cross-section sample of residents were interviewed. The recruitment was on the basis of their overall age, gender, geography (at ward level), ethnicity and working/not working status fully representing all groups of the community in Crawley. In terms of geography, for example, if a ward accounts for 10% of Crawley’s adult population, then 10% of the total panel was recruited from this ward.

� In reality a Citizens’ Panel will never be completely representative of the borough population. Whilst the profiles of gender, geography and economic activity closely reflected that of the borough, the age profile recruited was slightly skewed towards the older residents. In order to accurately reflect the view of the borough, the data was weighted, that is, the data is processed to more fully reflect the actual population of the borough. The effect of this process has been presented in the table below:

Table 1

WEIGHTING THE DATA

UNWEIGHTED – ACTUAL INTERVIEWS

WEIGHTED – TO BOROUGH PROFILE

NUMBER % NUMBER %

Gender

Male 502 49.5 499 49.2

Female 511 50.5 513 50.8

Age

16-24 90 8.9 150 14.8

25-34 204 20.1 242 23.9

35-54 418 41.3 332 32.3

55+ 294 29.0 280 27.6

Employment Status

Working 628 62.0 604 59.7

Unemployed 45 4.4 47 4.6

Inactive 340 33.6 361 35.6

Base 1013 1012


BMG September 2002

Confidence Intervals in the Survey Data

� The sample of 1,013 interviews carried a standard error of +/- 3.1% at the 95% level of confidence. This means that if a survey finding gives a result of 50%, then if everyone in the population had been interviewed, the figure would have been between 53.1% and 46.9%.

Ward Groupings

� The ward in which the household interview took place was recorded and the profile presented below indicating the spread of interviews across the borough. Dependent upon population size of each ward, the samples varied from 5% in Northgate and West Green, to 11% in Ifield and 12% in Broadfield.

Table 2

WARD OF INTERVIEW

% %

Bewbush 8 Pound Hill North 9

Broadfield 12 Pound Hill South 7

Furnace Green 7 Southgate 8

Gossops Green 7 Three Bridges 6

Ifield 11 Tilgate 7

Langley Green 8 West Green 5

Northgate 5

Weighted Base 1012

� To facilitate comparison of data throughout the report on the basis of geography, the wards have been grouped into the following categories:

♦ Bewbush / Broadfield (20%)

♦ Ifield /Gossops Green/Tilgate (25%)

♦ Central - Langley Green, West Green,

♦ Northgate, Southgate (26%)

♦ East - Pound Hill (North and South), Three Bridges, Furnace Green (29%)


BMG September 2002

Reporting and terminology

� Throughout this report, comparisons are drawn with the 1999 Crawley Household Survey, noting any changes in how the question was phrased. Other comparisons are made based on two sources. Firstly there are BVPI ratings from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM), formerly the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR).

� These provide satisfaction with a range of areas of service delivery. These are based on where a response was given to an indicator, using a 5 point rating scale from 1 - very dissatisfied to 5 - very satisfied. The indicator shown is the combined ‘satisfied’ (4 out of 5 rating) and ‘very satisfied’ (5 out of 5 rating).

� The Audit Commission ‘family group’ of similar type local authorities across England, based upon various demographic and geographic factors, has been used. Indicators, where available, include the following authorities; Bedford, Dartford, Ellesmere Port & Neston, Gosport, Ipswich, Peterborough, Reading, Rushmoor, Spelthorne, Stevenage, Warwick, Watford, Wellingborough, Welwyn Hatfield, Worcester, and Wrekin & Telford.

� Secondly, sources of data are used from local authorities where BMG have carried out surveys, both as BVPI and other household or panel based surveys. This includes Luton, North Hertfordshire, North Warwickshire, Reading, Slough, Tunbridge Wells and Windsor and Maidenhead.

� A further set of analysis used is the ‘net’ of a rating, such as agreement with a statement, or satisfaction with a service. Here, again using 5 point scales, the net is calculated by subtracting the combined ‘very dissatisfied’ and ‘dissatisfied’ ratings from the combined ‘satisfied’ and ‘very satisfied’ ratings, leaving a net score, excluding the ‘don’t know’ and ‘neither nor’ views.

� A full set of data tables have also been produced to support this written report, providing detailed cross-tabulation of every question by key demographic, attitudinal and behavioural characteristics.


BMG September 2002

2.0 PROFILE OF THE PANEL

2.1 GENDER AND AGE

� Of the total interviews conducted, 499 (49%) were conducted with males and 513 (51%) with females.

� Almost two-fifths (39%) of respondents were aged 16-34, a further 43% were aged 34-64 with the remaining 18% aged 65 and over.

Table 3

AGE

All %

Broadfield /Bewbush

%

Gossops Gn, Ifield, Tilgate %

Central %

East %

16-24 15 22 11 13 15

25-34 24 22 23 24 26

35-44 18 22 17 17 17

45-54 15 17 13 17 14

55-64 10 7 10 9 13

65+ 18 8 27 19 16

Refused 1 1 1 1 0.5

Weighted Base 1012 208 248 263 293

� The ward groupings show distinct differences in interviewee age, a reflection of the population composition of each ward grouping. For example, in Broadfield and Bewbush, far higher levels of 16-24 year olds were interviewed (22%), and the lowest level of over 55’s (15%). Whereas, in Gossops Green, Ifield and Tilgate, interviews achieved the lowest proportion of 16-24 year olds (11%) and the highest for over 55’s (37%).


BMG September 2002

2.2 EMPLOYMENT STATUS

� Almost three out of five (59%) of panel members are in employment with 44% working full time (30 hours or more per week). Only 5% of panel members are unemployed. One in five (20%) are retired and 11% are looking after the house and / or children. The remainder of the panel are either permanently sick or disabled (2%) or students (2%).

Table 4

EMPLOYMENT STATUS

All %

Broadfield /Bewbush

%


Central %

East %

Working – full time (30+) 44 43 38 45 49

Working – part time (under 30 hours) 12 19 10 13 10

Self employed with staff 1 0 0.5 0.5 2

Self-employed without staff 2 3 2 1 3

Unemployed – seeking work 4 6 3 4 2

Unemployed – not seeking work 1 1 2 2 0

Not working – retired 20 9 27 21 20

Not looking – looking after home/ children 11 14 13 9 9

Permanently sick or disabled 2 2 2 2 1

Student 3 4 3 2 5

Base 1013 208 248 263 293

� Those in work are more highly represented in the Broadfield and Bewbush wards (65%), with the highest proportion of part time workers (19%) being interviewed there, and the lowest levels of retired people (9%). In Gossops Green, Ifield and Tilgate, the lowest levels of people in work are recorded (50%), but the highest levels of retired people (27%). There are also high proportions of retired people and those looking after the home or dependants (30% combined) in Central and East ward groupings.

� Just over half of all panel members (52%) are the main income earners in their household.


BMG September 2002

2.3 OCCUPATION OF EMPLOYED PANEL RESPONDENTS

� The socio-economic group of the panel members that were in employment were recorded and presented in the table below. Two thirds of the panel are from socio-economic groups C1 and D, equally split between one third (34%) from socio-economic group D (semi and unskilled manual workers) and a further third (33%) from group C1 (supervisory, clerical, junior managerial, or administrative). A full explanation of the socio-economic definitions has been included in Appendix 2.

� Working residents of wards in the East are most likely to be classified AB (29%), and least in Broadfield/ Bewbush (8%), where the highest proportion of C2D classification populations live (56%)

Table 5

SOCIO – ECONOMIC GROUP AND INDUSTRY OF WORK

OF THOSE IN WORK

%

Socio – economic group

A Senior Professionals and Managers 4

B Middle Management 14

C1 Supervisory, clerical junior managerial, administrative 33

C2 Skilled manual, craftsmen 15

D Semi-skilled and unskilled manual 34

E Unwaged, state pension only retired 1

Industry of work

Primary – Agriculture, Fishing, Mining, Quarrying, Electricity, Gas, Water supply 5

Manufacturing 13

Construction 6

Wholesale, retail, motor vehicles 14

Hotels, restaurants 4

Transport, storage, communications 19

Financial 5

Real estate, business support activities 19

Public administration, health and education 13

Other community 2

Weighted Base 628


BMG September 2002

� In terms of the broad industry grouping that the local working population is employed in, two main industries dominate; transport/ storage/ communications and real estate/ business support activities – 19% each, with 14% involved in retail, wholesale and motor vehicles.

2.4 HOME OWNERSHIP

� Seven out of ten panel members (70%) are home owners with 37% owning their property outright and 33% buying on a mortgage. Only 2% are buying their property from the council. The remaining respondents are renting from various sources, the most common of these being the Council, from whom 20% of respondents are renting their homes.

Table 6

HOME OWNERSHIP

All %

Broadfield /Bewbush

%


Central %

East %

Owned outright including leasehold 37 20 37 43 43

Buying on mortgage 33 34 31 27 40

Rented from Council 20 22 27 21 10

Rented from private landlord 5 4 2 7 5

Rented from Housing Association 4 18 0 1 0

Buying from Council 2 2 3 1 1

Other 1 0 0.5 1 2

Weighted Base 1012 208 248 263 293

� Higher levels of home ownership occur in the Central and Eastern wards, with more rental in Broadfield and Bewbush.

� Compared to the 1999 survey, it can be seen that more people have purchased properties now, as part of the housing boom and low mortgage rates. In 1999, only 20% owned their own home, and 45% were buying it from a non-Council vendor, but now in 2002, far more, 37% own their home, and a lower proportion 33% are buying. This at 70%, is higher than the 65% in 1999.


BMG September 2002

2.5 HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS

� The number of adults, including the respondent, children (up to age 16) and people over 60 in each household was recorded. The results have been summarised in the tables and charts below.

� Just over half of all respondents (54%) live in households with two adults. About one in five (18%) are the only adult in the household. One in six (16%) of households have three adults in, and the remaining 12% of panel members live in households with four or more adults.

� Looking specifically at single adult households, irrespective of the age of the respondent, there is a variation between the distribution across the borough. In Gossops Green/ Ifield /Tilgate the figure increases to 23%, slightly higher than in Broadfield/ Bewbush where there is 22%. Solo residency is far lower in Central wards (17%) and those in the East (13%).

Figure 1

NUMBER OF ADULTS IN HOUSEHOLD, INCLUDING RESPONDENTNUMBER OF ADULTS IN HOUSEHOLD, INCLUDING RESPONDENT(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

18%

54%

16%

8%

3%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

ONE

T WO

T HREE

FOUR

FIVE

SIX OR M ORE

WEIGHTED SAMPLE BASE = 1012

� Across the borough, a small proportion, 7% of all respondents are solo adult households, with children under the age of 16. A further 12% are solo adult occupied, without any other adults or children in the property.

� Two out of five respondents (41%) live in a household with children or young people aged under 18, whilst 59% do not have any in the household.


BMG September 2002

Table 7

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD

%

Aged 0-4 18

Aged 5-8 16

Aged 9-11 11

Aged 12-15 13

Aged 16-17 7

None aged under 18 59

Weighted Base 1012

� Children are more commonly present in Bewbush/ Broadfield (48%) and Gossops Green/Ifield/ Tilgate (43%), than in Central (39%) and East (38%).

� A quarter of panel members (24%) are either over 60 themselves or live in a household with at least one person of this age.

Table 8

PEOPLE OVER 60 IN HOUSEHOLD

All %

Broadfield /Bewbush

%


Central %

East %

Aged 60-74 19 10 26 21 19

Aged 75+ 6 2 8 7 6

None aged 60+ 76 89 66 73 77

Weighted Base 1012 208 248 263 293

� Older residents are more frequently seen in Gossops Green/ Ifield/ Tilgate (34%) and Central areas (27%), than in the other wards. This broadly correlates with the higher presence of children in Broadfield/ Bewbush.

� Overall, therefore, 41% of households have children under 18, and 59% do not. In 24% of households there are residents aged 60 or over.


BMG September 2002

Figure 2

PRESENCE OF OLDER AND YOUNGER PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLDPRESENCE OF OLDER AND YOUNGER PEOPLE IN HOUSEHOLD(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

41%

24%

59%

76%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

CHILDREN UNDER 18 INHOUSEHOLD

OLDER PEOPLE OVER60 YEARS INHOUSEHOLD

PRESENT NONEWEIGHTED SAMPLE BASE = 1012

� One in eight households (12%) have at least one member with a long term illness. Whilst 3% of all homes have at least one occupant in this situation, 9% of all households have more than one member with a long term illness.

Table 9

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS, INCLUDING RESPONDENT, WITH LONG TERM ILLNESS

%

None 88

One 3

Two 4

Three 2

Four or more 3

Weighted Base 1012

* indicates a percentage less than 0.5

� Higher levels of household members with long term illness are seen in Gossops Green/ Ifield/ Tilgate and Central areas, as well as with those without access to a car and in rented accommodation, factors correlating with the generally older populations in these areas.


BMG September 2002

2.6 BENEFITS

� Respondents were asked whether they, or other members of their household, were in receipt of state benefit, council tax benefit, a state pension or other state benefits. The results have been presented in the table below. It is worth noting that 12% of panel members refused to answer any of the questions relating to benefits.

� With high levels of refusals in some wards, it is difficult to provide robust locally segmented views. However, higher levels of benefit claimants are acknowledged in Broadfield/ Bewbush and Gossops Green/ Ifield/ Tilgate compared to the other ward groupings.

Table 10

RECEIPT OF BENEFITS (%)

YES, RESPONDENT

YES, OTHER HOUSEHOLD

MEMBER NO REFUSED

% % % %

Housing benefit or Council Benefit (based on income) 13 4 74 12

State pension 17 11 68 12

Any other state benefit 7 2 79 12

Weighted Base 1012

2.7 INTERNET ACCESS

� Just over half of panel members (52%) have access to the Internet at home. One in seven residents (14%) have access at work, and 1% at their place of study.

� In relation to other factors, such as more older people and more benefit claimants in Gossops Green/ Ifield/ Tilgate and Central wards, there is a correlation with these areas having the lowest levels of internet access at home and the highest levels of non-internet access. These areas, interestingly, have the highest levels of digital TV ownership.

� Only 14% of all panel members have looked at the Crawley Borough Council’s website, (those in more affluent wards and with Internet access). 80% said that they had not, with the remaining 6% unable to remember.

� Almost one-third of respondents (30%) currently have an email address compared to just 19% in 1999, with possession reflecting the wards with higher ICT use and access.


BMG September 2002

Figure 3

INTERNET ACCESSINTERNET ACCESS(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

52%

14%

3%

2%

1%

1%

43%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

HAVE ACCESS TO THEINTERNET AT HOME

HAVE ACCESS TO THEINTERNET AT WORK

HAVE INTERACTIVEDIGITAL TV WITHOUT

INTERNET CONNECTION

HAVE INTERACTIVEDIGITAL TV WITH INTERNET

CONNECTION

HAVE ACCESS TO THEINTERNET AT MY PLACE OF

STUDY

HAVE ACCESSELSEWHERE (LIBRARY,

CYBER CAFÉ)

DO NOT HAVE INTERNETACCESS AT HOME


Table 11

INTERNET ACCESS

All %

Broadfield /Bewbush

%


Central %

East %

Do NOT have access to the Internet at home 43 38 49 47 36

Have access to the Internet at home 52 55 45 49 59

Have access to the Internet at work 14 12 17 12 15

Have access to the Internet at my place of study 1 2 1 1 1

Have access elsewhere ( library, cyber café) 1 1 2 1 0.5

Have interactive digital TV With Internet connection 2 1 3 2 1

Have interactive digital TV Without Internet connection 3 2 2 5 2

Weighted Base 1012 208 248 263 293


BMG September 2002

� Crawley has a high proportion of residents with access to the Internet at home when compared to the authorities below. Nationally during January – March 2002, 42% of households in the UK had home access to the internet via various media (Source Office of National Statistics).

Table 12

HAVE INTERNET ACCESS AT HOME

%

Crawley – 2002 52

North Warwickshire – 2002 49

Epping Forest - 2001 46

Cornwall (local authorities) – 2002 37

UK – 2002 42

2.8 ETHNICITY

� Most, (89%) of respondents describe themselves as being White. The largest ethnic minority groups are Indian (4%) and Pakistani (3%).

Figure 4

ETHNICITYETHNICITY(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

89%

88%

93%

82%

93%

11%

12%

7%

18%

7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ALL

BROADFIELD/BEWBUSH

GOSSOPS GREEN/ IFIELD/TILGATE

CENTRAL

EAST

WHITE ETHNIC MINORITYWEIGHTED SAMPLE BASE = 1012


BMG September 2002

� There is ward based variation of ethnic populations, with the highest ethnic minority population in Central wards (18%), and to a lesser extent in Broadfield/ Bewbush (12%). The other areas have higher (93%) White, mainly White British, ethnic group representation.

Table 13

ETHNICITY

%

White – British 87

White – Irish 1

White – other 1

White and black Caribbean, White and black African, White and Asian, Mixed other <1

Asian – Indian 4

Asian – Pakistani 3

Asian – Bangladeshi *

Asian – other 1

Black – Caribbean *

Black – African 2

Black other 0

Chinese 0

Other 1

Refused *

Weighted Base 1012


2.9 CAR OWNERSHIP

� Over half of households (52%) have at least one or more cars or light vans. Almost a third (28%) own one such vehicle whilst the remaining 24% own two or more. Slightly higher levels of non-car ownership are seen in Broadfield/ Bewbush and Gossops Green/ Ifield/ Tilgate wards (52%). However, conversely, Broadfield and Bewbush has the highest level of two or more cars in a household (31%), compared to 24% in Central and Gossops Green/ Ifield/ Tilgate.


BMG September 2002

Table 14

NUMBER OF CARS OR LIGHT VANS IN HOUSEHOLD

All %

Broadfield /Bewbush

%


Central %

East %

None 48 52 52 50 41

One 28 17 24 27 39

Two 9 11 4 6 14

Three or more 15 20 20 18 6

Weighted Base 1012 208 248 263 293

2.10 PUBLIC TRANSPORT

� 44% of panel members said that they generally used public transport to make journeys within Crawley. This varies quite noticeably between population segments, with 64% of unemployed residents using public transport, compared to 35% who are working.

Table 15

USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN CRAWLEY

All %

Broadfield /Bewbush

%


Central %

East %

Use public transport within Crawley 44 48 51 37 40

Do not use public transport within Crawley

56 52 49 62 60

Weighted Base 1012 208 248 263 293

� Lowest use is made by those in the East and Central wards, correlating with their higher level of car usage. Those residing in Gossops Green/ Ifield / Tilgate wards are the highest users of public transport, as are 16-24 year olds and Council tenants (59%).

2.11 LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN THE BOROUGH

� The majority of panel members have lived in Crawley for a considerable length of time. Over half (54%) have lived in the borough for over 20 years with a further 21% having lived in the area for 10 to 20 years. Only 16% of panel members have lived in the borough for less than five years.


BMG September 2002

Figure 5

LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN LOCAL AREALENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN LOCAL AREA(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

4%

3%

9%

9%

21%

54%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

1 YEAR OR LESS

BET WEEN 1 AND 2YEARS




OVER 20 YEARS


� Bewbush and Broadfield wards have the greatest proportion of newer residents, living in the area for up to 2 years (11%), whereas those in Gossops Green/ Ifield / Tilgate wards only have 5.5% newcomers. This is balanced by these wards having very high levels of long term occupiers, with 84% being resident for over 10 years. The proportion of long term residents in Broadfield/ Bewbush is notably lower, only 65%.

Table 16

LENGTH OF RESIDENCE IN LOCAL AREA

All %

Broadfield /Bewbush

%


Central %

East %

1 year or less 4 5 5 3 5

Between 1 and 2 years 3 6 0.5 5 2

Between 2 and 5 years 9 9 6 9 11



Over 20 years 54 41 65 57 50

Weighted Base 1012 208 248 263 293


BMG September 2002

� Such variations between population segments will affect perceptions, as newcomers and long standing residents will possess differing views on service delivery.


BMG September 2002

3.0 QUALITY OF LIFE

� This section of the report summarises what residents think of their neighbourhood and Crawley as a whole as places to live.

3.1 SATISFACTION WITH THE LOCAL AREA

� Panel members were asked to consider how satisfied they are, on the whole, with their neighbourhood as a place to live. In order to facilitate comparison between years and geographical areas, the net satisfaction has been calculated. The net satisfaction is calculated by subtracting the number of respondents dissatisfied (either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’) from the number satisfied (either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’).

Figure 6

SATISFACTION WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD AS A PLACE TO LIVESATISFACTION WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD AS A PLACE TO LIVE(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

4%

9%

9%

63%

14%

2%

5%

6%

50%

36%

*

*0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

1 - VERY DISSATISFIED

2 - FAIRLYDISSATISFIED

3 - NEITHER SATISFIEDNOR DISSATISFIED

4 - FAIRLY SATISFIED

5 - VERY SATISFIED

DON'T KNOW

REFUSED

20021999

WEIGHTED SAMPLE BASE = 1012* DENOTES FIGURES LESS THAN 0.5%

� Overall satisfaction with their neighbourhood remains relatively high amongst panel members, with 77% reporting they are satisfied, compared to just 13% reporting to be dissatisfied. There has been, however, a fall in the net satisfaction scores since 1999 when the neighbourhoods received a net score of 79%, some 15 percentage points higher than in the 2002 survey (64%).

� Most change seems to have come from a decline in ‘very satisfied’, with a higher level of ‘fairly satisfied’. However, all the negative and ‘neither’ ratings have increased in 2002.


BMG September 2002

Table 17

SATISFACTION WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD AS A PLACE TO LIVE

Very

diss

atis

fied

Som

ewha

tdi

ssat

isfie

d

Nei

ther

Fairl

ysa

tsifi

ed

Very

satis

fied

Net

Satis

fact

ion

(200

2)

Net

Satis

fact

ion

(199

9)

East (%) 1 4 6 70 19 +78 +88

Ifield / Gossops Green / Tilgate (%) 5 6 8 64 16 +69 +82

Central (%) 4 15 11 57 14 +52 +77

Broadfield / Bewbush (%) 6 12 15 59 7 +48 +66

Crawley (%) 4 9 9 63 14 +64 +79

Weighted Base 1,012

� There is considerable variation in levels of satisfaction between neighbourhoods as places to live within Crawley. Whilst East Crawley received a net satisfaction score of +78%, Broadfield and Bewbush only received a score of +48%.

� Comparison with 1999 reveals decline in satisfaction levels within each area, some by as much as 25 percentage points (Central). The pattern, however, has remained the same, with East Crawley still receiving the highest net score followed by Ifield/ Gossops Green/ Tilgate, and then Central Crawley and Broadfield/ Bewbush.

� 85% of 16-24 year olds are satisfied, compared to 74% of 35-54 year olds. In general, the satisfaction levels do not vary greatly between different types of home-owners and Council tenants, or those in work, or economically inactive. Slightly higher satisfaction levels are seen amongst residents from ethnic minority communities, and those who are high level users of Council services. Those who have most contact with the Council (possibly complaining), residents who are low level users of Council services and those who are most dissatisfied with Crawley Borough Council, are by far the most likely to be dissatisfied with their local neighbourhood.

3.2 CHANGES TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD

� Respondents gave their opinion of whether they thought their neighbourhood had got better or worse as a place to live, or had stayed the same, over the past two years. In order to compare areas, the net percentages have been calculated by subtracting the percentage of panel members who believe their area has got worse from the percentage believing the area has improved.


BMG September 2002

Figure 7

HOW NEIGHBOURHOOD HAS CHANGED OVER PAST 2 YEARSHOW NEIGHBOURHOOD HAS CHANGED OVER PAST 2 YEARS(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

10%

30%

54%

7%

13%

28%

51%

8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

BETTER

WORSE

STAYED THE SAME

DON'T KNOW

20021999


� Whilst just over half (54%) of all respondents believe their neighbourhood has neither improved nor worsened over the past few years, the overall picture tends to be negative. Only one in ten (10%) of panel members think that their neighbourhood has improved as a place to live, compared to 30% who believe it has got worse. The overall implication is that the neighbourhood has got a little worse.

Table 18

CHANGES TO NEIGHBOURHOOD OVER PAST TWO YEARS

Better Stayed

the same

Worse Don’t know

Net Score (2002)

Net Score (1999)

East (%) 12 61 19 8 -7 -11

Broadfield / Bewbush (%) 9 58 27 7 -18 -7

Ifield / Gossops Green / Tilgate (%) 8 51 35 6 -27 -22

Central (%) 11 39 46 4 -35 -22

Crawley 10 54 30 7 -20 -15

Weighted Base 1,012

� Whilst the overall picture, in each area is negative, there is considerable variation between areas within the borough. East Crawley wards received a net score of –7% compared to Central area which received a very poor


BMG September 2002

net score of -35%. When compared to the results achieved in 1999, only East Crawley had improved its net score rating. In the 2002 survey, East Crawley received a net score of –7%, a slight improvement on the –11% received in 1999.

� The Central wards are particularly rated as having got worse, with 46% saying this. This is a factor that can be seen linked to the area having the highest dissatisfaction as a place to live, and a high level of older residents, aged over 60, and who have lived in the area for 20 years or more.

� Across the whole borough, there is consistency of view that their neighbourhood has got better (generally 7-9%) by all those aged over 25 years old. However, far more, 15%, of 16-24 year olds felt their neighbourhood had improved. There were significant negative ratings expressed though by the over 55’s, with 40% of them feeling that things had got worse.

� Home-owners and Council tenants’ views were broadly the same, and the opinions of Crawley’s ethnic minority respondents was very positive, with 19% feeling that things had improved locally, with a relatively low 15% believing it to have worsened.

3.3 COMMUNITY SAFETY

� Residents were asked how safe or unsafe they feel, firstly, when out in Crawley during the day, and secondly, after dark.

Figure 8

HOW SAFE DO YOU FEEL IN CRAWLEY?HOW SAFE DO YOU FEEL IN CRAWLEY?(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

1%

4%

4%

51%

39%

1%

8%

28%

14%

33%

13%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

1 - VERY UNSAFE

2 - FAIRLY UNSAFE

3 - NEITHER SAFE NORUNSAFE

4 - FAIRLY SAFE

5 - VERY SAFE

DON'T KNOW

DURING THE DAYAFT ER DARK



BMG September 2002

� Only 5% of panel members reported feeling unsafe when out in Crawley during the day, with 90% saying they feel safe (39% very safe). After dark the proportion of those reporting to feel unsafe rises to 36%, with less than half of all respondents (46%) feeling safe.

� In the daytime, residents show virtually no variation in view between socio-economic, demographic or behavioural segments. However, in terms of safety after dark, there are some significant variations amongst the population.

Table 19

LEVEL OF FEELING SAFE WHEN OUT IN CRAWLEY AFTER DARK

Weighted Base Fairly/very unsafe % Net Score %

All 1012 36 +10

Gender

Male 499 24 +34

Female 513 48 -15

Age

16-24 90 27 +31

25-34 204 29 +25

35-54 418 37 +18

55+ 294 47 -18

Local area

East 294 21 +39

Central 263 40 -2

Ifield / Gossops Green / Tilgate 248 42 -4

Broadfield / Bewbush 208 46 -4

Ethnicity

White 899 37 +18

Ethnic minority groups 107 27 +28

� Levels of feeling safe when out in Crawley at night vary with gender, age, area of residence and ethnicity. Perhaps as expected, those feeling least safe when out at night in Crawley are women and older residents. Women are twice as likely to feel unsafe out at night (48%) than men (24%). Levels of feeling safe decline with age from 16-24 year olds achieving a net score of +31%, generally feeling safe, compared to –18% for those aged 55 and over, with almost half (47%) feeling notably unsafe.

� In terms of area of residence, only East Crawley scored a very high net positive rating (+39%) the highest score received amongst any local area.


BMG September 2002

The three remaining areas all have 40-46% of respondents feeling unsafe out at night, each achieved net scores between –2% and –4%.

� Whilst the base size of ethnic minority respondents is relatively low, the results seems to suggest that there is no reason to believe that these residents feel more threatened when out at night in Crawley than their white counterparts. According to the survey, the white population is more likely to feel unsafe (37%) than ethnic minority populations (27%). This may, however, be due to the demographic structure of the ethnic minority population, which, for example, has a higher proportion of younger residents, who may be less fearful of crime.

3.4 DESCRIBING CRAWLEY

� Panel members were presented with a list of statements about Crawley and asked to identify which they personally agreed and disagreed with. Where applicable the net scores achieved in the 1999 survey have been included.

� Statements with the highest net scores of agreement are:

♦ Crawley is a place with good quality shopping facilities (+47%)

♦ Crawley is a place with a healthy economy (+44%)

♦ Crawley is a place with a good quality of life (+42%)

♦ Crawley is a place with access to a range of jobs and the opportunities to take them up (+39%)

� Statements with the lowest net scores of agreement

♦ Crawley is a good place for young people (+ 7%)

♦ Crawley is a place with affordable housing ( 0%)

♦ Crawley is a safe place ( -2%)

♦ Crawley is a place with good quality health services (-28%)

� There is an underlying theme amongst the highest net rating attributes, that of a healthy economy, with jobs, disposable income for shopping and generally a good quality of life associated with this. This latter point seems at odds with the earlier ratings of the neighbourhoods’ ‘going downhill’ over the past few years.


BMG September 2002

� Crawley’s less agreeable attributes are more diverse, without a consistent theme. Opportunities for young people, rising house prices (related to the booming economy seen as an attribute above), safety and the health service (probably a reflection of composite national views about health delivery, as well as debate about the future of the service locally), are all broad ranging. Most importantly though, they are all ‘big’ issues, and ones which have greater personal impact than say the quality of shops and leisure attractions.

Table 20

DESCRIBING CRAWLEY

2002 1999

Agree %

Disagree %

Net %

Net %

Crawley is a place with good quality shopping facilities 52 5 +47 +64

Crawley is a place with a healthy economy 47 3 +44 +42

Crawley is a place with a good quality of life 48 6 +42 +29

Crawley is a place with access to a range of jobs and the opportunities to take them up 43 4 +39 N/A

Crawley is a place with good quality schools 41 5 +36 N/A

Crawley is a place with good quality leisure and cultural facilities* 43 7 +36 +63

Crawley is a place that is easy to get around 43 9 +34 +33

Crawley is a place that has attractions for the surrounding region 38 8 +30 +33

Crawley is a place with good quality housing 36 10 +26 +32

Crawley is a place with strong communities 32 12 +20 -12

Crawley is a green place 33 15 +18 +26

Crawley is a clean place 41 24 +17 +11

Crawley is a place with good night life 26 12 +14 +20

Crawley is a good place for young people 26 19 +7 +15

Crawley is a place with good quality health services 25 25 0 +21

Crawley is a safe place 28 30 -2 -19

Crawley is a place with affordable housing 15 42 -28 N/A

Weighted Base 1012 1111

* The 1999 statement only included reference to leisure facilities

� When compared to the 1999 results several changes in the net scores are worth commenting upon. Encouragingly, perhaps the most important statement ‘Crawley is a place with a good quality of life’ received a rating of +42% in this survey compared to +29% in 1999. The statement ‘Crawley is a place with strong communities’ achieved a net rating of +20% (32 percentage points higher than the –12% achieved in 1999). Both these


BMG September 2002

seem slightly unusual, in light of the earlier comments about dissatisfaction with the neighbourhoods.

� There is not a clear strand of community views that can be traced across each local grouping of wards, or population segments. However, in general terms, the highest levels of agreement with the top ranked statements about the economy, retail and quality of life are noted by those aged over 35 years old, home-owners, working, in intermediate level positions, and invariably living in the East and Central wards.

� The lowest agreement with factors such as health, opportunities for young people, affordable housing and safety are fairly similar across many population segments, especially for health. Views from older people and those in older established settlements bear some correlation with earlier observations, in that they are less likely to agree that it is a place for young people, or that the area is safe. Younger people and residents of Bewbush/ Broadfield and Central wards actually feel more that there is affordable housing than those living in the generally more expensive homes in the East wards.

� A number of statements received significantly lower levels of agreement than in 1999. There has been a significant fall with the statement regarding leisure and cultural facilities, however, due to the change in the wording of the statement, introducing “cultural”, the results are not directly comparable. The table below identifies the largest areas of concern, based upon the changing net response over the past three years. It indicates that, alongside the retail and health factors, the issue of the town being green, good for young people and safe is of some concern. Actions should be taken to reduce these changes, some of which may be about communication, more so than actually changing the attributes.

Table 21

AREAS FOR CONCERN

2002 Net Agreement

1999 Net Agreement

Change in net agreement

(%) (%) (%)

Crawley is a place with good quality health services 0 +21 -21

Crawley is a place with good quality shopping facilities +47 +64 -17

Crawley is a green place +18 +26 -8

Crawley is a good place for young people +7 +15 -8

Crawley is a place with good quality leisure and cultural facilities +36 +63 -27


BMG September 2002

3.5 ATTITUDES TOWARDS CRAWLEY

� Respondents were presented with a list of statements and asked to select which one is closest to how they feel about the town of Crawley.

Figure 9

FEELINGS ABOUT CRAWLEYFEELINGS ABOUT CRAWLEY(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

6%

44%

31%

16%

2%

2%

15%

46%

17%

18%

4%

1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

I SPEAK HIGHLY OFCRAWLEY WITHOUT

BEING ASKED

I SPEAK HIGHLY OFCRAWLEY IF I AMASKED ABOUT IT

I HAVE NO VIEWSONE WAY OR THE

OTHER

I AM CRITICAL ABOUTCRAWLEY IF I AMASKED ABOUT IT

I AM CRITICAL ABOUTCRAWLEY WITHOUT

BEING ASKED

DON'T KNOW

20021999


� The overall feelings towards Crawley are positive. Whilst a fairly high proportion (31%) reported having no views one way or another, panel members are more likely to say they speak highly of Crawley than speak critically. Half (50%) of the respondents speak highly about Crawley (6% without being asked) compared to just 18% who are critical about Crawley, (2% without being asked).

� The results are, however, less positive than those achieved in 1999. In 1999 three out of five respondents (61%) said that they speak highly about Crawley, and 15% of these without being asked. There also seems to have been a move towards neutral attitudes towards the borough (I have no views one way or the other). Whilst slightly fewer people are critical of Crawley (18% in 2002, compared to 22% in 1999) the number of people with no views one way or the other has increased from 17% in 1999 to 31% in 2002.


BMG September 2002

Figure 10

FEELINGS ABOUT FEELINGS ABOUT CRAWLEY CRAWLEY BY SPECIFIC SEGMENTSBY SPECIFIC SEGMENTS(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

50%

57%

36%

50%

40%

46%

49%

48%

52%

18%

11%

40%

18%

21%

14%

18%

20%

16%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

ALL

SATISFIED WITH COUNCIL

DISSATISFIED WITHCOUNCIL

INFORMED ABOUTCOUNCIL

NOT INFORMED

BROADFIELD/BEWBUSH


CENTRAL

EAST

SPEAK HIGHLY SPEAK CRITICALLYWEIGHTED SAMPLE BASE = 1012

� Bearing out earlier findings, 56% of older 55+ residents, but only 29% of 16-24 year olds speak highly of Crawley, with 23% of the youngest group being critical. Those in work are more critical than those retired or looking after dependants.

� Eastern ward residents are far more positive (52%), whilst those in Broadfield and Bewbush are the least positive, however, in the latter area they are the least critical (14%), implying more ‘neither’ responses.

� There is no doubt a link between how well informed residents feel they are about Council issues, their level of satisfaction with the Council and how critical they are of the town of Crawley. Where the dissatisfaction of the Borough Council is highest and the population is least informed, a direct correlation can be seen with a higher level of criticism of the town.

3.6 IMPROVING CRAWLEY

� Respondents were then asked to identify two or three factors, from a given list, that they consider to be most important in making somewhere a good place to live. From the same list, respondents were then asked to identify which factors they believe most need improving in their neighbourhood.


BMG September 2002

Figure 11

MAIN FACTORS MAKING SOMEWHERE A GOOD PLACE TO LIVEMAIN FACTORS MAKING SOMEWHERE A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

62%

44%

18%

18%

9%

15%

10%

28%

18%

8%

31%

21%

17%

15%

13%

10%

8%

6%

6%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

SAFETY / LOW CRIME RATE

A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT

ROAD SAFETY / SPEED OF TRAFFIC

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

UNCONGESTED ROADS

GOOD PUBLIC TRANSPORT

CHILDREN'S ADVENTURE PLAYGROUNDS / PLAYCENTRES / PLAY AREAS

JOBS AND EMPLOYMENT

PEACEFUL AREA

ACCESS TO GREEN SPACES

MOST IMPORTANTMOST NEEDS IMPROVING


� According to the panel, the two most important factors in making somewhere a good place to live are safety and low crime (62%) and a clean environment (44%). These were also the two most frequently highlighted areas in which improvements need to be made, each mentioned by approximately half the number stating the issue to be the most important factors. The priority given to safety here reflects the concern about it noted in earlier questions.

� The next most frequently stated factors in making a good place in which to live were jobs and employment (28%), a peaceful area (18%), road safety/speed (18%) and affordable housing (18%). By inference, Crawley is a fairly peaceful area with good jobs, as despite being perceived as important factors in making a good place to live, only 6% of respondents highlighted these amongst the areas that they believe most need improving. This indicates a high level of satisfaction with both of these important aspects that make a place good to live in, indicators already seen confirming the view that there is a healthy local economy.

� However, road safety and affordable housing are also frequently stated areas in which improvements should be made (17% and 15% respectively), and strongly relate to general safety and economic issues.


BMG September 2002

Table 22

MAKING AN AREA A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE

MOST IMPORTANT

MOST NEED IMPROVING

% %

Safety/low crime rate 62 31

A clean environment 44 21

Road safety/speed of traffic 18 17

Affordable housing 18 15

Uncongested roads 9 13

Good public transport 15 10

Children’s adventure playgrounds/play centres/ play areas 10 8

Jobs and employment 28 6

Peaceful area 18 6

Access to green spaces 8 5

Good schools 13 5

Good facilities for pedestrians and cyclists 3 4

Access to health centre and chemists 8 4

Good leisure facilities 7 4

Access to community facilities, such as community centres, etc 3 3

Access to shopping facilities 7 3

Other (specify) 6 9

None of these 1 12

Don’t know 0 1


� Variations can be seen across all wards in these issues. A low rate of crime and good safety are noted above average by 16-34 year olds, those with children under 16 years of age and ethnic minority communities (up to 68%), increasing to 72% for residents in East wards.

� The desire for a clean environment is consistent across most segments, but is highest at 51-52% in Broadfield/ Bewbush and East wards, and lowest in Central (33%).

� As for aspects most in need of improving, safety increases from 21% to 45% amongst 16-24 year olds, 44% in Broadfield/ Bewbush and 38% amongst ethnic minority residents. The environment is clearly an issue in Broadfield/ Bewbush, with 39% and overall 24% of over 55 year olds seeing this as the priority.


BMG September 2002

� It was explained to panel members that Crawley Borough Council is developing its plans for the future of the town, in partnership with other organisations. The panel members were asked to identify, from a specified list of improvements, which should be the three or four most important priorities for Crawley over the next few years. Respondents were then asked to consider which of the improvements they think should be the single most important priority.

Figure 12 WHAT ARE THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT AND SINGLE MOSTWHAT ARE THE THREE MOST IMPORTANT AND SINGLE MOSTIMPORTANT PRIORITIES FOR CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCILIMPORTANT PRIORITIES FOR CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL((ALL RESPONDENTSALL RESPONDENTS))

45%

43%

29%

29%

28%

23%

22%

21%

16%

12%

9%

8%

8%

7%

19%

19%

9%

8%

6%

5%

4%

7%

4%

1%

1%

1%

4%

12%

**

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

IMPROVING COMMUNITY SAFETY

DEVELOPING LOCAL HEALTH SERVICES

IMPROVING EDUCATION STANDARDS

IMPROVING FACILITIES FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE

PROTECTING THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT

IMPROVING THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT

PROTECTING THE AREAS OF OPEN SPACES

ENSURING THE PROVISION OF LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING

IMPROVING FACILITIES FOR ELDERLY PEOPLE

IMPROVING THE TOWN CENTRE

DEVELOPING AND SUSTAINING THE LOCAL ECONOMY

IMPROVING LEISURE AND CULTURAL PROVISION

OTHER

NONE OF THESE

DON'T KNOW

IMPORTANTSINGLE MOST IMPORTANT


� The dominant two priorities indicated are improving community safety (45%) and developing local health services (43%). Next tier of importance are improving educational standards (29%), more for young people and children (29%) and protecting the local environment (28%).

� As previously seen, safety is a major factor for young people and those in Bewbush/ Broadfield. Health and education standards are more important for 25-34 year olds and residents of Gossops Green/ Tilgate/ Ifield.

� In Broadfield/ Bewbush, there are high desires for improved young people’s facilities (39%) and protecting the local environment (38%).


BMG September 2002

Figure 13

MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITIES FOR MOST IMPORTANT PRIORITIES FOR CRAWLEY CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCILBOROUGH COUNCIL(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

62%

34%

20%

39%

38%

39%

48%

39%

28%

24%

42%

48%

36%

28%

21%

40%

42%

21%

22%

29%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

IMPROVINGCOMMUNITY SAFETY

DEVELOPING LOCALHEALTH SERVICES

IMPROVINGEDUCATIONSTANDARDS

IMPROVINGFACILITIES FORCHILDREN ANDYOUNG PEOPLE

PROTECTING THELOCAL

ENVIRONMENT

BEW BUSH/BROADFIELD

GOSSOPS GREEN/IFIELD/ TILGATE

LANGLEY GREEN/W EST GREEN/NORTHGATE/SOUTHGATE

FURNACE GREEN/POUND HILL NORTH/POUND HILL SOUTH/THREE BRIDGES


� Focussing on the single most important issues, respondents are clearly most in favour of developing local health services (19%) and improving community safety (19%), the latter already earlier highlighted as being a major factor that most needs addressing in Crawley. The same age and ward variations can be seen as earlier.

� The panel members were asked what one change in Crawley, or their neighbourhood, would most improve their quality of life. The main response was to see making their area safer / increasing security (10%). This reinforces the previously seen importance to panel members of feeling safe. When talking about factors which make an area a good place to live, as well as changes which most need making in Crawley, low crime and community safety were top of the list of priorities.

� Other factors include improving the environment (5%) and providing more parking spaces (5%), an issue not previously identified. More facilities for young people (4%) and more/improved leisure facilities (4%) are also noted.


BMG September 2002

Table 23

CHANGE IN NEIGHBOURHOOD OR CRAWLEY WHICH WOULD MOST IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE

% %

Increased security / Make area safer 10 Better roads 1

Cleaner environment 5 Improve parking facilities 1

More parking spaces 5 Increased job opportunities 1

More facilities for under 18’s 4 Improve street lighting *

Provide more / improved leisure facilities 4 Speed / traffic calming *

Provision of hospital within area 3 Better refuse service *

Better / More policing 3 Improve discipline in children *

Reduce traffic congestion 2 More adult education centres *

Improved public transport 2 Other 8

More affordable housing 2 None / nothing 19

Improve schools 1 Don’t know / Refused 28

Improve road safety 1

Weighted Base 1012



BMG September 2002


BMG September 2002

4.0 RESPONDENTS VIEWS OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES

� This section of the report summarises panel members’ awareness, use levels, and satisfaction with the services and facilities provided in Crawley.

4.1 AWARENESS OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES

� The residents were shown a list of services and facilities available in Crawley and asked to indicate which they were aware of.

Table 24

AWARENESS OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES AVAILABLE IN CRAWLEY – HIGHER AWARENESS

%

Crawley Leisure Centre 85

Bewbush Leisure Centre 75

Recycling facilities 74

Community Centres 73

Hawth Theatre 72

Broadfield Football Stadium 66

Tilgate Park and Nature Centre 66

Tilgate Golf Centre 63

Advice on planning applications 55

Advice on building regulations 54

Free bus travel for the elderly and disabled 55

Housing advice 53

Housing benefit advice and claims 50

Weighted Base 1012

� The Crawley and Bewbush Leisure Centres are the most well known facilities in the borough. 85% of respondents are aware of Crawley Leisure Centre and 75% are aware of Bewbush Leisure Centre.

� Awareness of a number of services and facilities varies between types of respondent. Whilst, for example, 55% of all respondents are aware of free bus travel for the elderly and disabled, this proportion rises to 70% of those aged over 55. Specific subgroups, therefore, need to be examined to ensure publicity is targeting the right borough residents.

� Council tenants generally indicate higher levels of awareness than home-owners of most of the advice, information, leisure services, children’s facilities and benefits. Home-owners are more aware than tenants of the Council’s building and advice services. Those with a satisfied attitude


BMG September 2002

towards the Council are slightly more likely to be aware of facilities and buildings than those dissatisfied with the local authority.

Table 25

AWARENESS OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES AVAILABLE IN CRAWLEY –LOWER AWARENESS

%

Evening classes and other education for adults 49

Youth Clubs 48

Community arts and public art 46

Children’s unsupervised play areas 46

Visitor Information Point (in County Mall) 46

Children’s after-school clubs/play centres and adventure playgrounds 44

Environment and energy saving information 44

Help Point (at the Town Hall) 38

Other 1

None *

Don’t know / Refused 3

Weighted Base 1012


� The least well known services and facilities were the Help Point at the Town Hall (38%), the Environment and Energy Saving Information service (44%), and children’s after school clubs, play centres and adventure playgrounds (44%). Again awareness varies between various subgroups. Whilst awareness of children’s after school clubs, play centres and adventure playgrounds is higher amongst those with children under 16, awareness levels are still fairly low (50% amongst this sub-group).

� Leisure, children, community and arts services all achieve the highest awareness in Broadfield/ Bewbush and the lowest awareness is most frequently seen in Crawley East.

� Gossops Green/ Ifield/ Tilgate with an older population has above average awareness of adult education, free bus travel, the Hawth Theatre and Tilgate Golf Centre.

4.2 LEVEL OF USE OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES

� Panel members were presented with a list of services and facilities and asked to indicate which they themselves or a member of their household use.


BMG September 2002

Table 26

USE OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES AVAILABLE BY RESPONDENT AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS – HIGHER USE

2002 %

1999 %

Cinema 67 N/A

Libraries 61 55

Local bus services 54 N/A

Recycling facilities 50 42

Crawley Leisure Centre 49 N/A

Public Car Parks 47 54

Hollywood Bowl 44 N/A

Hawth Theatre 40 50

Tilgate Park and Nature Centre 41 N/A

Train services 34 N/A

First schools 23 N/A

Middle schools 21 N/A

Secondary schools 21 N/A

Community Centres 19 N/A

Bewbush Leisure Centre 17 N/A



� Two-thirds of panel members said that either they themselves or members of their household use the cinema in Crawley. This was followed by libraries, used by 61% of respondents and/ or members of their household and local bus services (54%). The level of library use is fairly high, towards the top end of BMG experience, where use levels have been recorded ranging from around 35% - 75% in urban environments. Library use had also risen since 1999.

� Encouragingly, half of panel members said that they / their household use the recycling facilities, an increase of 8% since 1999. Public car parks and the Hawth Theatre have recorded declining use over the past three years.


BMG September 2002

Table 27

USE OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES AVAILABLE BY RESPONDENT AND OTHER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS – LOWER USE

2002 %

1999 %

Tilgate Golf Centre 17 14

Children’s unsupervised play areas 15 24 #

Broadfield Football Stadium 13 13

Free bus travel for the elderly and disabled 14 15

Children’s after-school clubs/play centres/adventure playgrounds 13 24 #

Private health club (e.g. Esporta, Cannons) 12 N/A

Youth Clubs and other facilities for young people 11 9

Help Point (at the Town Hall) 9 N/A

Evening classes and other education for adults 9 15 #

Visitor Information Point (in County Mall) 9 N/A

Housing benefit claims and queries 9 11

None * 1

Don’t know / Refused * *


* indicates a percentage less than 0.5 # indicates a slightly different question asked in 1999

� As with the previous tables, use of more specific facilities and services need to be examined by subgroups. For example, whilst only 13% of households use after school clubs / play centres and adventure playgrounds this increases to almost one in four households (24%) with children under 16. Similarly, whilst only 11% of all households use the youth clubs and other facilities for young people, this increases to one in five households (19%) with children under 16. Over a third (37%) of panel members aged over 55 use the free bus for the elderly and disabled, compared to 14% of the whole Crawley population.

� Levels of use are similar to the awareness levels when looked at by ward groupings. In Broadfield/ Bewbush there is higher use of children’s, leisure and art facilities, whilst In Gossops Green/ Ifield/ Tilgate the use of the Hawth and leisure and adult education services increases.


BMG September 2002

4.3 SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES AND FACILITIES

� The panel members were shown a list of services and facilities available in Crawley and asked to rate their satisfaction with them. Areas have been coloured using a traffic light system. Green has been used to represent areas in which increases in the net score have been achieved since 1999, amber where slight decreases in the scores have occurred and red where more significant decreases in net scores have been identified.

� Due to the volume of services, the results have been separated into three groupings; Leisure/ Recreation/Culture; Hygiene and Maintenance; and Other Services. The services are not all provided by Crawley Borough Council, there are aspects which the County Council, private sector and others are responsible for, which local judgements are made upon.

� No clear picture appears overall in relation to the satisfaction with all the prompted services over the three years. Several prompted definitions and services have been changed, phrased in ‘plain English’ and more ‘consumer friendly’ to the local citizen. A small number of new services have been added to the list, not asked in 1999.

� However, where there are comparisons between years, the overall tendency shows services having made improvements. There are 18 services or facilities shown in green, having increased in service rating, with only 2 services (libraries and the Hawth Theatre) shown as amber, a slight decrease. Despite receiving a slight fall in their net satisfaction ratings both the libraries and the Hawth Theatre have maintained reasonably high levels of satisfaction.

� Of greatest concern are the nine areas registered in red, showing notable decreases in satisfaction since 1999. Four of the nine are leisure related, three are hygiene/ maintenance and two other services, of which one is hospitals, part of a far larger national perception problem, as well as a topical local issue.

� A pattern in this year’s survey appears to be that most service areas have received lower satisfaction levels than in 1999. Comparisons are shown as net satisfied scores. There has been a significant shift to residents moving towards a more neutral position in their rating, and slight, but modest increases in actual dissatisfaction. The neutrality can therefore potentially be overcome by providers more easily than converting the dissatisfied, so future efforts should be made to address ‘winning back’ users.

Leisure, Recreation and Culture

� The highest rating leisure, recreation and cultural services achieve the highest satisfaction and net satisfaction levels of all service areas, with many levels of 65%+ satisfaction. The dissatisfaction is very low, only single digit, and mainly under 6%.


BMG September 2002

Table 28

SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES AND FACILITIES – LEISURE, RECREATION AND CULTURE

Satisfied Dissatisfied Net Satisfied (2002)

Net Satisfied (1999)

(%) (%) (%) (%)

Libraries 71 5 +66 +68

Town centre shopping facilities 69 3 +66 +82

Parks, open spaces and sports pitches 71 6 +65 +81#

Tilgate Park and Nature Centre 67 2 +65 N/A

Hawth Theatre 64 2 +62 +67

Crawley Leisure Centre 64 3 +61

Bewbush Leisure Centre 52 3 +49 +72#

Neighbourhood shopping parades 65 8 +57 N/A

Tilgate Golf Centre 56 2 +54 +21

Broadfield Football Stadium 47 1 +46 +21

Visitor information point (in County Mall) 47 2 +45 N/A

Childrens’ after-school clubs/play centres and adventure playgrounds 42 3 +39

Childrens’ unsupervised play areas 43 5 +38 +30#

Youth clubs & other facilities for young people 43 5 +38 +13

Weighted Base 1,012 # indicates a slightly different question asked in 1999

� Three facilities / services achieved net satisfaction scores significantly higher than those achieved in 1999. These were the Tilgate Golf Centre, which received an increase in net satisfaction of 33%. This was followed by the Broadfield Football Stadium and youth clubs/ other facilities for young people, each improving their net satisfaction scores by 25 percentage points. The various forms of child and youth leisure provision, although rating the lowest satisfaction, have all noticeably increased in net ratings since 1999.

� In 1999 the highest net satisfaction ratings were attributed to town centre shopping facilities and parks and open spaces. Whilst the parks, open spaces and sports pitches indicator has been highlighted in red, some or all of the fall in the net satisfaction may be a result of the inclusion of ‘sports pitches’ into the question since 1999.

� The question regarding town centre shopping facilities has however remained the same and the fall in the net satisfaction should be considered as an area of concern.


BMG September 2002

� Bewbush and Crawley Leisure Centres have been rated separately, whereas the 1999 survey looked generically at leisure centres, which may have generated some views from residents using private sector provision. The lower satisfaction now may relate to ageing of the facilities and the increased private sector entry into leisure and fitness provision. The views about both centres are fairly consistent across all population segments, with only 3% dissatisfied.

� The net satisfaction score for parks, open spaces and sports pitches can be compared to the results achieved by some other local authorities where BMG have conducted residents’ research. These figures are based on all respondents, to each survey, including those who did not express a view. Crawley scores very highly in comparison to the other local authorities, with a net satisfaction score 23% higher than the next best performing authority.

Table 29

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PARKS, OPEN SPACES AND SPORTS PITCHES

Dissatisfied Satisfied Net Satisfied

% % %

Crawley – 2002 6 71 65

North Hertfordshire – 2001 14 56 42

Redbridge – 2001 19 57 38

North Warwickshire – 2000 15 46 31

Slough – 2001 12 29 17

� Whilst only 6% express dissatisfaction in Crawley, the highest levels are indicated in Broadfield/ Bewbush (10%), all other wards generating 5-6% response.

� The very high position that Crawley achieves is also repeated using BVPI data from Government sources, based on 2000-2001. This is illustrated to provide a context for Crawley’s performance as rated in the 2002 household survey. The BVPI ratings are calculated from all residents who provided a view of ‘fairly satisfied‘ or ‘very satisfied’ to the satisfaction ratings, excluding those stating ‘don’t know’. Using the Crawley family group of local authorities, it again shows the borough as being close to the top of satisfaction ratings for parks and open spaces.


BMG September 2002

Figure 14

SATISFACTION WITH PARKS AND OPEN SPACESSATISFACTION WITH PARKS AND OPEN SPACES(CRAWLEY 2002, OTHERS BVPI 2000-2001)(CRAWLEY 2002, OTHERS BVPI 2000-2001)

73%

71%

67%

65%

65%

65%

62%

57%

56%

47%

44%

43%

38%

37%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

SPELTHORNE

CRAWLEY

STEVENAGE

DARTFORD

IPSWICH

READING

PETERBOROUGH

WELLINGTON

WARWICK

TELFORD & WREKIN

RUSHMOOR

BEDFORD

WELWYN HATFIELD

ELLESMERE & PORT NESTON

� Town centre shopping facilities registered as an aspect that has declined in net satisfaction. However, analysis of all community segments shows very little variation in view by all groups. The greatest dissatisfaction, itself low at 4%, is from Gossops Green/ Ifield/ Tilgate citizens.

� The same method of BVPI calculation and benchmarking with Crawley’s family group is used in several other figures in this section of the report.

� The Hawth Theatre, specifically mentioned in the 2002 survey, also receives a high rating, in the top half of family group authorities, although the rating is specifically for the theatre not the overall provision of theatres and concert halls.

� As well as having high levels of use of libraries, Crawley’s residents provide reasonably good ratings of libraries in the family group.

� The comparisons are not strictly like for like, since with Crawley, it is the rating of the service that is provided across the borough by West Sussex County Council, whereas all the other indicated authorities are County Council or unitary authorities directly providing a library service


BMG September 2002

Figure 15

SATISFACTION WITH THEATRES & CONCERT HALLSSATISFACTION WITH THEATRES & CONCERT HALLS(CRAWLEY 2002, OTHERS BVPI 2000-2001)(CRAWLEY 2002, OTHERS BVPI 2000-2001)

67%

65%

65%

65%

64%

62%

56%

47%

44%

43%

38%

37%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

STEVENAGE

DARTFORD

IPSWICH

READING

CRAWLEY

PETERBOROUGH

WARWICK

TELFORD & WREKIN

RUSHMOOR

BEDFORD

WELWYN HATFIELD

ELLESMERE PORT & NESTON

* FROM CURRENT SURVEY CALCULATED USING BVPI PROCESS

� The libraries show a mid ranking level of performance compared to other local authorities.

Figure 16

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH LIBRARIESOVERALL SATISFACTION WITH LIBRARIES(CRAWLEY 2002, OTHERS BVPI 2000-2001 )(CRAWLEY 2002, OTHERS BVPI 2000-2001 )

78%

78%

78%

77%

77%

76%

75%

71%

70%

68%

68%

64%

46%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

PETERBOROUGH

NORFOLK

WORCESTERSHIRE

HAMPSHIRE

WARWICKSHIRE

ESSEX

SUFFOLK

CRAWLEY

HERTFORDSHIRE

TELFORD & WREKIN

LUTON

READING

SLOUGH


BMG September 2002

Hygiene and Maintenance Services

� Five of the eight hygiene and maintenance services and facilities, with ratings directly comparable with the 1999 survey, achieved improvements in their net satisfaction scores. Four of the five improvements were achieved by the services maintaining roads, pavements and car parks.

Table 30

SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES AND FACILITIES – HYGIENE AND MAINTENANCE



(%) (%) (%) (%)

Public car parks 65 8 +57 +42

Recycling facilities 66 10 +56 +64

Refuse collection 68 12 +56 +66

Grass verge cutting 60 11 +49 N/A

Public conveniences 55 7 +48 +38

Street lighting 60 14 +46 +54

Monitoring hygiene in public places and pollution levels 46 6 +40 N/A

Street cleaning 60 20 +40 +36

Road maintenance 55 17 +38 +9

Pavement and kerb maintenance 53 17 +36 -6

Weighted Base 1,012

# indicates a slightly different question asked in 1999

� The most significant of these improvements was in pavement and kerb maintenance. In 1999 pavement and kerb maintenance received a net satisfaction score of –6% in 2002 increased to +36%. Another similar increase in net satisfaction was achieved by road maintenance. Scores from this service have increased from +9% in 1999 to +38% in 2002.

� The highest net satisfaction score was attributed to public car parks. These facilities received an satisfaction score of +57% (15% higher than the score received in 1999).

� In 1999 the services / facilities receiving the highest net satisfaction scores were refuse collection (+66%) and recycling facilities (+64%). In 2002, both services / facilities received significant falls in satisfaction, with net satisfaction scores of (+56%). In both cases, fairly high ambivalent ‘non-views’ of neither satisfied/ nor dissatisfied were given, 17% for recycling (with 7% don’t know) and for refuse 15% (with 5% don’t know). These have increased from 1999.


BMG September 2002

� The expansion in use (as 8% more panel members are now using the recycling facilities than were in 1999) has clearly not been linked with an increase in satisfaction. Responses are similar across the population segments, with 10% dissatisfaction, although this increases to 12-13% of 25-54 year olds and those residing in Broadfield/ Bewbush and East wards, being only 6-8% elsewhere in the town. However, it should be noted that this survey was carried out prior to the recent introduction of the red box scheme – a significant change to recycling arrangements in Crawley.

� The results have been compared to those achieved by other local authorities that BMG have surveyed, shown in the table below, followed by the BVPI family group:

Table 31

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH RECYCLING FACILITIES


% % %

Windsor and Maidenhead – 2001 7 83 +76

Crawley – 2002 10 66 +56

North Warwickshire – 2000 12 65 +53

Tunbridge Wells – 2001 15 62 +48

Luton – 2000 12 60 +48

North Hertfordshire – 2001 23 56 +33

Reading – 2001 23 49 +26


BMG September 2002

Figure17

SATISFACTION WITH RECYCLING FACILITIESSATISFACTION WITH RECYCLING FACILITIES(CRAWLEY 2002, OTHERS BVPI 2000-2001)(CRAWLEY 2002, OTHERS BVPI 2000-2001)

89%

83%

75%

73%

71%

70%

68%

68%

66%

66%

64%

64%

60%

59%

55%

47%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

PETERBOROUGH

RUSHMOOR

WELLINGBOROUGH

GOSPORT

STEVENAGE

IPSWICH

SPELTHORNE

WORCESTER

CRAWLEY

TELFORD & WREKIN

DARTFORD

WELWYN HATFIELD

BEDFORD


WARWICK

READING

� Whilst the net satisfaction with the recycling facilities in Crawley may have fallen from +64% to +56% since 1999, satisfaction with the facilities is still fairly high when compared to other local authorities.

� The result achieved by the waste collection service illustrates a very poor Crawley performance, around the lowest end of the family group.

Table 32

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH THE WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE


% % %

Windsor and Maidenhead – 2001 4 90 +86


Tunbridge Wells – 2001 3 86 +83

Reading – 2001 4 86 +82

Luton – 2000 5 84 +79


Crawley – 2002 12 68 +56

Norfolk (local authorities) – 2001 12 68 +56


BMG September 2002

Figure 18

SATISFACTION WITH HOUSEHOLD WASTE COLLECTIONSATISFACTION WITH HOUSEHOLD WASTE COLLECTION(CRAWLEY 2002, OTHERS BVPI 2000-2001)(CRAWLEY 2002, OTHERS BVPI 2000-2001)

93%

93%

89%

89%

88%

87%

87%

86%

84%

84%

84%

83%

79%

72%

70%

68%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

IPSWICH

WELLINGBOROUGH

BEDFORD

WORCESTER

TELFORD & WREKIN

DARTFORD

GOSPORT

READING


RUSHMOOR

WARWICK

SPELTHORNE

STEVENAGE

WELWYN HATFIELD

PETERBOROUGH

CRAWLEY

� Further comparison with the 1999 results shows that only 3% more respondents actually expressed dissatisfaction with the waste collection service, although at 12% it is not an inconsequential figure, one in eight households. These results indicate more of a movement of opinion towards the neither satisfied nor dissatisfied rating or ‘don’t know’ than towards the very / fairly dissatisfied rating.

� When the local demographics and geography is examined in detail, 35-54 year olds are particularly critical (16%), as are those with children under 16 years old (14%) and East Crawley residents (14%). In Broadfield/ Bewbush, the lowest dissatisfaction is expressed (10%).

� As the other ‘red’ indicated service, street lighting (14% dissatisfaction) is criticised above average by those in work (19%), in lower status occupations (21%) and living in Broadfield/ Bewbush (16%) and East Crawley (19%). In Central areas, only 10% are negative about lighting.

� The BVPI results for cleanliness standards positions Crawley’s 2002 household survey response for ‘street cleaning’ just below midway for satisfaction rating.


BMG September 2002

Figure 19

SATISFACTION WITH CLEANLINESS STANDARDS IN THE AREASATISFACTION WITH CLEANLINESS STANDARDS IN THE AREA(CRAWLEY 2002, OTHERS BVPI 2000-2001)(CRAWLEY 2002, OTHERS BVPI 2000-2001)

79%

68%

68%

66%

64%

64%

62%

62%

62%

61%

60%

58%

57%

57%

55%

55%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

GOSPORT

IPSWICH

RUSHMOOR

WORCESTER

DARTFORD

SPELTHORNE


STEVENAGE

WEELINGBOROUGH

WARWICK

CRAWLEY

PETERBOROUGH

BEDFORD

READING

TELFORD & WREKIN

WELWYN HATFIELD

* CURRENT SURVEY CALCULATED USING BVPI PROCESS

Other services and facilities

� The overall trend in satisfaction levels with the remaining services and facilities is positive, with eight out of the sixteen receiving an increase in the net satisfaction scores (green colouring). However, apart from the doctors’ surgeries/ health centres rating, the satisfaction levels are generally the lowest in the whole survey.

� Although not a service provided by Crawley Borough Council, a key area in which net satisfaction levels have increased is in education, although the age banding descriptions have changed since 1999. Net satisfaction scores have increased for both schools and adult education.

� Housing benefit claims and queries is an area of decreased satisfaction, although the terminology of the question has changed, thus it is not directly comparable. The highest dissatisfaction is recorded by 35-54 year olds, those with children and residents in Gossops Green/ Ifield/ Tilgate and Central wards (up to 7%).

� Whilst not a service provided by local authorities, a matter of concern is the fall in net satisfaction scores with hospitals. In 1999 hospitals received a net satisfaction score of +43%, this has since declined to +27% in 2002, and will be a reflection of national reviews of the quality of the NHS, as well as direct local experience.


BMG September 2002

Table 33

SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES AND FACILITIES – OTHER SERVICES



(%) (%) (%) (%)

Doctors’ surgeries/health centres 67 11 +56 N/A

Schools – Middle 53 3 +50

Schools – First 52 3 +49 +31#

Schools – Secondary 52 3 +49 +25

Environment/ energy efficiency advice 51 3 +48 N/A

Local train services 56 8 +48 N/A

Community Centres 52 5 +47 N/A

Local bus services 60 13 +47 N/A

Evening classes /other education for adults 49 3 +46 +34#

Free bus travel for the elderly & disabled 50 4 +46 +25#

Help Point (at the Town Hall) 48 2 +46 N/A

Housing benefit claims and queries 50 6 +44 +52#

Council housing /housing advice 45 6 +39 +22#

Planning & control of new development 47 9 +38 +9#

Council Tax queries 43 7 +36 +19

Hospitals 50 23 +27 +43

Weighted Base 1,012

# indicates a slightly different question asked in 1999

� A service provided by Crawley Borough Council which has seen a significant increase in its net satisfaction score is planning and control of new development. This service has improved its net satisfaction rating from +9% in 1999 to +36% in 2002, although the phrasing has been improved, meaning direct comparison is not possible.

� When the net satisfaction scores are compared to other local authorities Crawley scores very highly for planning, although the phrasing does vary between local authority surveys.

� The table below compares the net satisfaction with other local authorities.


BMG September 2002

Table 34

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH PLANNING


% % %

Crawley – 2002 9 47 +38


Norfolk (local authorities) – 2001 10 38 +28


Luton – 2000 10 25 +15

� A further set of BVPI figures illustrates that Crawley has a healthy resident view of local bus service provision, top of the comparative chart who other family group authorities, and counties which include a family group member.

Figure 20

SATISFACTION WITH LOCAL BUS SERVICESATISFACTION WITH LOCAL BUS SERVICE(CRAWLEY 2002, OTHERS BVPI 2000 - 2001)(CRAWLEY 2002, OTHERS BVPI 2000 - 2001)

60%

58%

51%

49%

45%

45%

42%

38%

38%

38%

35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

CRAWLEY

SUFFOLK

READING

TELFORD & WREKIN

HAMPSHIRE

WARWICKSHIRE

PETERBOROUGH

ESSEX

HERTFORDSHIRE

WORCESTER

BEDFORDSHIRE


BMG September 2002

4.4 IMPORTANCE OF SERVICES AND FACILITIES

� The residents were asked to indicate which four or five of the services and facilities provided in the local area they think are the most important.

� As previously stated, although not a service provided by local authorities, health services are seen as the most important of the options. Top ranking by far and almost twice the second ranked aspect, nearly two-thirds (65%) said that hospitals were one of the most important services. Third in the ranking, 35% identified doctors’ surgeries and health centres.

� The large proportion of panel members highlighting refuse collection as the second most important service (37%), and the fall in the overall net satisfaction, suggests that this service area should be considered as a priority area for improvements to be made.

� Street cleaning (18%) and local bus services (24%) are the next main noted important services, thus both rated fairly highly in satisfaction and in importance.

� Opinion about what is important varies by age range, working status, family status and area of residence. Health is more important to Council tenants, those aged over 55, the unemployed and Central ward residents.

� Refuse collection and street lighting are more important to 25-54 year olds, working, home-owners and living in East Crawley wards.


BMG September 2002

Table 35

MOST IMPORTANT SERVICES AND FACILITIES

(%) (%)

Hospitals 65 Local train services 5

Refuse collection 37 Neighbourhood shopping parades 5

Doctors’ surgeries/health centres 35 Childrens’ after-school clubs/play centres and adventure playgrounds 4

Street cleaning 28 Childrens’ unsupervised play areas 4

Local bus services 24 Council housing /housing advice 4

Parks, open spaces and sports pitches 21 Environment/ energy efficiency advice 4

Libraries 19 Pavement and kerb maintenance 4

Schools – Secondary 19 Bewbush Leisure Centre 3

Schools – Middle 16 Council Tax queries 3

Schools – First 16 Broadfield Football Stadium 2

Street lighting 16 Evening classes /other education for adults 2

Recycling facilities 15 Grass verge cutting 3

Crawley Leisure Centre 14 Planning & control of new development 2

Youth clubs & other facilities for young people 13 Monitoring hygiene in public places and

pollution levels 2

Road maintenance 11 Public conveniences 2

Town centre shopping facilities 8 Tilgate Golf Centre 1

Community Centres 7 Help Point (at the Town Hall) 1

Public car parks 7 Visitor information point (in County Mall) *

Hawth Theatre 6 Housing benefit claims and queries 1

Free bus travel for the elderly & disabled 6 Other, (write in) *

Tilgate Park and Nature Centre 6 Can’t think of any / Don’t know 3

Weighted Base * indicates a percentage less than 0.5

1012

� One method of identifying the relationship between the importance of a service and the level of satisfaction with it, is to plot the two values for each criteria. Thus the following figure identifies key selected services, where the data is large enough to be usefully plotted. It can be seen that the hospitals are identified as having the greatest importance, but they rate only intermediately for satisfaction. Doctors’ surgeries/ health centres are half as important, but far more satisfactorily rated.

� Local bus services rate as middle rank for importance, but are rated highly for satisfaction. Youth clubs and facilities for young people rate low both in


BMG September 2002

importance and satisfaction, whilst schools are not very highly rated on either count.

� Parks and libraries, although only mid ranking in importance, are the most highly rated for satisfaction.

Figure 21

11

0

20

40

60

80

0 20 40 60 80IMPORTANCE

SATI

SFA

CTI

ON

23

45

8

14

159 &10 1

67

1213

11

RATING OF IMPORTANCE AGAINST SATISFACTION OF KEY SERVICES

Key for Scatter

1 Hospitals 9 Schools – Middle

2 Refuse collection 10 Schools – First

3 Doctors’ surgeries/health centres 11 Street lighting

4 Street cleaning 12 Recycling facilities

5 Local bus services 13 Crawley Leisure Centre

6 Parks, open spaces and sports pitches

14 Youth clubs & other facilities for young people

7 Libraries 15 Road maintenance

8 Schools – Secondary


BMG September 2002


BMG September 2002

5.0 PERCEPTIONS OF THE COUNCIL

� This section of the report explores the respondent’s attitudes towards Crawley Borough Council.

5.1 SATISFACTION WITH THE COUNCIL

� The panel members were asked to indicate how satisfied they are with the way in which Crawley Borough Council is running the town.

Figure 22

HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE WAY CRAWLEY BOROUGHHOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE WAY CRAWLEY BOROUGHCOUNCIL IS RUNNING THE TOWNCOUNCIL IS RUNNING THE TOWN (ALL RESPONDENTS) (ALL RESPONDENTS)

4%

12%

21%

55%

6%

3%

4%

12%

18%

54%

11%

1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

1 - VERY DISSATISFIED

2 - FAIRLY DISSATISFIED

3 - N EITH ER SATISFIEDN OR DISSATISFIED

4 - FAIRLY SATISFIED

5 - VERY SATISFIED

DON'T KNOW

2002

1999


� Satisfaction with the way in which Crawley Borough Council is running the town is not particularly high. Three out of five panel members (61%) were satisfied with the way the council is running the town, compared to just 16% who reported being dissatisfied.

� The results are, however, marginally lower than those received in 1999. In 1999 the council received a net score of +49% compared to 45% in 2002.

� Within Crawley, satisfaction is consistent across age, home tenure, work status and the Broadfield/ Bewbush and Gossops Green/ Ifield/ Tilgate wards. It is lower in Central (which correlates with some other negative views expressed in the wards) and higher in Crawley East.


BMG September 2002

Figure 23

SATISFACTION WITH SATISFACTION WITH CBC CBC RUNNING THE TOWNRUNNING THE TOWN(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

61%

61%

59%

61%

54%

62%

63%

52%

65%

16%

17%

12%

16%

28%

14%

15%

24%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

ALL

HOMEOWNER

COUNCIL TENANT

INFORMED ABOUTCOUNCIL

NOT INFORMED

BROADFIELD/BEWBUSH


CENTRAL

EAST

SATISFIED DISSATISFIEDWEIGHTED SAMPLE BASE = 1012

� Ethnic minority residents are more satisfied than White residents.. One of the highest levels of dissatisfaction is from those who feel poorly informed about Council information and services, (28% dissatisfied).

� The results are compared in the next figure with other local authorities in which the BVPI question as to the overall satisfaction with services provided by the Council has been asked (this is a different rating from satisfaction with how CBC is running the town).

� These show that amongst the family group, Crawley fares poorly, with one of the lowest satisfaction levels.


BMG September 2002

Figure 24

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE COUNCILOVERALL SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE COUNCIL(BVPI 2000-2001)(BVPI 2000-2001)

78%

73%

72%

71%

71%

71%

68%

67%

65%

65%

64%

64%

64%

61%

59%

58%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

GOSPORT

IPSWICH

RUSHMOOR

STEVENAGE

WARWICK

WELLINGBOROUGH

SPELTHORNE


READING

WORCESTER

DARTFORD

TELFORD & WREKIN

CRAWLEY

PETERBOROUGH

BEDFORD

WELWYN HATFIELD

� A series of statements, designed to elicit satisfaction levels aspects with of the service from the Council, were read to the panel members. The panel members were then asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with the statements. In order to allow comparison between sectors of the panel the net scores of agreement have been calculated.

Table 37

ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE COUNCIL

Stro

ngly

disa

gree

Tend

todi

sagr

ee

Nei

ther

Tend

toag

ree

Stro

ngly

agre

e

Don

’tkn

ow

Net

agre

emen

t(%

)

The Council gives local people good value for money (%) 7 17 20 40 3 13 +19

The Council is too remote and impersonal (%) 3 25 29 25 5 13 +2

The quality of council services overall is good (%) 2 14 27 44 3 11 +31

I don’t know much about what the Council does (%) 3 25 28 30 3 10 +5

Weighted Base 1,012


BMG September 2002

� The Council scores best on both ratings to do with its performance:

♦ The quality of the council services overall is good (+31% net agree)

♦ The Council gives local people good value for money (+19% net agree)

� And less well on the ratings concerned with communication with the public. These statements were phrased negatively (so a negative score would have been a good result). Both statements, however, received positive levels of agreement.

♦ The Council is too remote and impersonal (+2% net agreement)

♦ I don’t know much about what the Council does (+5% net agreement)

� Across all the statements, there tends to be a consistency shown, in that older residents over 55 are more supportive of the Council delivery of services, and tend not to feel it is remote. 16-24 year olds have very high levels of no knowledge/ no opinion, and 25-54 year olds tend to be slightly less positive in their ratings


BMG September 2002

Table 38

ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE COUNCIL

Dis

satis

fied

attit

ude

toC

ounc

il

Satis

fied

attit

ude

toC

ounc

il

Bro

adfie

ld/B

ewbu

sh%

Gos

sops

Gn,

Ifiel

d,Ti

lgat

e%

Cen

tral

% East %

Disagree 43 18 33 18 21 24 The Council gives local people good value for money (%)

Agree 33 51 35 50 40 48

Disagree 23 32 24 29 24 36 The Council is too remote and impersonal (%)

Agree 41 27 25 34 33 26

Disagree 34 28 24 28 31 28 The quality of council services overall is good (%)

Agree 32 33 32 39 28 34

Disagree 35 11 21 11 19 12 I don’t know much about what the Council does (%)

Agree 35 52 40 53 42 52

Weighted Base 1,012

� Where there is least agreement with the statements, some consistency can be seen. In both Gossops Green/ Ifield / Tilgate and East wards there is higher agreement with the positive statements, that the Council gives good value for money and delivers good services. This is also agreed with more so by those who are satisfied with the Council generally, and who do not know much about Council services. It would appear that if services are delivered without major problems, and people do not know what is happening, then satisfaction increases.

� Where there is more disagreement is from those who have greater involvement and use of Council services, and who therefore feel that it serves them less well.

5.2 ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE COUNCIL

� Respondents were asked to consider, from a list of statements, which they feel is closest to their attitude towards Crawley Borough Council.


BMG September 2002

Figure 25

ATTITUDE TOWARDS CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCILATTITUDE TOWARDS CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

3%

19%

45%

26%

1%

1%

5%

1%

11%

60%

26%

2%

0%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

I'M NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT THE COUNCIL DOESOR WHETHER THEY DO THEIR JOB

I'M NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT THE COUNCIL DOESAS LONG AS THEY DO THEIR JOB

I LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE COUNCIL IS DOING BUTI'M HAPPY TO LET THEM GET ON WITH THEIR JOB

I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE OF A SAY IN WHATTHE COUNCIL DOES AND THE SERVICES IT

PROVIDES

I ALREADY WORK FOR OR AM INVOLVED WITH THECOUNCIL AND THE SERVICES IT PROVIDES

NONE OF THESE

DON'T KNOW

20021999


� The results indicate a fairly high level of interest in the activities of the Council. 71% of panel members expressed an interest in what the council does. Just under a half (45%) said that they like to know what the council does, but are happy to let them get on with their job.

� About one in four (26%) would like a greater involvement in the decision making process (I would like to have more of a say in what the council does and the services it provides). Several groups are above average in their interest in greater participation; 35-54 year olds (30%), those dissatisfied with Council services (35%), people in work (29%), those with children under 16 (29%) and residents of Broadfield/ Bewbush (38%).

� A notable 19% are not interested in what the Council does, as long as it does its job. Disinterest is consistent across all population segments and geographical locations, but slightly higher from ethnic minority residents.


BMG September 2002

6.0 CONTACT WITH THE COUNCIL

6.1 CONTACT WITH COUNCIL IN LAST YEAR AND REASONS

� This section summarises panel members’ contact with the Council over the past 12 months. This includes the type and method of contact and the service received from the staff.

� Almost half (46%) of panel members have contacted the Council over the past year, down from 57% in 1999.

Table 38

WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS CONTACTED THE COUNCIL WITHIN THE LAST 12 MONTHS

Yes No Don’t know

% % %

Epping Forest – 2001 55 35 10

North Warwickshire - 2002 55 33 12

Crawley – 2002 46 54 0

Cornwall – 2002 36 52 12

England –2002 51 35 14

� The English average has been calculated from the national Pathfinder research carried out by BMG in June 2002, into access to Council services. Crawley lies midway between other authorities where contact is known.

� Up to 60% of the following segments have contacted CBC in the past year; women, those aged 35 years or more, Council tenants, those dissatisfied with Council services, people with children and those living in Broadfield/ Bewbush wards.

� Those who had been in contact within the past 12 months were asked to indicate, from a specified list, the main purpose of the contact.

� The most common reasons for contacting the Council were to request a service (41%), to report an issue or problem (26%), and to make an enquiry (19%).


BMG September 2002

Figure 26

PURPOSE OF CONTACT WITH COUNCILPURPOSE OF CONTACT WITH COUNCIL((RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE CONTACTED THE COUNCIL IN LAST YEARRESPONDENTS WHO HAVE CONTACTED THE COUNCIL IN LAST YEAR))

4 1%

26 %

1 9%

12%

8 %

3%

2%

1 %

3%

0 % 5% 10% 15 % 20 % 25 % 30 % 3 5% 4 0% 4 5%

REQUES T A SE RV IC E

RE PORT AN IS SUE/ PRO BL EM

M AK E ENQUIRY

M AKE A CO M PL AINT ABOUT A CO UNCILSERVICE

M AKE A P AY M ENT

AS K FO R AD VICE HELP

ASK F OR INF ORM AT ION

M AK E A SUGGEST ION AB O UT A SE RV IC E

O T HE R


6.2 METHOD OF CONTACT

� Those who had made contact were then asked which method of contact they had used when last getting in touch with the Council.

� The most common method of contacting the Council is by telephone. Almost two-thirds of panel members (63%), who had made contact within the last 12 months, used the telephone to make their most recent contact. A further one in four (25%) called into the offices in person and 8% wrote a letter. Despite just over half (52%) of respondent having access to the Internet and 30% having their own email addresses, only 2% of respondents used email to make their last contact with the council.

� Since 1999 there has been a slight shift away from visiting the council offices in person towards using the telephone. In 1999 a third of panel members made their last contact in person compared to one in four (25%) in 2002. The proportion of respondents asking their last contact over the phone increased from 56% to 63% over the same period. Whilst the number of respondents using email to contact is still relatively low, it has increased from 0% in 1999 to 2% in 2002.


BMG September 2002

Figure 27

METHOD OF MOST RECENT CONTACT WITH COUNCILMETHOD OF MOST RECENT CONTACT WITH COUNCIL((RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE CONTACTED THE COUNCIL IN LAST YEARRESPONDENTS WHO HAVE CONTACTED THE COUNCIL IN LAST YEAR))

63%

25%

8%

2%

56%

33%

10%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

BY PHONE

IN PERSON

IN WRIT ING

BY E-MAIL2002 1999


� Compared to some other local authorities, and the England figures from BMG’s Pathfinder research, the proportion of residents making personal visits in Crawley is high, which is likely to be related to the compact nature of the town and location of the Town Hall. The proportions using letter writing and the telephone are correspondingly lower.

Table 39

METHOD USED TO LAST CONTACT COUNCIL

In writing Telephone In Person Website/ email

% % % %

Crawley – 2002 8 63 25 2

Epping Forest – 2001 10 77 12 1

Cornwall – 2002 10 73 16 1

North Warwickshire – 2002 10 61 12 1

England – 2002 11 69 16 1


BMG September 2002

6.3 COUNCIL STAFF

� The panel members were read out a series of adjectives and asked which ones they thought best described the staff, upon their last contact, at the Council.

Table 40

PERFORMANCE OF COUNCIL STAFF

2002 %

1999 %

2002 %

1999 %

Helpfulness Politeness

Helpful 81 84 Polite 89 91

Neither /don’t know 7 4 Neither /don’t know 8 5

Unhelpful 13 12 Impolite 3 4

Efficiency Interest shown in query/enquiry

Efficient 71 74 Interested 74 71


Inefficient 21 17 Not interested 12 20

Ability to deal with query/enquiry Speed of response to query/enquiry

Able 72 73 Responded quickly 35 66


Unable 19 20 Responded slowly 56 27

Ease of speaking to right person Overall Satisfaction

Easy 76 73 Satisfied 67 58


Difficult 19 22 Dissatisfied 25 29

Weighted Base 1,012 (2002), 1,111 (1999)

� In nearly every category the high performance levels of the Council staff have been maintained. Council staff received the highest rating for politeness and helpfulness. Almost nine out of ten (89%) of panel members who had made contact said that the staff were polite and 81% said that the staff were helpful.

� A general consistency can be seen across all attributes, with a positive response to each attribute most commonly being given by residents aged over 55, retired, usually of a satisfied disposition towards the Council overall, and more frequently from East Crawley wards

� In terms of overall satisfaction, two-thirds (67%) of panel members said that they were satisfied with the service they had received, an increase of 9% from 1999.


BMG September 2002

� The Council performed less well in terms of their speed of response to the query / enquiry. In 1999 two-thirds of those who had contacted the Council said that their query / enquiry had been dealt with quickly compared to just 35% in 2002, with 56% saying that the speed is slow.

� Those least satisfied with the speed, with up to 62% stating it to be slow, are aged 25-54 years old, those with children, and living in Broadfield and Bewbush wards. A few groups noted above average that the response speed was quick, namely 16-24 year olds (47%), over 55s (40%) and those in receipt of Housing or Council Tax benefits (39%).

6.4 KEEPING RESIDENTS INFORMED

� This section looks at how well the Council communicates with residents. It also identifies which sources of information residents currently use to obtain information about the Council, and which they would prefer to use in the future.

� Respondents were asked to consider how well they think Crawley Borough Council keeps residents informed about the services and benefits it provides.

Figure 28 HOW WELLHOW WELL CBC CBC KEEPS RESIDENTS INFORMED ABOUT THE SERVICES KEEPS RESIDENTS INFORMED ABOUT THE SERVICESAND BENEFITS IT PROVIDESAND BENEFITS IT PROVIDES(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

9%

58%

21%

10%

3%

9%

42%

31%

14%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

KEEPS US VERYWELL INFORMED

KEEPS US FAIRLYWELL INFORMED

GIVES US ONLY ALIMITED AMOUNT OF

INFORMATION

DOESN'T TELL MUCHAT ALL ABOUT WHAT

IT DOES

DON'T KNOW

20021999


� Two thirds of panel members (67%) think that the Council keeps them informed about the services and benefits it provides (9% well informed and 58% fairly well informed). This is a significant improvement on the results


BMG September 2002

obtained in the 1999 survey, in which 51% said that the council keeps them informed (9% well informed and 42% fairly well informed).

� Over three quarters (76%) of residents aged over 55, Council tenants, and those living in Broadfield/ Bewbush feel that they are kept informed, presumably via the various benefits, communications and local offices that they use. Conversely, those in other wards, younger people, more recently taking up residence in Crawley and those working feel least informed, up to 40%.

� Panel members were asked how they currently obtain most of their information about Crawley Borough Council. They were then asked to select the three or four they would prefer to use.

Figure 29 MAIN/PREFERRED SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT CRAWLEYMAIN/PREFERRED SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT CRAWLEYBOROUGH COUNCILBOROUGH COUNCIL(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

63%

50%

50%

37%

15%

11%

10%

10%

8%

6%

6%

6%

34%

28%

25%

14%

2%

3%

6%

4%

7%

2%

2%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

CRAW LEY N EW S

LEAFLETS DELIVER ED TO YOUR DOOR

C OUNCIL MAGAZINES (CRAWLEY LIVE)

CRAWLEY OB SERVER

FRIENDS NE IGHBOURS AND RELAT IONS

LEAFLETS AN D NOTICE BOARDS IN COUNCIL BUILD IN G

BOROUGH COUNCIL OFFICES IN CRAWLEY

POSTERS

C ONTACT W ITH COUNCIL STAFF

TELEVISION

MERCUR Y FM

LOCAL SHOPS

CURR ENT SOU RCEPREFERRED

UNWEIGHTED SAMPLE BASE = 1013

� The most frequently used sources of information are those delivered to the home, with the most frequent of these being Crawley News, with just under two-thirds (63%) of panel members using this source. Half of all respondents (50%) use the council magazine (Crawley Live) and leaflets delivered to the door. Over a third (37%) also use the Crawley Observer.


BMG September 2002

Table 41

SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE COUNCIL

OBTAIN (%)

PREFER (%)

Crawley News 63 34

Council magazine (Crawley Live) 50 25

Leaflets delivered to your door 50 28

Crawley Observer 37 14

Friends, neighbours and relations 15 2

Leaflets and notice boards in Council Building 11 3

Borough Council Offices in Crawley 10 6

Posters 10 4

Contact with Council staff 8 7

Mercury FM 6 2

TV 6 2

Local shops 6 3

Public Information Points at libraries and other venues in this local area 5 1

National newspapers 4 3

Public meetings 4 4

Council Meetings 3 3

Council Website 3 3

Evening Argus 3 1

Visitor information Point 3 1

Citizens Advice Bureau 3 *

Contact with Borough Councillors 2 3

BBC Southern Counties Radio 2 1

Voluntary/Community Organisations 2 1

Don’t get information 2 2

Other specify 1 1

None of these 1 4

Don’t know 1 5




BMG September 2002

� Newspapers and leaflets, delivered to the home, are also the most preferred sources of information. A third of all respondents (34%) said that would prefer to find out about Crawley Borough Council through Crawley News. About a quarter said that they prefer to use leaflets delivered to the door (28%) and / or Crawley Live (25%).

� Higher levels of use of printed media like the Crawley News, leaflets through the door and Crawley Live are found amongst 35-54 year olds and the over 55s.

� Leaflets delivered to the door are equally used by residents of all wards, whilst those in the East and Broadfield/ Bewbush wards all make far higher use of the Crawley Live, Crawley News and Crawley Observer media, and in general, all types of media.

� Two out of five of respondents (39%) were aware that information from the Council is available in various formats like Braille, large print, audio-tape and languages other than English.

� A small proportion of panel members (2%) said that they would prefer future written information about this panel in a particular format such as large print or a language other than English.

6.5 CONTACTING COUNCILLORS

� This section summarises residents’ awareness of Crawley Borough Councillors and how to go about contacting them.

� Almost half (47%) said that they know how to contact their elected Crawley Borough Councillor. This is an increase from 43% in 1999. However, 51% do not know how to make contact.

� All respondents were then asked how they would go about contacting a councillor.

Table 42

METHOD OF CONTACTING A COUNCILLOR

% %

Telephone 63 Other 4

In person 13 None of these 1

In writing 4 Would not contact 14

By E-mail 1 Don’t know 1

Weighted Base 1,012


BMG September 2002

� Almost two-thirds (63%) of panel members said that they would telephone a councillor, a further 13% said that they would visit in person and 4% would write a letter. As with contacting the council, despite the widespread ownership of internet accessible home computers and email addresses, only 1% said that they would use email to contact a councillor.

� Slightly less than a third of respondents (30%) believe that they can name a Crawley Borough councillor who represents their area, two thirds cannot. However, in reality, just under two thirds of those 300 people providing a name could actually name correctly a local Councillor, one third named Laura Moffatt, the local MP, and a handful named ex-Councillors, or County Councillors, rather than a borough Member.

Figure 30

ABILITY TO NAME A COUNCILLOR REPRESENTING THE LOCAL AREAABILITY TO NAME A COUNCILLOR REPRESENTING THE LOCAL AREA(ALL RESPONDENTS)(ALL RESPONDENTS)

DON'T KNOW3% (2% )

I CAN'T NAME A CRAW LEY BOROUGH

COUNCILLOR W HO REPRESENTS THE

LOCAL AREA67% (74% )

I CAN NAME A CRAW LEY BOROUGH

COUNCILLOR W HO REPRESENTS THE

LOCAL AREA30% (24% )

WEIGHTED SAMPLE BASE = 1012FIGURES IN PARENTHESES DENOTE 1999 FIGURES

6.6 ‘CRAWLEY LIVE’

� Respondents were asked whether they had either received a copy of ‘Crawley Live’ (the council magazine) through their door or seen it elsewhere.

� Two-thirds of respondents (67%) said that they had received a copy of ‘Crawley Live’. A further 4% noted that whilst they could not recall the magazine being delivered, they had seen a copy. In total, around seven in ten (71%) of panel members have seen a copy of ‘Crawley Live’. This increased to the 75-80% range in Broadfield/Bewbush and Crawley East,


BMG September 2002

with older, non-working residents, Council tenants and those who feel most satisfied and informed by the Council.

Table 43

CRAWLEY LIVE

DELIVERED SEEN

% %

Yes 67 71

No 30 26

Don’t know 3 3


� Those who had seen a copy of ‘Crawley Live’ were asked how much of the publication they had read.

� Almost all those (93%) who have seen a copy of ‘Crawley Live’ had at least glanced at it. About one in four (26%) read a few articles or read most of it (24%) with 14% saying that they had read all of it.

Figure 31

HOW WELL READ IS ‘CRAWLEY LIVE’HOW WELL READ IS ‘CRAWLEY LIVE’((THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED OR SEEN A COPY OF ‘CRAWLEY LIVE’THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED OR SEEN A COPY OF ‘CRAWLEY LIVE’))

14%

24%

26%

29%

3%

4%

0% 5 % 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

READ ALL OR NEARL YAL L OF IT

READ M OST OF IT

READ A F EW ART ICLES

JUST GL ANCED AT IT

DIDN'T LOOK AT IT ATALL

DON'T KNOW/CAN'TREM EM BER



BMG September 2002

6.7 ‘FASTWAY’

� Almost a quarter (23%) of panel members had seen the ‘Fastway’ logo before, slightly more, (27%) had heard of ‘Fastway’ prior to the interview. However, 71% had not heard of the scheme and 73% had not seen the logo.

� Awareness of ‘Fastway’ has some links with those areas that see higher levels of public transport use, with awareness of 32% in Gossops Green/ Ifield /Tilgate (high public transport users) and in East (28%), with access to Three Bridges rail station. Those aged over 35 and home-owners are also more aware of the initiative.

� Those who had heard of ‘Fastway’ prior to the interview were asked where they had heard about the public transport improvement programme.

Figure 32

WHERE RESPONDENT HEARD ABOUT ‘WHERE RESPONDENT HEARD ABOUT ‘FASTWAY’FASTWAY’((THOSE WHO HAD HEARD OF THOSE WHO HAD HEARD OF FASTWAYFASTWAY PRIOR TO THE INTERVIEW PRIOR TO THE INTERVIEW))

52%

23%

20%

3%

2%

2%

2%

8%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

L OC AL NEWSPAPE R

CRAWL EY L IVE(C OUNCIL M AGAZINE )

LEAFLE T

WORD OF M OUT H

T HROUGH WORK

LOCAL RADIO

ON PUBLICT RANSPORT

OT HE R


� As with finding out information about Crawley Borough Council, the most frequent sources through which panel members had heard of Fastway were publications delivered through the door. Just over half (52%) of respondents said that had heard of Fastway in local newspapers, 23% from Crawley Live and 20% from leaflets.


BMG September 2002


BMG September 2002

7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY

7.1 WARD LOCATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS

� Throughout the report, a number of variations are regularly identified by ward of residence and factors such as age and housing tenure. The ward groupings show distinct differences in population composition, which reflect in attitudes and participation towards varying services.

� In Broadfield and Bewbush, far higher levels of 16-24 year olds were interviewed (22%), and the lowest level of over 55’s (15%). This broadly correlates with the higher presence of children (48%). Those in work are more highly represented (65%), with the highest proportion of part time workers (19%), and the lowest levels of retired people (9%). There is more home rental here and the second largest proportion of ethnic minority population (12%). These wards have the greatest proportion of newer residents, living in the area for up to 2 years (11%), and the proportion of long term residents is notably lower, only 65%.

� In contrast, Gossops Green, Ifield and Tilgate, achieved the complete opposite, with the lowest proportion of 16-24 year olds (11%) and the highest for over 55’s (37%). The lowest levels of people in work are recorded (50%), but the highest levels of retired people (27%). A fairly high 43% have children under 16. Higher levels of benefit claimants come from these wards and the highest users of public transport. Those in Gossops Green/ Ifield / Tilgate wards only have 5.5% newcomers but very high levels of long term occupiers, with 84% being resident for over 10 years.

� There are also high proportions of retired people and those looking after the home or dependants (30% combined) in Central and East ward groupings. Higher levels of home ownership occur here, with fewer older residents in Central areas (27%), and lower proportion of children in Central (39%) and East (38%). The highest ethnic minority population is in Central wards (18%).

7.2 SATISFACTION WITH NEIGHBOURHOOD AND CRAWLEY

� Overall satisfaction with their neighbourhood remains relatively high amongst panel members, with 77% reporting they are satisfied, compared to just 13% reporting to be dissatisfied. There has been, however, a fall in the net satisfaction scores since 1999. Most change seems to have come from a shift from ‘very satisfied’, towards ‘fairly satisfied’ ratings. However, all the negative and ‘neither’ ratings have increased in 2002. This is a trait seen throughout the survey, whereby in a number of service ratings, there has been a move towards ambivalence, with more ‘neither/ nor’ ratings.

� The pattern has remained the same as 1999, with East Crawley still receiving the highest net satisfaction score followed by Ifield/ Gossops


BMG September 2002

Green/ Tilgate, and then Central Crawley and Broadfield/ Bewbush. Whilst most residents believe that their neighbourhood has stayed the same or got worse, East Crawley residents have the least negative view, whilst Central wards are particularly rated as having got worse.

� There seems to have been a move towards neutral attitudes towards the borough (I have no views one way or the other). Whilst slightly fewer people are critical of Crawley, the number of people with no views one way or the other has increased since 1999. Only half speak highly about the town, and this is reinforced by satisfaction not being particularly strong with the way in which Crawley Borough Council is running the town. When compared with other local authorities on overall satisfaction with services provided by the Council, Crawley, amongst the family group, fares poorly, with one of the lowest satisfaction levels.

� There is an underlying theme amongst the highest net rating attributes - that of a healthy economy, with jobs, disposable income for shopping and generally a good quality of life associated with this. This latter point seems at odds with the earlier finding of the neighbourhoods’ ‘going downhill’ over the past few years with increasing dissatisfaction with neighbourhoods.

� Crawley’s less agreeable attributes are more diverse, without a consistent theme. Opportunities for young people, rising house prices (related to the booming economy seen as an attribute above), safety and the health service (probably a reflection of composite national views about health delivery, rather than necessarily a true perspective of the service locally), are all broad ranging. Most importantly though, they are all ‘big’ issues, and ones which have greater personal impact than say the quality of shops and leisure attractions.

� Levels of agreement with factors such as health, opportunities for young people, affordable housing and safety are fairly similar across many population segments. Views from older people and those in older established settlements bear some correlation with earlier observations, in that they are less likely to agree that it is a place for young people, or that the area is safe. Younger people and residents of Bewbush/ Broadfield and Central wards actually feel more that there is affordable housing than those living in the generally more expensive homes in the East wards.

� Alongside the retail and health factors, the issues of the town being green, good for young people and safe are of some concern. Actions should be taken to reduce these negative ratings, some of which may be about the communication of existing improvements, as much as actually delivering further improvements.

7.3 KEY PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT – SAFETY, HEALTH AND THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT

� The two most important factors in making somewhere a good place to live are safety and low crime (62%) and a clean environment (44%). These


BMG September 2002

were also the two most frequently highlighted areas in which improvements need to be made, each mentioned by approximately half the number stating the issue to be the most factors.

� Safety is reinforced throughout the survey as being as key area of concern. Only 5% of panel members reported feeling unsafe when out in Crawley during the day, with 90% saying they feel safe, however, after dark, the proportion reporting to feel unsafe rises to 36%, with only 46% feeling safe.

� The next most frequently stated factors in making somewhere a good place to live were jobs and employment, a peaceful area, road safety/speed and affordable housing. By inference, Crawley is a fairly peaceful area with good jobs, as despite being perceived as important factors in making a good place to live, few highlighted these amongst the areas that they believe most need improving. However, road safety and affordable housing are also frequently stated areas in which improvements should be made and strongly relate to general safety and economic issues.

� In terms of the dominant priorities indicated, community safety and developing local health services are by far the most mentioned. Although not provided by local authorities, health services are seen as the most important local service. Top ranking by far, and almost twice the second ranked aspect, nearly two-thirds stated hospitals to be the most important service, and 35%, third in the ranking, identified doctors’ surgeries and health centres.

7.4 SERVICE SATISFACTION – HIGHS AND LOWS

� There are some high awareness levels of the core leisure and cultural services and facilities, as would be expected, as well as recycling, and lower knowledge of particular ‘niche’ segmented services (for young people, planning, etc). Correspondingly, various facilities and services such as leisure centres, libraries, and recycling are far more highly used than young people’s and ‘help’ based services.

� In Broadfield/ Bewbush there is higher use of children’s, leisure and arts facilities, whilst in Gossops Green/ Ifield/ Tilgate the use of the Hawth Theatre and leisure and adult education services increases.

� The survey questions were not restricted to borough council services. Residents also rated a selection of services provided by other agencies such as the county council. No clear picture appears overall in relation to trends in satisfaction with services over the three years since 1999. However, where comparisons are available, the overall balance is favourable. There are 18 services or facilities that have seen increases in satisfaction, with two services (libraries and the Hawth Theatre) showing a slight decrease. Of concern, however, are the 9 areas registering notable decreases in satisfaction since 1999. Four of the nine are leisure related, three are hygiene/ maintenance and two other services.


BMG September 2002

� Many service areas have received lower satisfaction levels than in 1999. There has been a significant shift to residents moving towards a more neutral position in their rating, and slight, but modest increases in actual dissatisfaction. The neutrality can therefore potentially be overcome by providers more easily than converting the dissatisfied, so future efforts should be made to address ‘winning back’ users.

� The highest rating leisure, recreation and cultural services achieve the highest satisfaction and net satisfaction levels of all service areas (hygiene, maintenance and other), with many levels of 65%+ satisfaction. The dissatisfaction is very low, only single digit.

� In 1999 the highest net satisfaction ratings were attributed to town centre shopping facilities and parks and open spaces. These have both seen decreased ratings this year, although parks and open spaces still rate very highly compared to other local authorities. Town centre shopping facilities’ fall in net satisfaction should be considered as an area of concern, perhaps related to increasing competition elsewhere. Both Crawley and Bewbush Leisure Centres have dropped notably, reflecting ageing facilities and increased private sector competition. These require Council debate as to if, and how, improvements should be made.

� BVPI data for the Crawley family group of local authorities shows the borough as performing relatively well in several service areas, including parks and open spaces, concert halls and theatres, libraries, local bus services, recycling and street cleansing.

� In 1999, refuse collection and recycling facilities received high net satisfaction scores, however, in 2002, both services experienced falls in satisfaction, with fairly high ambivalent neither satisfied/ nor dissatisfied views being given, which have increased from 1999.

� The result achieved by the waste collection service illustrates a very poor Crawley performance, around the lowest end of the family group. Further comparison with the 1999 results shows that few respondents actually expressed more dissatisfaction with the waste collection service, although at 12% it is not an inconsequential figure, one in eight households. 35-54 year olds are particularly critical as are those with children under 16 years old and East Crawley residents, whilst the lowest dissatisfaction is expressed in Broadfield/ Bewbush.

� The large proportion of panel members highlighting refuse collection as the second most important service delivered in the area (after health), and the fall in the overall net satisfaction, strongly indicates that this service area should be considered as a priority area for improvements to be made.


BMG September 2002

7.5 CONTACTS AND COMMUNICATION WITH COUNCIL

� The level of contact with the Council over the past year is down from 1999, below half, although this figure lies midway between other authorities when compared. Up to 60% of the following segments have contacted CBC in the past year; women, those aged 35 years or more, Council tenants, those dissatisfied with Council services, people with children and those living in Broadfield/ Bewbush wards.

� In relation to the personal service of staff at the last time of contact, staff received the highest rating for politeness and helpfulness. A general consistency can be seen across all attributes, with a positive response to each attribute most commonly being given by residents aged over 55, retired, usually of a satisfied disposition towards the Council overall, and always from East Crawley wards.

� The Council performed less well in terms of their speed of response to the query / enquiry. In 1999 two-thirds of those who had contacted the Council said that their query / enquiry had been dealt with quickly compared to just 35% in 2002. Those least satisfied with the speed are aged 25-54 years old, those with children, and living in Broadfield and Bewbush wards – generally people who have greater contact with the Council.

� In terms of overall satisfaction with the service received when contacting the Council, two-thirds (67%) of panel members said that they were satisfied with the service they had received, an increase of 9% from 1999.

� High levels of awareness and readership of ‘Crawley Live’, the Council magazine have helped increase the proportion of panel members (67%) who think that the Council keeps them informed about the services and benefits it provides compared to the results obtained in the 1999 survey (51%).

� Reinforcing earlier distinctions seen between wards and age, over three quarters of residents aged over 55, Council tenants, and those living in Broadfield/ Bewbush feel that they are kept informed, presumably via the various benefits, communications and local offices that they use. Conversely, those in other wards, younger people, more recently taking up residence in Crawley and those working, feel least informed, up to 40%.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 - QUESTIONNAIRE

CRAWLEY PANEL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2002

INTERVIEW DETAILS

INTERVIEWER NAME :

WARD NAME:

INT. I.D. NUMBER :

WARD CODE:

INT. DATE INT. TIME: (USE 24 HOUR CLOCK)

HRS MINS

INT. DAY (CIRCLE) MON TUES WED THURS FRI SAT SUN

INTERVIEWER RECORD WARD LOCATION BELOW Ward Code Ward Code Bewbush Northgate Broadfield Pound Hill North Furnace Green Pound Hill South Gossops Green Southgate Ifield Three Bridges Langley Green Tilgate

West Green

Good morning/afternoon/evening. My name is xxx I am from BMG a social and economic research company working on behalf of Crawley Borough Council. We’re conducting a short survey on local issues, and I wonder if you could spare a few minutes of your time. BMG is setting up a panel of local residents recruited at random across Crawley. People on the panel will be contacted three or four times over the next year or so, and asked for their views about local services. The surveys will be for Crawley Borough Council. We need to have a good cross-section of Crawley residents and we would like you to be a member of the panel.

Q1 Will you agree to take part? If yes code below and continue with interview

1. Yes, willing to become panel member – CONTINUE WITH INTERVIEW

2. No, not willing to become a panel member – THANK RESPONDENT AND CLOSE INTERVIEW – DO NOT COUNT TO QUOTA

Thanks for agreeing to join the panel. Welcome.

Can I first of all ask a few basic questions so that we understand the range of people that we have recruited. This will help us look at variations in views by people based on the ward they live, in, their age and so on.

RESPONDENT DETAILS:

TITLE: 1 MR 2 MRS 3 MISS 4 MS 5 DR

95 OTHER – PLEASE SPECIFY:

SURNAME:

FORENAMES OR INITIALS:

ADDRESS ONE:

ADDRESS TWO:

ADDRESS THREE:

POSTAL TOWN:

POST CODE: - NB: THIS INFORMATION IS ESSENTIAL!

PHONE NUMBER – INCLUDE CODE!

Q2 RECORD GENDER:

1. Male 2. Female

Q3 Could you tell me your age please? WRITE IN AND CODE EXACT AGE

Q4 TRANSFER AND CODE AGE IN BANDWIDTH, OR TAKE BAND IF THEY ARE UNWILLING TO GIVE AGE

1. 16-24

2. 25-34

3. 35-44

4. 45-54

5. 55-59

6. 60-64

7. 65+

8. Refused

Q5 Thinking about your neighbourhood – on the whole, how satisfied or dissatisfied are

you with it as a place to live? SINGLE CODE ONLY SHOWCARD 1

1. Very dissatisfied

2. Fairly dissatisfied

3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

4. Fairly satisfied

5. Very satisfied

6. Don’t know

Q6 And over the past two years or so, do you think this neighbourhood has got better or worse as a place to live, or has it stayed the same SINGLE CODE

1. Better

2. Worse

3. Stayed the same

4. Don’t know

Q7 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way Crawley Borough Council is running the town? SHOWCARD 1

1. Very dissatisfied

2. Fairly dissatisfied

3. Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

4. Fairly satisfied

5. Very satisfied

6. Don’t know

Q8 Which two or three of these do you think are most important to you in making somewhere a good place to live? Just read out the numbers that apply. CODE ALL THAT APPLY UP TO 3 IN COLUMN Q8 BELOW. SHOWCARD 2

Q8 most important

Q9 most need

improving 1. Jobs and employment 1 12. Affordable housing 2 23. Safety/low crime rate 3 34. Road safety/speed of traffic 4 45. Good public transport 5 56. Uncongested roads 6 67. A clean environment 7 78. Access to green spaces 8 89. Children’s adventure playgrounds/play centres/

play areas 9 9

10. Peaceful area 10 10 11. Good facilities for pedestrians and cyclists 11 11 12. Access to community facilities, such as community

centres, etc 12 12

13. Access to health centre and chemists 13 13 14. Access to shopping facilities 14 14

15. Good schools 15 15

16. Good leisure facilities 16 16

95 Other (specify) 95 95

96 Don’t know 96 96

Q9 And which two or three of these most need improving in this neighbourhood? Just read out the numbers that apply. MULTICODE UP TO 3. SHOWCARD 2

Q10 What local area would you say that you live in? CODE BELOW ALL THAT APPLY DO NOT PROMPT. BUT SEEK

RESPONSES FROM ALL Q10

1. Bewbush 2. Broadfield 3. Furnace Green 4. Gossops Green 5. Ifield 6. Langley Green 7. Maidenbower 8. Northgate 9. Pound Hill 10. Southgate 11. Three Bridges 12. Tilgate 13. West Green 14. **Crawley ** 15. **Town Centre ** 16. **Gatwick ** 17. West Sussex/Sussex **

95 Other (write in below ) **

Q10b OFFICE USE ONLY – MANUALLY TRANSFER CODE FROM Q10 COLUMN OR Q10a BOX INTO THIS COLUMN FOR 13 NEIGHBOURHOODS. USE ADDRESS PAGE 2 AND MAP TO CODE ANY GAPS . ALL NEIGHBOURHOODS MUST BE COMPLETED

1. Bewbush 2. Broadfield 3. Furnace Green 4. Gossops Green 5. Ifield 6. Langley Green 7. Maidenbower 8. Northgate 9. Pound Hill 10. Southgate 11. Three Bridges 12. Tilgate 13. West Green

** Q10a IF Q10 RESPONSE = 14 TO 95 THEN ALSO ASK

And specifically which neighbourhood do you live in ? WRITE IN NUMBER 1 TO 13 IN BOX

Q11 Which of these is closest to how you feel about the town of Crawley? SINGLE CODE ONLY. SHOWCARD 3

1. I speak highly of Crawley without being asked

2. I speak highly of Crawley if I am asked about it

3. I have no views one way or the other

4. I am critical about Crawley if I am asked about it

5. I am critical about Crawley without being asked

6. Don’t know

Q12 Before today, were you aware of the following services or facilities available in Crawley? SHOWCARD 4 CODE ALL THAT APPLY

1. Advice on planning applications

2. Advice on building regulations

3. Bewbush Leisure Centre

4. Crawley Leisure Centre

5. Broadfield Football Stadium

6. Children’s after-school clubs/play centres and adventure playgrounds

7. Children’s unsupervised play areas

8. Community Centres

9. Community arts and public art

10. Environment and energy saving information

11. Evening classes and other education for adults

12. Free bus travel for the elderly and disabled

13. Hawth Theatre

14. Help Point (at the Town Hall)

15. Housing advice

16. Housing benefit advice and claims

17. Recycling facilities

18. Tilgate Golf Centre

19. Tilgate Park and Nature Centre

20. Visitor Information Point (in County Mall)

21. Youth Clubs

95 Other, (write in)

………………………………………………………….

97 Don’t know

98 None

Q13 Which, if any, of the services on this card do you or members of your household use or benefit from that are in Crawley? CODE ALL THAT APPLY SHOWCARD 5




4. Hollywood Bowl

5. Cinema

6. Private health club (e.g. Esporta, Cannons)

7. Hawth Theatre



10. Children’s after-school clubs/play centres/adventure playgrounds

11. Children’s unsupervised play areas



14. Housing benefit claims and queries

15. Libraries

16. Free bus travel for the elderly and disabled

17. Local bus services

18. Train services

19. Public Car Parks


21. First schools

22. Middle schools

23. Secondary schools

24. Evening classes and other education for adults

25. Youth Clubs and other facilities for young people

26. Visitor Information Point (in County Mall)

Q14 I am going to read out a number of different types of services that are provided in this area. Using this card, I would like you to tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the quality of each in your local area. READ OUT. ROTATE ORDER TICK STARTING POINT. SINGLE CODE EACH OPTION. SHOWCARD 6

Very dissatisfied

Fairly dis-satisfied Neither Fairly

satisfied Very

satisfied Not applicable / don’t know

1. Bewbush Leisure Centre 1 2 3 4 5 62. Crawley Leisure Centre 1 2 3 4 5 63. Broadfield Football Stadium 1 2 3 4 5 64. Childrens’ after-school clubs/play centres

and adventure playgrounds 1 2 3 4 5 6

5. Childrens’ unsupervised play areas 1 2 3 4 5 66. Council housing /housing advice 1 2 3 4 5 67. Council Tax queries 1 2 3 4 5 68. Community Centres 1 2 3 4 5 69. Doctors’ surgeries/health centres 1 2 3 4 5 610. Environment/ energy efficiency advice 1 2 3 4 5 611. Evening classes /other education for adults 1 2 3 4 5 612. Free bus travel for the elderly & disabled 1 2 3 4 5 613. Grass verge cutting 1 2 3 4 5 614. Hawth Theatre 1 2 3 4 5 615. Help Point (at the Town Hall) 1 2 3 4 5 616. Housing benefit claims and queries 1 2 3 4 5 617. Hospitals 1 2 3 4 5 618. Libraries 1 2 3 4 5 619. Local bus services 1 2 3 4 5 620. Local train services 1 2 3 4 5 621. Monitoring hygiene in public places and

pollution levels 1 2 3 4 5 6

22. Neighbourhood shopping parades 1 2 3 4 5 623. Parks, open spaces and sports pitches 1 2 3 4 5 624. Pavement and kerb maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 625. Planning & control of new development 1 2 3 4 5 626. Public conveniences 1 2 3 4 5 627. Public car parks 1 2 3 4 5 628. Recycling facilities 1 2 3 4 5 629. Refuse collection 1 2 3 4 5 630. Road maintenance 1 2 3 4 5 631. Schools – First 1 2 3 4 5 632. Schools – Middle 1 2 3 4 5 633. Schools - Secondary 1 2 3 4 5 634. Street cleaning 1 2 3 4 5 635. Street lighting 1 2 3 4 5 636. Tilgate Golf Centre 1 2 3 4 5 637. Tilgate Park and Nature Centre 1 2 3 4 5 638. Town centre shopping facilities 1 2 3 4 5 639. Visitor information point (in County Mall) 1 2 3 4 5 640. Youth clubs & other facilities for young

people 1 2 3 4 5 6

41. Other, (write in) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q15 Looking at this same list of local services, which four or five do you think are the most important services that are provided in this area? CODE UP TO FIVE SERVICES, PLEASE READ OUT THE NUMBERS. SHOWCARD 6




4. Childrens’ after-school clubs/play centres and adventure playgrounds

5. Childrens’ unsupervised play areas

6. Council housing /housing advice

7. Council Tax queries


9. Doctors’ surgeries/health centres

10. Environment/ energy efficiency advice

11. Evening classes /other education for adults

12. Free bus travel for the elderly & disabled

13. Grass verge cutting

14. Hawth Theatre


16. Housing benefit claims and queries

17. Hospitals

18. Libraries

19. Local bus services

20. Local train services

21. Monitoring hygiene in public places and pollution levels

22. Neighbourhood shopping parades

23. Parks, open spaces and sports pitches

24. Pavement and kerb maintenance

25. Planning & control of new development

26. Public conveniences

27. Public car parks


29. Refuse collection

30. Road maintenance

31. Schools – First

32. Schools – Middle

33. Schools - Secondary

34. Street cleaning

35. Street lighting



38. Town centre shopping facilities

39. Visitor information point (in County Mall)

40. Youth clubs & other facilities for young people

41. Other, (write in)

42. Don’t know

43. Can’t think of any

Q16 I am going to read out a list of statements about Crawley Borough Council and I would like you to tell me, from this card, how strongly you agree or disagree with each. READ OUT. ALTERNATE ORDER. TICK START POINT. SINGLE CODE ONLY SHOWCARD 7

Strongly disagree

Tend to disagree Neither Tend to

agree Strongly agree

Don’t know/no opinion

1. The Council gives local people good value for money 1 2 3 4 5 6

2. The council is too remote and impersonal 1 2 3 4 5 6

3. I don’t know much about what the Council does 1 2 3 4 5 6

4. The quality of council services is good overall 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q17 Which of the statements on this card comes closest to your own attitude towards Crawley Borough Council? Just read out the number that applies SINGLE CODE ONLY. SHOWCARD 8

1. I’m not interested in what the Council does, or whether they do their job

2. I’m not interested in what the Council does, as long as they do their job

3. I like to know what the Council is doing, but I’m happy to let them get on with their job

4. I would like to have more of a say in what the Council does, and the services it provides

5. I already work, for or am involved with, the Council and the services it provides

6. None of these

7. Don’t know

Q18 Have you contacted the Council over the last year for any purpose?

1. Yes GO TO Q19

2. No GO TO Q24

3. Not sure/ don’t know GO TO Q24

Q19 What was the main purpose of the contact? CODE ALL THAT APPLY. SHOWCARD9

1. Make a payment

2. Make enquiry

3. Request a service

4. Report and issue or problem

5. Make a complaint about a council service

6. Ask for information

7. Ask for advice/help

8. Make a suggestion about a service

95 Other (write in)

96 Can’t remember/don’t know

Q20 How did you get in contact with Crawley Borough Council? SINGLE CODE ONLY. IF MORE THAN ONE, ASK ABOUT MOST RECENT METHOD USED. SHOWCARD 10

1. In person

2. By phone

3. In writing

4. By letter

5. By fax

6. By e-mail

7. Through a Councillor

8. Through someone else

96 Can’t remember

97 Don’t know

Q21 And when you last contacted the Council, did you find staff there? READ OUT

Q21a 1. Helpful 2. Unhelpful 3. Neither/don’t know

Q21b

2. Polite 2. Impolite 3. Neither/don’t know

Q21c

3. Efficient 2. Inefficient 3. Neither/don’t know

Q21d

1. Interested in your query/enquiry 2. Not interested in your query/enquiry

3 Neither/don’t know

Q21e

1. Able to deal with your query/enquiry 2. Unable to deal with your query/enquiry


Q21f

1. Responded quickly to your enquiry 2. Responded slowly to your enquiry


Q22 Was getting hold of the right person?

1. Easy or 2. Difficult 3. Neither/don’t know

Q23 And were you satisfied or dissatisfied that your enquiry was resolved appropriately?

1. Satisfied 2. Dissatisfied 3. Neither/don’t know

INFORMATION – ASK ALL Q24 How well do you think Crawley Borough Council keeps residents informed about the

services and benefits it provides? SINGLE CODE ONLY SHOWCARD 11

1. Keeps us very well informed

2. Keeps us fairly well informed

3. Gives us only a limited amount of information

4. Doesn’t tell much at all about what it does

5. Don’t know

Q25 From which, if any, of the sources on this card do you obtain most of your information about Crawley Borough Council? Just read out the numbers that apply.

You may mention as many or as few as you like. CODE ALL THAT APPLY. SHOWCARD 12

OBTAIN Q25

PREFERQ26

1. Contact with Council staff 1 12. Contact with Borough Councillors 2 23. Council Meetings 3 34. Council magazine (Crawley Live) 4 45. National newspapers 5 56. Council Website 6 67. Crawley News 7 78. Crawley Observer 8 89. Evening Argus 9 910. Mercury FM 10 10 11. BBC Southern Counties Radio 11 11 12. TV 12 12 13. Leaflets and notice boards in Council Building 13 13 14. Local shops 14 14 15. Voluntary/Community Organisations 15 15 16. Citizens Advice Bureau 16 16 17. Leaflets delivered to you door 17 17 18. Posters 18 18 19. Visitor information Point 19 19 20. Public meetings 20 20 21. Friends, neighbours and relations 21 21 22. Borough Council Offices in Crawley 22 22 23. Public Information Points at libraries and other

venues in this local area 23 23

95 Other specify 95 95

95 None of these 96 96 96 Don’t get information 97 97 97 Don’t know 98 98

Q26 And from which three or four would you prefer to find out about Crawley Borough Council? Just read out the letters that apply. CODE ALL THAT APPLY - UP TO FOUR RESPONSES IN Q26 ABOVE. SHOWCARD 12

Q27 Are you aware that information from the Council is available in various formats like braille, large print, audio tape and languages other than English?

1 Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know

Q28 Would you prefer future written information about this panel in a particular format such as large print or a language other than English?

1 Yes (specify which)

………………………………………………………….. 2 No

Q29 Do you know how to get in touch with one of your elected Crawley Borough councillors?

1. Yes 2. No 3 Don’t know

ASK ALL, WHETHER OR NOT THEY KNOW HOW TO CONTACT A COUNCILLOR

Q30 How would you go about making contact, what would be your main method? PROBE

Q31 Can you name a Crawley Borough councillor who represents your local area?

1. Yes GO TO Q32

2. No GO TO Q33

3. Don’t know GO TO Q33

Q32 Which Crawley Borough Councillors can you name? Any others? PROBE BUT DO NOT PROMPT. MULTICODE

96 None/can’t remember ASK ALL Q33 Have you had a copy of “Crawley Live” delivered through your door? SHOW COPY/

CARD 13

ASK IF NOT DELIVERED

Q34 And have you ever seen a copy of “Crawley Live”

Q 33 Delivered

Q 34 Seen

Yes 1 1No 2 2Don’t know 3 3

ASK ALL WHO HAVE SEEN COPY

Q35 Would you say you…. SINGLE CODE ONLY

1. Read all or nearly all of it

2. Read most of it

3. Read a few articles

4. Just glanced at it

5. Didn’t look at it at all

6. Don’t know/can’t remember

ASK ALL Q36

Q36a Have you seen this logo before? SHOW FASTWAY LOGO/ SHOWCARD 14

1. Yes 2. No 3. Not Sure Q36b Have you ever heard of ‘Fastway’ before this interview?

1. Yes GO TO Q36c

2. No GO TO Q37

3. Not Sure GO TO Q37

Q36c IF YES Where did you hear about Fastway?

1. Local newspaper

2. Crawley Live (Council magazine)

3. Local radio

4. Leaflet

5. Other (specify)

Q37 How safe or unsafe do you feel when out in Crawley during the day? SHOWCARD 15

Q37 DAY Q38 AFTER DARK 1 Very unsafe 1 1

2 Fairly unsafe 2 2

3 Neither safe nor unsafe 3 3

4 Fairly safe 4 4

5 Very safe, 5 5

6 Don’t know 6 6

Q38 How safe or unsafe do you feel when out in Crawley after dark? SHOWCARD 15. CODE Q38 ABOVE

ASK ALL On this card are a number of statements that some people have made about Crawley.

Q39 Which, if any, of these statements do you personally AGREE with? Please look though the list and read out the numbers that apply. SHOWCARD 16. TICK START POINT. ALTERNATE ORDER OF STARTING Q39 AND Q40

Q39 Q40 1. Crawley is a place with a healthy economy 1 12. Crawley is a place that has attractions for the surrounding

region 2 2

3. Crawley is a clean place 3 34. Crawley is a green place 4 45. Crawley is a place with good quality housing 5 56. Crawley is a place that is easy to get around 6 67. Crawley is a place with a good quality of life 7 78. Crawley is a good place for young people 8 89. Crawley is a place with strong communities 9 910. Crawley is a safe place 10 10 11. Crawley is a place with good quality health services 11 11 12. Crawley is a place with good quality leisure and cultural

facilities 12 12

13. Crawley is a place with good night life 13 13 14. Crawley is a place with good quality shopping facilities 14 14 15. Crawley is a place with access to a range of jobs and the

opportunities to take them up 15 15

16. Crawley is a place with good quality schools 16 16 17. Crawley is a place with affordable housing 17 17 18. None of these 18 18 19. Don’t know 19 19

Q40 Again which, if any, of these statements do you personally DISAGREE with? Please look though the list and read out the numbers that apply. SHOWCARD 16. CODE Q40 COLUMN

Q41 Crawley Borough Council is developing its plans for the future of the town, in partnership with other organisations. From this card, can you tell me what you think should be the three or four most important priorities for Crawley over the next few years? CODE UP THREE OR FOUR. SHOWCARD 17

Q41 MULTI

Q42 SINGLE

1. Improving education standards 1 1 2. Improving community safety 2 2 3. Developing local health services 3 3 4. Protecting the local environment 4 4 5. Developing and sustaining the local economy 5 5 6. Improving facilities for children and young people 6 6 7. Ensuring the provision of local affordable housing 7 7 8. Improving facilities for elderly people 8 8 9. Improving leisure and cultural provision 9 9 10. Improving the town centre 10 10 11. Improving the public transport 11 11 12. Protecting the areas of open spaces 12 12 95 Other -specify

95 95

96 None of these 96 96 97 Don’t know 97 97

Q42 And which do you think should be the single most important priority? SINGLE CODE ONLY. SHOWCARD 17

Q43 And what one change in Crawley or your neighbourhood would most improve the quality of your life.

95 None/nothing 96 Don’t know

And now I need to take a few more questions about you and your household, so that we can see how things vary between different groups of residents.

Q44 Which of these best describes your work status? SHOWCARD 18 1. Working – full time (30+ hrs) 2. Working – part time (under 30 hrs) 3. Self-employed with staff 4. Self-employed without staff 5. Unemployed – seeking work GO TO Q47 6. Unemployed – not seeing work GO TO Q47 7. Not working – retired GO TO Q47 8. Not working – looking after house/children GO TO Q47 9. Permanently sick or disabled GO TO Q47 10. Student GO TO Q47 11. Other GO TO Q47

Q45 And what type of work do you do or have you done? PROBE FOR JOB FUNCTION - NOT JOB TITLE. (PROBE FOR LEVEL OF SKILL AND QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED)

IF MANAGER / SUPERVISOR PROBE FOR NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES SUPERVISED / RESPONSIBLE FOR, SIZE OF ORGANISATION AND SECTOR OF INDUSTRY

IF RETIRED OR UNEMPLOYED, OBTAIN PREVIOUS JOB FUNCTION

IF HOUSEWIFE, PROBE FOR LENGTH OF TIME AS HOUSEWIFE AND OBTAIN PREVIOUS JOB FUNCTION

CODE TO SINGLE DIGIT SIC CODE

Office Use Only1 HIGHER MANAGERIAL & PROFESSIONAL 2 LOWER MANAGERIAL & PROFESSIONAL 3 INTERMEDIATE OCCUPATIONS 4 SMALL EMPLOYERS AND OWN ACCOUNT WORKERS 5 LOWER SUPERVISORY, CRAFT AND RELATED OCCUPATIONS6 SEMI-ROUTINE OCCUPATIONS 7 ROUTINE OCCUPATIONS 8 NOT CLASSIFIED

Q46 OFFICE CODE SOCIO ECONOMIC GROUP ALSO FROM ABOVE

1. A 2. B 3. C1

4. C2 5. D 6. E

Q47 Are you the

1. Main income earner in your household 2. Not main income earner in your household

Q48 What is your ownership of the property you live in?

1. Owned outright including leasehold 2. Buying on mortgage 3. Buying from Council 4. Rented from Council 5. Rented from Housing Association 6. Rented from private landlord 7. Other

Q49 How many adults are there INCLUDING YOURSELF aged 16+ in household?

1. 1 2. 2 3. 3 4. 4 5. 5 6. 6+

Q50 And are there any children and young people in the household? If so, which age bands? CODE ALL THAT APPLY

1. Aged 0-4 2. Aged 5-8 3. Aged 9-11 4. Aged 12-15 5. Aged 16-17 6. None under 18

Q51 Are there any older people over 60 in the household and which age bands are they in? CODE ALL THAT APPLY

1. Aged 60 – 74 2. Aged 75+ 3. None aged 60+

Q52 Do you or anyone in your household have any long term illness, health problem or disability which limits their daily activities or the work they can do (including problems which are due to old age?) MULTICODE ALL THAT APPLY

1. Yes, the respondent 2. Yes, other household member 3. No

Q53 How many people is this in total

Q54 Does anyone in this household receive

a) Housing Benefit or Council Tax Benefit (that is based on your income)? b) State pension c) Any other state benefit

CODE ALL THAT APPLY IN EACH COLUMN

Q12a Q12b Q12c 1. Yes, the respondent 1 1 12. Yes, other household member 2 2 23. No 3 3 34. Refused 4 4 4

Q55 Which of the following applies to you and your household? CODE ALL THAT APPLY

1. I DO NOT have access to the internet at home 2. I have access to the internet at home 3. I have access to the internet at work 4. I have access to the internet at my place of study 5. I have access to the internet elsewhere (eg library, cyber café, etc) 6. I have interactive digital TV WITH internet connection 7. I have interactive digital TV WITHOUT internet connection

Q56 If you have internet access from any location, have you ever looked at Crawley Borough Council’s website?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know

Q57 Do you have an e-mail address?

1. Yes 2. No

Q58 Would you be prepared to give me the address, so that we can communicate with you electronically, with panel newsletters and so on? WRITE E-MAIL ADDRESS

Q59 Which of these best describes you? SHOWCARD 19

WHITE BRITISH 1 BRITISH 2 IRISH 3 OTHER WHITE MIXED BRITISH 4 WHITE AND BLACK CARIBBEAN 5 WHITE AND BLACK AFRICAN 6 WHITE AND ASIAN 7 OTHER MIXED

ASIAN / ASIAN BRITISH 8 INDIAN 9 PAKISTANI 10 BANGLADESHI 11 OTHER ASIAN BLACK / BLACK BRITISH 12 CARIBBEAN 13 AFRICAN 14 BLACK OTHER 15 CHINESE 16 OTHER 96 REFUSED

Q60 Are there any cars or light vans in your household, and how many

1. 1 Car or light van

2. 2 Cars/light vans

3. 3+ cars/light vans

4. none

Q61 Do you generally use public transport to make journeys within Crawley?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Don’t know/ not sure

Q62 And finally, how long have you lived in Crawley

1. 1 year or less 2. Over 1 up to 2 years 3. Over 2 up to 5 years 4. Over 5 up to 10 years 5. Over 10 up to 20 years 6. Over 20 years 7. Refused 8. Don’t know/can’t remember

Thank and close statement – HAND OUT WELCOME LETTER FROM CRAWLEY BOROUGH COUNCIL Thank you very much for answering my questions. Would you sign the questionnaire to verify that you have taken part in the survey? And could I also check your name, address and telephone number that you gave at the start of the interview ? CHECK PAGE 2 You may receive a call from BMG to check that the interview was carried out and to ask you your thoughts on how the interview was conducted. BMG will only call back a proportion of people to ensure that the interview was conducted in accordance with the Market Research Society’s Code of Conduct. If you are concerned about whether BMG is a genuine market research agency you can call the Market Research Society on 0500 396 999 during office hours. ‘I confirm that this interview has been conducted in a proper manner and that the interviewer has accurately recorded the information I have provided”. Name PRINT…………………………………. SIGNATURE ………………………………… DATE…………………………………..

APPENDIX 2 - SOCIAL CLASS DEFINITIONS

A Professionals such as doctors, surgeons, solicitors or dentists; chartered people architects; fully qualified people with a large degree of responsibility such as senior editors, senior civil servants, town clerks, senior business executives and managers, and high ranking grades of the Services

B People with very responsible jobs such as university lecturers, hospital matrons,

heads of local government departments, middle management in business, qualified scientists, bank managers, police inspectors, and upper grades of the Services

C1 All others doing non-manual jobs; nurses, technicians, pharmacists, salesmen,

publicans, people in clerical positions, police sergeants / constables, and middle ranks of the Services.

C2 Skilled manual workers/craftsmen who have served apprenticeships; foremen,

manual workers with special qualifications such as long distance lorry drivers, security officers, and lower grades of the Services.

D Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, including labourers and mates of

occupations in the C2 grade and people serving apprenticeships; machine minders, farm labourers, bus and railway conductors, laboratory assistants, postmen, door-to-door and van salesmen.

E Those on lowest levels of subsistence including pensioners, casual workers and

others with minimum levels of income.

Documents

CRAWLEY CITIZENS’ PANEL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2002 …€¦ · CRAWLEY CITIZENS’ PANEL HOUSEHOLD SURVEY 2002 FINAL REPORT - SEPTEMBER 2002 - Prepared for: - Carrie Burton, Corporate