Agenda item

A report by the Head of Communications and Engagement providing an update on the What Matters To You? survey 2018.

The Committee is asked to review the findings of the 2018 What Matters To You? survey and make comments to the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources to consider as part of the 2019/2021 budget process.

50.1  The Committee considered a report by the Head of Communications and Engagement (copy appended to the signed minutes).

50.2  The Head of Communications and Engagement introduced the report, explained that the survey was undertaken every two years, and outlined key findings. It was noted that for the first time the District and Borough Councils were invited to input into the recent survey. The key priority for residents remains for West Sussex to be a strong, safe and sustainable place. Residents were surveyed on attitudes to local taxation and a medium level of increase was supported (i.e. 44% agreed with a rise of between 2.1 and 4.98%, whilst 31% agreed with a maximum 4.99% rise). It was noted that whilst findings were similar to the last survey, it isn’t possible to draw direct comparisons as a new West Sussex Plan has been implemented since the last survey containing different corporate priorities.

50.3  The Committee made comments in relation to the What Matters To You? Survey including those that follow. It:

·        Expressed a desire to understand the level of resident satisfaction with the Council, and how the comments in the survey will be translated into tangible actions within the portfolio areas that residents will see.

·        Expressed concern that whilst the information gained from the survey is very interesting, that it may not be very useful, and that some of the questions asked invited agreement. Members expressed concern that only 35% of respondents agreed that the Council provides good value for money and only 43% agreed to overall satisfaction with Council services. Members would like these ratings to be significantly higher, and suggested that the grants received from Government need to be explained more openly to the public so that they are informed on how and to what level the Council is funded by central Government. Some Members suggested that some of the responses may show the effect of previous Cabinet Member decisions, quoting in example that a rise in anti-social behaviour could considered to be linked to the closure of youth services.

·        Queried the percentage of survey respondents that were employees of the Council, noted the positive response to a raise in Council Tax rates, and queried whether the rate of responses from Council employees may unduly influence the acceptance of increases to Council Tax rates. The Head of Communications and Engagement confirmed 5% of respondents identified as working for the Council. This is less than previous years, as staff completion of the survey hadn’t been promoted as much as it has been in previous years. The Head of Intelligence and Performance explained all the percentages given are unweighted and the data will be provided to members of the Committee so they can be satisfied in relation to Council Tax rise feedback.

·        Expressed disappointment in the low numbers of West Sussex residents taking part in the survey, queried whether this was a good basis for making decisions affecting all residents, and suggested a breakdown by District/Borough area would have been helpful. The Leader notes that it is the members making the decisions and this survey is one of many sources of information which inform those decisions being made. The Head of Communications and Engagement explained that more interest in the survey was shown on social media this year, however a notable number of respondents began the survey but did not finish it so the team will work on engagement to improve completion rates. In order to widen participation in the survey focus groups were undertaken with minority groups, and for the first time a Children and Young People’s version of the survey was produced resulting in 253 responses. The Head of Intelligence and Performance will provide a breakdown by area.

·        Commented that of the District/Borough Councils invited to input only two responded and queried whether these responses added value. The Head of Communications and Engagement confirmed all the local Council’s helped to disseminate the survey in their areas. Extra questions were asked dependent upon the area in which the respondent identified themselves, which provided useful information however this benefit needs to be balanced against the overall length of the survey.

·        Noted that more residents voted in the local elections than responded to the survey, therefore more weight should instead be given to delivering the agenda and objectives promised at that time. Members commented that the survey results can be used as feedback prior to the next election round or to nuance changes where necessary.

·        Commented that the cost of undertaking the survey did not include substantial officer time, and queried whether external opinion surveying would be more cost effective. The Head of Communications and Engagement explained the team are reluctant to outsource this work however this could be explored if this was in line with Members wishes.

50.4  The Chairman then invited observing Members to speak on this item and comments were made including those that follow:

·        Members queried whether the Council are communicating effectively enough to residents the breadth and extent of services the Council provides. The Head of Communications and Engagement confirmed there is good local news coverage of both services and the survey, however the team will engage with other authorities on ways to encourage survey response rates.

·        Commented that some of the survey questions asked multiple things within one question which leads to difficulty in providing a single answer, and that separating into singular direct questions could provide better answers.

·        Commented regarding the difference between statutory versus non-statutory services and that residents are not aware of a great number of functions the Council undertakes that they do not see evidence of.

·        Highlighted in relation to the different channels residents use to contact the Council that contact through the local Member is not included. The Head of Communications and Engagement accepted this comment and will look at including this in future surveys.

·        Commented that residents choosing telephone contact may be older people or those who find the County website difficult to navigate, in comparison to easier and intuitive sites such as Amazon for example. Apps such as Love West Sussex are good reporting tools but provide poor feedback. The Cabinet Member for Corporate Relations welcomed feedback on the website, noted that the navigation can be amended if Members can provide examples of where it could be better, and accepted the comment regarding anticipated demand navigation.

·        The Leader thanked the Committee and wider Members for their comments, and asked the Committee whether it felt there would be benefit in a small Task and Finish Group (TFG) being established to help devise the next survey. Members of the Committee considered this and recommended a TFG be established ahead of the next survey.

50.5  Resolved:

1) That the Committee welcomes the findings of the survey as a snapshot of resident feedback and that further geographic/demographic information be provided as noted above;

2) That the Committee recommends questions in future surveys be more direct and not combine multiple questions in one in order to improve the responses;

3) That the Committee requests contacting the Council via the local member be included as a method of contact in future surveys;

4) That the Committee recommends consideration be given to using an external opinion polling company for future surveys; and

5) That the Committee recommends a Task and Finish Group be established to help devise questions ahead of the next survey.