Car Loan Agreement Between 2 Peopl - DOC

Document Sample
Car Loan Agreement Between 2 Peopl - DOC Powered By Docstoc
					   RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT




Torbay Council's Residents' Research Panel
                 ViewPoint
              Findings from the
        Fifth Survey of Panel Members




                JUNE 2002
                       RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT


            TORBAY COUNCIL'S RESIDENTS’ RESEARCH PANEL




        FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS


                                 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background



 i.    ViewPoint – Torbay Council’s Residents Research Panel - was set up in the summer of
       1998 and was increased in size during early 2000. The panel is broadly representative of
       the population of the Bay and is balanced, ward by ward, using age and gender. This
       means that we can be confident that the results from the full panel are representative of the
       bay as a whole within the range of +/- 2.4%.


ii.    The questionnaire was mailed out to panel members at the start of November 2001 and
       following a reminder a very pleasing 75.0% response rate was achieved. This means that
       we can be confident that the results accurately reflect the profile of the panel as a whole
       within the range of +/– 1.4%


iii.   To enhance the analysis of some questions, a ‘net satisfaction / disagreement / concern’
       figure is quoted within this report. Figures can range between +100 (total agreement /
       satisfaction from all respondents) to –100 (total disagreement / dissatisfaction). A result of
       around zero means there was no clear consensus.


iv.    Some questions in this survey were multiple choice, where respondents could select any
       number of options that applied to them. For these questions, the number of cases and the
       number of responses are clearly stated in the analysis. The number of cases refers to the
       number of respondents that selected at least one option, and the number of responses
       refers to the total number of options that have been selected.




                                                  I                           RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




  v.     The opinions of the whole panel are statistically representative. Generally speaking, this
         means the higher the response rate from the panel on any one opinion, the more weight
         can be given to the result as being representative of what the bay might say. Said another
         way, the opinions of a very small sub-set of the panel should not be taken as statistically
         representative of a bay wide opinion.


 vi.     This fifth ViewPoint questionnaire requested views and opinion on Highway Management,
         Crime and Community Safety, Electronic Government in the Community, Local Health Care
         (commissioned by the Torbay Primary Care Trust), and Children Looked After.


The Management of Torbay’s Highways


Both Highways maintenance and management functions are under review, and the answers of
panellists will form part of this process. In a previous survey (ViewPoint Four) the panel were
asked about highway maintenance. Torbay Council wanted now to look at the overall
management of Highways.


vii.     Roadwork’s co-ordination - Overall the panel were fairly dissatisfied with roadwork’s co-
         ordination throughout the bay (net satisfaction of –22.0), although 22.8% were undecided
         and 27.6% satisfied. Satisfaction of Paignton residents (net satisfaction –18.8) was slightly
         more than for Brixham (-23.3) or Torquay (-24.0). The most common reasons given for
         dissatisfaction were ‘too many excavations throughout Torbay’ (65.4%), and ‘repeated
         excavations in the same road’ (64.7%)


viii.    Enforcement of regulations - Overall, respondents thought that enforcement of regulations
         was carried out effectively by the Council. This particularly applied regarding ‘obstructions
         on the highway caused by skips and scaffolding’ (net effectiveness +23.5), ‘obstructions on
         the footway / pavement’ (+14.5) and ‘removal of fly posting’ (+12.4). However, 55% of
         Torquay panellists thought enforcement action regarding ‘overgrown hedges encroaching
         on the highway’ was ‘ineffective’ (net effectiveness –17.1).


 ix.     Consultation - Across all towns, there were high levels of interest in being consulted on
         highway changes. Most interest was shown in ‘changes in speed limit in your
         neighbourhood’ (average interest level +81.7), and ‘new or changes to one-way traffic
         systems’ (average interest level +79.8). Brixham residents showed significantly less
         interest in consultation about ‘construction of a new road’ (+29.4) than those in Paignton
         (+79.0) and Torquay (+77.6).




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               II
                                                             VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




  x.    Traffic management - Satisfaction was high overall regarding traffic management in
        Torbay, particularly with ‘visibility and clarity of traffic lights for car users’ (net satisfaction
        +73.7), and ‘effectiveness of direction signs’ (+62.4). Lowest satisfaction was with ‘time
        spent in detour from your intended destination (on one-way systems)’ (+14.5), although it
        should be noted that no aspect of traffic management gained a negative satisfaction level.


 xi.    Road and pedestrian safety - High levels of satisfaction were also found with action to
        improve road and pedestrian safety. This applied particularly to ‘clarity and visibility of road
        safety signs in your neighbourhood’ (net satisfaction +40.5), and with ‘clarity of road safety
        markings in your neighbourhood’ (+39.9). Looking at speed limits, 86% of respondents
        lived on roads with a 30mph speed limit; of these 50.4% thought it should be decreased to
        20mph, and 48.5% thought it should stay the same. Of the 1.4% of panellists who lived on
        roads with a 40mph speed limit, the majority (60%) would like to see it reduced to 30mph.


xii.    Future provision of service - Regarding Highways Management, 47.9% of respondents
        would like the entire service to be provided by the Council (as it is at present). 32.7%
        stated a combination of overall management by the Council and routine works by private
        sector. Only 4.3% wanted the whole service run by the private sector.


Crime and Community Safety


Safer Communities Torbay is a partnership of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, Torbay
Council, Devon and Cornwall Probation Service, Devon Fire and Rescue, Torbay Voluntary
Service and the South and West Devon Health Authority. The partnership is currently preparing
it’s next action plan, and wanted to find out the ViewPoint panellists’ personal experiences and
opinions on crime and disorder in Torbay.


xiii.   Problems in local neighbourhoods - The most common problem in panellists’ local
        neighbourhoods was ‘speeding traffic’, with on average 76.8% of respondents across the
        bay seeing this as a ‘problem’. ‘Rubbish / litter lying around regularly’ was also seen as a
        problem by an average of 60.7% of respondents across towns. However, ‘beggars’ and
        ‘graffiti on walls and buildings’ were seen as ‘not a problem’ by over two thirds of
        respondents across towns.


xiv.    Concern about going out at night - Comparing the ViewPoint 5 (2001) results with those
        from Viewpoint 2 (1999), panellists’ levels of concern about going out alone during the
        evening/night have fallen. Net concern dropped from +21.0 (high concern) in 1999 to –2.8
        (slight unconcern) in 2001. The biggest fall in concern can be seen for those aged 65+.


                                                     III                                RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
 VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




          Panellists’ concern about leaving their homes empty has also significantly decreased, for
          both during the day (net concern +41.0 in 1999 to +11.2 in 2001), and during the evening /
          at night (+63.0 in 1999 to +39.3 in 2001). This drop is significant across all genders, age
          group and towns.


  xv.     Asked about going out alone in the Torbay town centre panellists visit most often, levels of
          concern were almost twice as high for going out in Torquay, (net concern +66.0), than in
          Paignton (+38.7) or Brixham (+23.7). The most concerned age group was 75+ (net concern
          +62.6); also, 25-34 year olds had a relatively high net concern of +51.0. The main reasons
          for this concern - ‘crowds of youths on the street’ (72.7% of all cases); ‘drunks or vagrants
          on the streets’ (64.1%) and ‘being mugged or robbed’ (57.1%). 24.8% of Torquay visitors
          were concerned that the ‘area had a bad reputation’.


 xvi.     Regarding going out in their local neighbourhoods, the main bay-wide reasons for concern
          about going out in panellists’ local neighbourhoods were ‘being mugged or robbed’ (54% of
          all cases) and ‘physical assault’ (40.4%). Over a third (37.0%) of Torquay residents were
          concerned about ‘drug addicts living in the area’. In line with this, in a separate question,
          panellists across all towns strongly disagreed with the statement ‘I have not noticed any
          drug abuse in the area where I live’ (net agreement of -47.3), suggesting a possible area
          for action here.


xvii.     Concern about crime - On being presented with a list of offences, residents indicated most
          concern about ‘being burgled’ (net concern +70.7), ‘having property / vehicle damaged’
          (+62.8) and ‘being robbed’ (+52.4). Over a third (36.6%) of respondents were concerned
          about ‘being harassed or insulted on public transport’.


xviii.    Experience of car crime - Approximately 1 in 10 respondents indicated that they had been
          a victim of car crime in the last year. Almost two thirds (59.6%) were Torquay residents,
          with 33.6% living in Paignton and 6.8% in Brixham. The majority of victims (71.9%)
          indicated that the crime had taken place on their drive or on the road outside their home.
          Overall, 55.9% had reported the crime to the Police.


 xix.     Experience of crime (other than car) - Only 9.7% of respondents had been a victim of any
          other criminal offence in the last year, most commonly ‘theft of purse/handbag/wallet’
          (17.7% of victims). Of these respondents, 60.8% had reported the crime to the Police.


  xx.     Victims of crime who had not reported the incident were asked to give a reason. 50% of car
          crime victims and 32.4% of victims of other crimes did not report the incident because they


 RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               IV
                                                            VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         felt ‘there was nothing they (the Police) could do’. 28.0% believed their car crime incident
         was ‘too trivial’ to report. It may be of interest that 26.5% of the victims of other crimes
         ‘intended to report it but thought they (the Police) would not be interested’.


 xxi.    27.0% of panellists were members of a Neighbourhood Watch scheme, with membership
         being far greater amongst the older members of the panel. Overall, the scheme is seen as
         effective by the majority of members. The most common reasons for not joining
         Neighbourhood Watch were ‘don’t know how to join (35.2% of cases) and ‘never thought
         about it’ (34.8%).


xxii.    Finally, asked to consider actions that could be taken to improve safety and reduce crime in
         their local neighbourhood, panellists highlighted 'more police patrols' (64.6% of cases),
         'development of community wardens' (39.8%), 'better communication between locals and
         police' (32.3%) and ‘more activities for young people' (32.2%) as the most important for
         their neighbourhood.


 Electronic Government and the Community


 The UK government requires Torbay Council to have 100% of our services accessible on-line i.e.
 through the Internet, by 2005. There is money available from the UK government to help improve
 Internet accessibility and to help the Council with the cost of making services accessible on-line,
 however this has to be bid for with other councils. The results from this section will help the
 Council improve its bid, and the likelihood of it succeeding. The following are some of the main
 findings of this section.


xxiii.   E-mail access - Approximately two thirds of respondents (64.4%) have equipment with
         internet/e-mail access in their homes. Of these, 49.7% have access through a PC/
         personal computer. In line with this, the majority (69.1%) of those respondents who
         regularly access the Internet do so most often from home.


xxiv.    Over a third (35%) of respondents were interested in completing Viewpoint by e-mail, with
         22% interested in participating via the web site. However, the majority (45%) stated they
         would not be interested in completing ViewPoint either by e-mail or through the web site.


xxv.     The majority of panellists (77.3%) had never used the Council’s Internet site. Of those that
         had used the web site, less than 1 in 10 (4.6%) used it more than ‘at least once a month’.
         17.4% used it less than once a month, and 5.6% had used the site ‘less than once in 12
         months’.


                                                    V                                  RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
   VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




 xxvi.      Not surprisingly, over half the panellists (52.1%) stated that ‘free or cheaper access’ would
            encourage them to use the Internet, or use the Internet more. 23.3% stated ‘free or
            cheaper lessons’ would encourage them, implying again that cost is an important issue
            here. Lessons for beginners, demonstrations, and advice on Internet use were also
            highlighted as encouraging factors.


xxvii.      Significantly, 75% of panellists were unaware that ‘training and support with using the
            Internet’ is available in libraries, whilst 52.9% were unaware of the free Internet access.
            Approximately half of respondents were interested in making use of these facilities in the
            future. Currently only 1.9% of respondents who access the Internet regularly do so in a
            public library.


xxviii.     When asked what would be the most convenient location for public access to the Internet,
            over a third of respondents (38.8%) chose libraries (improved access). ‘Supermarkets
            /shopping centres’ (23.8% of cases) and ‘post offices’ (11.7%) were also popular. Post
            offices were also the most popular second and third most convenient locations.


 xxix.      Looking to the future, panellists indicated a preference for Torbay Council developing a call
            centre rather than Internet based services. Almost three quarters (71.1%) agreed that they
            would ‘prefer to speak to a person by telephone than use the organisation’s web site’,
            whilst 70.7% agree that ‘Torbay Council should give priority to developing a call centre
            because of it’s large retired population who may not know how to use the internet’.



   Local Health Care


   Torbay Primary Care Trust first consulted ViewPoint panellists in the year 2000, just before it
   came into existence, taking over a range of facilities from the local health authority. In line with the
   government’s modernisation agenda, Torbay PCT has commissioned this further consultation of
   panellists as it develops and takes over more facilities (section 1). In addition, the trust wished to
   carry out a unique health and wellbeing survey, using the panel as a sample (section 2).


 xxx.       Looking at section 1, panellists gave their opinions regarding levels of expenditure on six
            key health objectives. For each objective, there were a number of key actions. Panellists
            were asked whether they thought resources for each one should be increased, stay the
            same or be decreased. Overall, 82.4% of respondents thought resources should be
            increased, 16.2% thought they should stay the same, and 1.5% thought the PCT should
            decrease resources.



   RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               VI
                                                              VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




 xxxi.    The objective most panellists (94.9%) wanted to see an increase of resources for was
          developing better ways to treat disease, by reducing waiting times. The objective most
          panellists (23.2%) wanted to see resource levels to stay the same was for developing
          easier access to health and social care services by different age groupings. The objective
          most panellists (3.03%), wanted to see resources decreased for was for developing better
          ways to prevent disease, through encouraging exercise, support to stop smoking, and
          rehabilitation of drug addicts.


xxxii.    Looking at section 2 and focusing on physical activities, the most popular physical activity
          was ‘brisk walking’, with 78.6% of respondents overall participating at least once a week,
          most commonly 45-54 year olds. 64.4% of respondents did ‘Hard physical work – DIY at
          home/garden’ at least once a week, again most commonly by the 45-54 age group.


xxxiii.   When given a range of options regarding doing more physical activity, 28.0% of
          respondents stated they would like to do more physical activity and 16.1% stated they
          would not. The most significant result from the other options provided was that 40.9% of
          respondents stated they were unable to do more physical activity due to a medical problem
          or disability. This high level could be said to reflect the ‘top heavy’ age structure of the bay,
          mirrored in the panel.


xxxiv.    Looking at smoking, a significant majority of panellists (81.1%) stated they had never
          smoked or had stopped more than 6 months ago. 13.5% were regular smokers of at least
          one cigarette, cigar or pipe per day. Encouragingly, of those who did smoke, over half
          (52.8%) stated they ‘would like to give up some time in the future’, and 18.4% were
          intending to give up in a matter of months. However, 28.9% stated they did not want to give
          up. Numbers regarding smoking were split fairly evenly between genders.


xxxv.     67.9% of respondents stated they drank alcoholic drinks at least once a week. Of these,
          the vast majority (83.6%) drank below the recommended health level (14 units per week for
          women and 21 units per week for men). Regarding the non drinkers, females outnumbered
          males on a ratio of two to one with over 60% of people being aged over 55.


xxxvi.    Respondents were then asked to estimate their height and weight so that a Body Mass
          Index (BMI) could be calculated, by dividing weight in kilograms by height in metres
          squared. A BMI of over 25 and below 30 is said, from a health perspective, to be
          overweight, with a BMI of over 30 referring to obesity. Of those respondents who
          answered, 41.5% had a BMI indicating ‘overweight’. Whilst not directly comparable, results
          from the 1999 Health Survey for England (37.6) using a standardised rate per 100 persons,
          show that this sample of people have a slightly higher BMI level than would be expected.


                                                     VII                                 RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
    VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




    Children Looked After


    Under the Children’s Act, the Council must meet the needs of any child in Torbay whom, for
    whatever reason, requires suitable accommodation. At the time of the questionnaire, Torbay
    Council’s Social Services Directorate had 220 ‘looked after’ children. Although every ‘looked after’
    child is considered on an individual basis, it is very helpful to have baywide opinions on issues and
    resources regarding the needs and priorities of these children.


xxxvii.      Presented with a list of possible places a child could live (if not with their own family),
             panellists were asked to rank their preferences. The panel’s preferred option was ‘with their
             extended family’. The majority of panellists did not want to see ‘looked after’ children
             placed ‘in a children’s home’, giving this as their least preferred option.


xxxviii.     Again, considering ranked priorities for ‘looked after’ children, panellists clearly stated that
             ‘the safety of the child’ was their highest priority, with ‘providing a stable, secure
             environment for the child’ coming second. Panellists stated that ‘reducing the cost to the
             Council of children looked after’ was their lowest priority.


 xxxix.      Looking at the awareness of facts and benefits of being a foster carer, over three quarters
             of respondents (77% unaware) were unaware that ‘basic allowances are tax free and don’t
             affect benefits’. 73.0% were unaware that ‘the period of time for fostering is a matter of
             choice for the carer’. Just under half of respondents were aware that fostering allowances
             cover costs of children placed (49.7% aware), that there are training session to prepare
             foster carers (47.3%), and that foster carers can work part time (44.9%).


     xl.     Asked about awareness of types of fostering, over half the panel were aware of short-term
             placements (55.6% aware), and long term placements (53.9%). However, only 18% were
             aware of the Supported Lodgings Scheme (offering a room in your home to a young person
             who is learning to live).


    xli.     Only a very small percentage of respondents (0.3%) were already foster carers, although
             nearly one in 10 (8%) indicated they were ‘quite or ‘very’ interested in becoming a foster
             carer. The vast majority (91.6%) stated they were not interested in becoming a foster carer.


    xlii.    In this multiple response question, of those respondents who indicated an interest in being
             a foster carer, 51.5% of cases stated that knowing that ‘the period of time for fostering is a
             matter of choice for the fosterer’ increased their interest. 46.4% of cases were encouraged


    RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               VIII
                                                  VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




 by knowing foster carers can work full-time, and 45.4% of cases were encouraged by the
 training sessions organised by Social Services to prepare foster carers. These final results
 must be viewed bearing in mind the small numbers involved in becoming a foster carer.




Geoff Chamings
Research Manager
Strategic Services Directorate
Strategy & Research Division
Tel. (01803) 208827




Jonathan Williams                          Lucy Hoare
Researcher                                 Researcher
Strategic Services Directorate             Strategic Services Directorate
Strategy and Research Division             Strategy and Research Division
Tel. (01803) 208829                        Tel. (01803) 208839




                                          IX                                 RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               X
                                          VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




        TORBAY COUNCIL’S RESIDENTS’ RESEARCH PANEL




      FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS


                              CONTENTS


1 INTRODUCTION                                                                                    1
 Background…………………………………………………………………………………………………....                                              1
 Methodology………………………..………………………………………………………………..                                                 1


2 HIGHWAY MANAGEMENT                                                                              2
 Roadworks co-ordination……………………………………………………………………………………....                                      3
 Enforcement actions………………………………………………………………………………………....                                         4
 Consultation options………………………………………………………………………………....……....                                     6
 Aspects of traffic management.…………………………………………………………………....…….....                               7
 Road & pedestrian safety…………………………………………………………………………....………..                                    9
 Speed limits………..………………………………………………………………………………....……....                                      10
 Future provision……………………………………………………………………………………....……....                                     11



3 CRIME & COMMUNITY SAFETY                                                                      12
 Neighbourhood problems…………………………………………………………………………....……....                                   13
 Concern about going out…………………………………………………………………………....………....                                 16
 Concern about crime…..…………………………………………………………………………....………....                                  22
 Experience of crime………………………………………………………………………………....………....                                   27
 Precautions……………..…………………………………………………………………………....………....                                      31
 Neighbourhood watch....…………………………………………………………………………....………....                                 33
 Future actions…………..…………………………………………………………………………....………....                                    37



4 ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT & THE COMMUNITY                                                         38
 Access to computers / e-mail……………………………………………………………………....……....                               39
 The internet……………..…………………………………………………………………………....………....                                     42
 Future development…..…………………………………………………………………………....………....                                   48


                                   XI                                RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




   Future actions…………..…………………………………………………………………………....………....         52



5 LOCAL HEALTH CARE                                                    54
   Future resources levels..…………………………………………………………………………....……....     55
   Health & well-being survey………………………………………………………………………....………....    56



6 CHILDREN LOOKED AFTER                                                64
   Where they should live..…………………………..………………………………………… …....………....   64
   Priorities for action……...………………………………………………………………………....………....    65
   Foster carers..…………..…………………………………………………………………………....………....        66


   APPENDIX
   Appendix A – Q40 ‘Other’ actions                                    72
   Appendix B – Top-Line Tables – Local Health Care                    81




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               XII
                      RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT


                                       MAIN REPORT


          FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS

1     INTRODUCTION


Background


1.1   ViewPoint - Torbay Council’s Residents Research Panel - is one of the ways that the council
      listens to the people of Torbay. It is made up of a broadly representative group of local
      people who receive ViewPoint questionnaires twice a year, asking for their views on a variety
      of local and national issues facing the council and Torbay as a whole.


Methodology


1.2   The Torbay Residents’ research panel was set up during the summer of 1998, following a
      mail out to 10,000 local residents who were selected at random from the electoral register.
      Nearly 2,000 residents returned the recruitment questionnaire. The 1991 Census was then
      used to ‘balance’ this sub-sample, ward by ward, using quotas for age and gender. This
      ensured that the panel was broadly representative of the population of Torbay. During early
      2000 the panel was increased in size, this now means that we can be confident that the
      results accurately reflected the profile of Torbay as a whole within a range of +/– 2.4%.


1.3   In November 2001, the fifth postal survey of panel members was undertaken and following a
      reminder, a pleasing response rate of 75.0% was obtained. This means that we can be
      statistically confident that the results accurately reflect the views of the panel as a whole
      within a range of +/- 1.4%.


1.4   This fifth ViewPoint questionnaire requested views and opinion on:


          Highway Management
          Crime and Community Safety
          Electronic Government in the Community
          Local Health Care, (commissioned by the Torbay Primary Care Trust) and
          Children Looked After




                                                1                           RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




1.5      To help analyse some questions, a ‘net satisfaction / disagreement / concern’ figure is
         quoted. This figure is derived from the negative result (e.g. dissatisfaction or disagreement)
         being subtracted from the positive (satisfaction / agreement) to give a positive or negative
         ‘balance’. For example, a satisfaction level of 70% minus a dissatisfaction level of 10% will
         give a ‘net satisfaction’ figure of +60. Similarly, a satisfaction level of 40% minus a
         dissatisfaction level of 60% will give a ‘net satisfaction’ level of –20 (a minus level of
         satisfaction means that respondents are dissatisfied). Figures can vary between +100 (total
         agreement / satisfaction from all respondents) and –100 (total disagreement /
         dissatisfaction), a result of around zero means there was no clear consensus.


1.6      Some questions in this survey were multiple choice, where respondents could select any
         number of options that applied to them, such as Questions 9A and 9B, and a number of
         electronic government questions. For these questions, the number of cases and the number
         of responses are clearly stated in the analysis. The number of cases refers to the number of
         respondents that selected at least one option, and the number of responses refers to the
         total number of options that have been selected.


1.7      Where responses do not add up to the total, this may be due to multiple responses or
         computer rounding effects. In a number of cases, any one question may have been
         answered by a sub-set of the panel, for example those panellists who regularly use the
         Internet. Wherever this occurs the total base number of panellists is clearly stated at the
         bottom of each table, as well as the confidence interval (+/- a percentage) at a 95%
         confidence level.


2        THE MANAGEMENT OF TORBAY’S HIGHWAYS


2.1      In the previous ViewPoint survey (ViewPoint Four) the panel were asked about Highway
         maintenance. For this questionnaire, Torbay Council wanted to look at the separate issue of
         the overall management of Highways. Both highways maintenance and management
         functions are being fundamentally reviewed, and the answers of panellists will form part of
         this process.




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               2
                                                                VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 1: Please state how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the roadwork’s co-
ordination within Torbay.


2.2    The council is responsible for the co-ordination of those organisations (such as the utilities
       companies) that carry out road works (works on / to the public highway). Works have to be
       undertaken to maintain the highway and the underlying utilities, e.g. gas, water and
       electricity. After reading a brief explanation of the complexities involved in Highway services,
       panellists were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with roadwork’s co-ordination
       within Torbay.


2.3    Table 1 shows that overall the panel is fairly dissatisfied with roadwork’s co-ordination
       throughout the Bay (net satisfaction of –22.0). However, it should be noted that a large
       percentage (22.8%) were undecided (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied), and 27.6% were
       satisfied.


2.4    Looking at a geographical analysis, satisfaction levels are similar in all three of Torbay’s
       Towns. However, residents of Paignton (net satisfaction of -18.8) are slightly less dissatisfied
       with roadwork’s co-ordination than those panellists that live in Brixham (-23.3) or Torquay
       (-24.0).


       Table 1.     ViewPoint Respondents’ satisfaction with road work co-ordination in
                    Torbay.

                                 Very        Dissatisfied     Neither      Satisfied      Very              Net
                              Dissatisfied                   satisfied                   Satisfied      Satisfaction
                                                                nor
                                                            dissatisfied
                                Row %          Row %          Row %          Row %         Row %

Torbay (1,221)                   11.6           38.0           22.8           26.5           1.1            -22.0
  Brixham                         8.3           41.5           23.8           24.9           1.6            -23.3
  Paignton                       10.8           37.5           22.2           28.6           0.9            -18.8
  Torquay                        13.3           37.3           22.8           25.6           1.0            -24.0

Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)


Question 1A: If you answered ‘very dissatisfied’ or ‘dissatisfied’ to Question 1,
please explain why.


2.5    The 606 ViewPoint Panellists who stated that they were ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ in
       Question 1 were then asked to select reasons why this was so from a pre-determined list.
       Some 589 went on to answer why. These respondents could select more than one reason


                                                       3                                 RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         and therefore the percentages shown in Table 2 below total to more than 100% (229.9%).
         The number of cases and responses are shown at the bottom of the table.


         Table 2.        Panellists reasons for dissatisfaction with roadwork’s co-ordination within
                         Torbay (respondents could select any number of reasons).

                                                                                           % of cases

A     Too many excavations throughout Torbay                                                  65.4
B     Repeated excavations in the same road                                                   64.7
C     Inadequate traffic management (e.g. temporary traffic lights / diversions / signs)      27.8
D     Safety on road and pavement during streetworks                                          19.2
E     Inappropriate timing of works                                                           47.4
F     Other reasons                                                                            5.4

Note : 589 cases, 1,354 responses
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




2.6      Approximately two thirds of these respondents (65.4%) stated they were dissatisfied due to
         ‘too many excavations throughout Torbay’. It is perhaps more important to note that a similar
         number (64.7%) stated they were dissatisfied because of ‘repeated excavations in the same
         road’. This result might flow from the complexity of works co-ordination, or show that the
         Council may need to revisit its role in co-ordinating road works in Torbay. Only 19.2% of
         respondents were dissatisfied due to the ‘safety of road and pavements during streetworks’
         and 27.8% were dissatisfied because of ‘inadequate traffic management’. (Remember that
         ‘cases’ refers to the number of respondents that selected at least one option, and
         ‘responses’ refers to the total number of options that have been selected.)


Question 2: Overall, please say how effectively the following enforcement actions are
carried out in Torbay.


2.7      The panel was given a list of enforcement actions that the Council is responsible for with
         regard to the public highway, and asked to comment on how effectively they think each is
         carried out. When answering this question, panellists were reminded that enforcement on
         the highway is a police matter.


2.8      As Table 3 below illustrates, overall, respondents thought that the Council enforces
         regulations effectively. The aspects that respondents felt were enforced most effectively
         were ‘obstructions on the highway caused by skips and scaffolding ‘ (net effectiveness
         +23.5), ‘obstructions on the footway / pavement’ (+14.5) and ‘removal of fly posting‘ (+12.4).



RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               4
                                                                   VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




        The panel were less complementary with regard to ‘overgrown hedges encroaching on the
        highway’ (-17.1 net effectiveness).




        Table 3.      Panellists views on the effectiveness of enforcement actions carried out
                      within Torbay.

                                        Very         Quite         No         Quite         Very              Net
                                     ineffective   Ineffective   Opinion     effective    Effective      effectiveness
                                       Row %         Row %       Row %        Row %         Row %

Torbay
   Obstructions on the footway /
   pavement (1,159)                     6.6          26.2         19.8         44.3           3.0            +14.5
   Removal of fly posting (1,122)       4.5          18.1         42.4         31.6           3.4            +12.4
   Overgrown hedges encroaching
   on the highway (1,195)              13.3          38.8         12.9         31.4           3.6             -17.1
   Obstructions on the highway
   caused by skips and scaffolding      4.1          20.5         27.4         43.2           4.9            +23.5
   (1,149)
Brixham
   Obstructions on the footway /
   pavement                             6.7          21.3         20.8         46.6           4.5            +23.1
   Removal of fly posting               4.7          11.0         45.3         35.5           3.5            +23.3
   Overgrown hedges encroaching
   on the highway                      13.8          34.0         14.4         34.0           3.7             +0.6
   Obstructions on the highway
   caused by skips and scaffolding      3.4          19.8         29.4         42.9           4.5            +24.2
Paignton
   Obstructions on the footway /
   pavement                             6.2          29.0         15.6         47.3           2.0            +14.1
   Removal of fly posting               3.8          17.0         43.1         32.2           3.8            +15.2
   Overgrown hedges encroaching
   on the highway                      12.2          36.9         13.7         34.1           3.1            +11.9
   Obstructions on the highway
   caused by skips and scaffolding      3.7          21.1         26.6         44.0           4.5            +23.7
Torquay
   Obstructions on the footway /
   pavement                             6.9          25.8         22.5         41.4           3.3            +12.0
   Removal of fly posting               4.9          21.0         41.0         30.0           3.1             +7.2
   Overgrown hedges encroaching
   on the highway                      13.9          41.7         11.9         28.6           3.9             -23.1
   Obstructions on the highway
   caused by skips and scaffolding      4.6          20.2         27.4         42.6           5.3            +23.1

Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)


2.9     A geographic analysis of this question shows that panellists from all three towns think that
        generally, enforcement action taken by Torbay Council is effective. Significantly more
        residents of Brixham think enforcement action is effective with regard to ‘obstructions on the
        footway / pavement’ (+23.5 net effectiveness) than those that reside in Paignton (+14.1) and
        Torquay (+12.0). Similarly, Brixham residents think that ‘removal of fly posting’ (+23.3) is
        carried out more effectively than Paignton (+15.2) and Torquay (+7.2) respondents. It is also
        interesting to note that over 55.0% of Torquay panellists think that enforcement action with
        regard to ‘overgrown hedges encroaching on the highway’ is ‘ineffective. When interpreting
                                                         5                                  RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         the results regarding ‘removal of fly posting’ the significant proportion of respondents with ‘no
         opinion’ should be noted.


Question 3: How interested would you be in being consulted on the following
changes, if they were to happen in the nearest town in Torbay to where you live?


2.10     Panellists were first asked to state which town they lived nearest to. Panellists who failed to
         answer this section of the question were excluded from the analysis. The numbers involved,
         i.e. failed to answer, were insignificant, and did not distort the results in any way. The
         natural tendency of panellists to give a positive response should be taken into account here.
         The three towns are looked at separately in the following analysis.


2.11     Figure 1 shows that respondents from Brixham indicated a high level of interest in being
         consulted on all changes. Most interest was shown in ‘changes in speed limit in your
         neighbourhood’ (net interest +81.8), ‘new or changes to one-way traffic systems’ (+76.9) and
         ‘new traffic calming measures’ (+73.3). The least interest was shown in consultation on
         ‘construction of a new road’ (+29.4). It should also be noted that a significant number of
         Brixham panellists (over 19%) had ‘no opinion’ about being consulted on ‘new direction
         signs’.
         Figure 1. Respondents net interest in being consulted on changes - Brixham.


 Changes in speed limit in                                                                                81.2
                                                                                                           82.0
   your neighbourhood                                                                                      81.8


   New or changes to one-                                                                               79.6
                                                                                                           82.8
     way traffic systems                                                                             76.9

                                                                                     63.9
         New traffic control
                                                                                            70.5
              signals                                                                        72.0

       New traffic calming                                                                  69.9
       measures e.g. speed                                                                       75.4
           bumps etc.                                                                          73.3

                                                                                 59.4
                                                                                                     Torquay
        New direction signs                                                    57.7                  Paignton
                                                                                   61.6              Brixam

                                                                                                   74.3
  Change in layout of an
                                                                                                       77.9
 existing road – reshaping                                              39.4


     Construction of a new                                                                            77.6
                                                                                                       79.0
             road                                                29.4




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               6
                                                            VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




2.12   Paignton residents also showed high levels of interest in being consulted. Again, most
       interest was shown in ‘new or changes to one-way traffic systems’ (net interest +82.8) and
       ‘changes in speed limit in your neighbourhood’ (+82.0). Interestingly, and in contrast to
       Brixham, Paignton residents were very interested in being consulted on ‘construction of a
       new road’ (+ 79.0). However, in common with Brixham, over 22% of respondents had ‘no
       opinion’ on being consulted on ‘new direction signs’.




2.13   Torquay residents were also very interested in being consulted. Similar to Paignton, the
       changes panellists would most like to be consulted on were ‘changes in speed limit in your
       neighbourhood’ (net interest +81.2), ‘new or changes to one-way traffic systems’ (+79.6) and
       ‘construction of a new road’ (+77.6). Again, in common with the other towns, there were a
       large number of panellists uninterested in consultation on ‘new direction signs’. Over 19% of
       respondents indicated they have ‘no opinion’ on the issue.




Question 4: Overall, please say how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with these
aspects of traffic management in Torbay.




2.14   Panellists were asked to indicate how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with other aspects of
       traffic management in Torbay. Table 4 below gives the detail. When studying the results it is
       pleasing to note that no aspect gained a negative ‘net satisfaction level’. Aspects that the
       residents were most happy with were ‘visibility and clarity of traffic lights for car users’ (net
       satisfaction of +73.7) and ‘effectiveness of direction signs in guiding you to your destination’
       (+62.4).




2.15   It is perhaps unsurprising that ‘time spent in detour from your intended destination (on one-
       way systems)’ only gained a satisfaction level of +14.5. It is of interest that panel members
       seemed unconcerned about ‘facilities for people with special needs, e.g. visually and hearing
       impaired, at pedestrian crossings’ giving it a low satisfaction rating of only +17.0.




                                                   7                                 RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




           Table 4.          Residents’ satisfaction with aspects of traffic management in Torbay.

                                                            Very               Fairly      No opinion    Fairly       Very          Net
                                                         dissatisfied       dissatisfied     / not      satisfied   satisfied   satisfaction
                                                                                           applicable
                                                           Row %              Row %         Row %       Row %       Row %

Changes to roads & junctions
Improvement in traffic flow on roads / junctions
that have had changes in their layout e.g.                  4.0               16.2           20.7        51.5         7.5        +38.8
reshaping (1,194)
Improvements in safety on roads / junctions that
have changes in their layout e.g. reshaping                 4.5               13.0           24.0        51.6         6.9        +41.0
(1,178)
Direction signs
Effectiveness of signs in guiding you to your
destination (1,193)                                         1.4               11.0           12.8        61.4        13.3        +62.4
Visibility / legibility of the signs (1,182)                1.7               14.3           10.5        58.4        15.1        +57.5
Siting of signs at useful places (1,174)                    1.5               11.9           13.5        59.8        13.2        +59.5
Sufficient number of signs to guide you to your
destination (1,186)                                         2.4               12.9           14.1        57.8        12.9        +55.4
One-way systems
Usefulness of signs in guiding you around the
one-way system (1,194)                                      2.1               16.7           18.7        53.4         9.1        +43.8
Time spent in detour from your intended
destination (1,185)                                         7.3               23.3           24.4        41.6         3.5        +14.5
Traffic controlled junctions – for car
users
Visibility and clarity of traffic lights for car users
(1,167)                                                     0.8               6.3            12.3        60.6        20.1        +73.7
Timing of traffic lights for car users (1,162)              3.7               18.0           12.6        54.5        11.3        +44.1
Safety of car users at traffic controlled junctions
(1,166)                                                     1.5               8.7            19.1        61.5         9.2        +60.5
Easy to follow direction of traffic at junctions
(1,162)                                                     0.9               10.8           16.0        60.2        12.0        +60.6
Pedestrian controlled crossings – for
pedestrians
Length of time for lights to change (1,196)                 1.8               14.5           8.6         61.4        13.7        +58.8
Length of time given to cross road (1,193)                  4.7               23.0           8.2         53.7        10.4        +36.5
Pedestrian safety at crossings (1,184)                      3.4               14.0           10.3        60.3        12.0        +54.9
Facilities for people with special needs e.g.
visually and hearing impaired at crossings (1,183)          6.5               18.9           32.1        35.9         6.5        +17.0

Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




Question 4A: If you are dissatisfied, please choose the issue you would most like to
comment further on and state the location / road name and nature of dissatisfaction.


2.16       In Question 4A panellists were given the opportunity to put forward any cause of
           dissatisfaction they might have with traffic management in Torbay. They were asked to state
           a location or road name, and then give a brief description of why they were dissatisfied.
           Respondents were not constrained by any form of list for this question. The open-ended text
           comments made here have not been grouped or analysed in any way. However, the
           information is available for further analysis should that be required.




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                          8
                                                                         VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 5: Overall, please say how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the
following actions of Torbay Council to improve road and pedestrian safety.



2.17     Panellists were next presented with a list of actions Torbay Council has taken to improve
         road and pedestrian safety, and were asked to state how satisfied or dissatisfied they were
         with each action. It is pleasing to note that respondents generally showed a high level of
         satisfaction with most of the actions listed.


2.18     Table 5 shows that this was especially true for ‘clarity and visibility of road safety signs in
         your neighbourhood’ (net satisfaction +40.5) and ‘clarity of road safety markings in your
         neighbourhood’ (+39.9). These results support the opinions of the panel expressed in
         Question 4, which also identified ‘direction signs’ as an area of satisfaction. Other actions
         that respondents indicated a high level of satisfaction on were ‘sufficient number of school
         crossing patrols’ (+24.8) and ‘the effectiveness of the promotion of road safety in Torbay to
         the general public’ (+14.2).


         Table 5.       Respondents satisfaction with actions Torbay Council have taken to
                        improve road and pedestrian safety.



                                              Very        Dissatisfied   No opinion      Satisfied       Very           Net
                                           dissatisfied                     / not                      satisfied    satisfaction
                                                                         applicable
                                             Row %          Row %         Row %           Row %         Row %

  Effectiveness of traffic calming or
A speed reducing measures in your             9.6            26.1           27.0           33.8           3.5           +1.6
  neighbourhood (1,213).
  Clarity & visibility of road safety
B signs in your neighbourhood                 4.6            17.7           15.0           57.3           5.5          +40.5
  (1,205).
C Clarity of road safety markings in          4.7            18.2           14.3           56.8           6.0          +39.9
  your neighbourhood (1,205).
D Sufficient availability of child cycle      5.1            12.8           74.0            7.2           0.9           -9.7
  training in Torbay (1,202).
E Quality of child cycle training in          3.4             8.1           80.2            7.1           1.2           -3.3
  Torbay (1,189)
F Sufficient number of school                 2.8             9.2           51.3           33.9           2.8          +24.8
  crossing patrols (1,198).
  The effectiveness of the
G promotion of road safety in Torbay          3.6            15.4           47.7           31.3           2.0          +14.2
  to the public (1,193).
  The effectiveness of the
H promotion of road safety to                 3.4            11.7           62.4           19.8           2.7           +7.3
  schoolchildren (1,201).

Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




                                                              9                                   RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




2.19     When interpreting these results the number of respondents expressing no opinion / not
         applicable must be noted, especially if that number is significant. An example here is that
         over three quarters of the panel stated that they had ‘no opinion / not applicable’ with regard
         to ‘sufficient availability of child cycle training in Torbay’ and ‘quality of child cycle training in
         Torbay’. This however,                does not dilute the opinions given by the respondents who
         expressed them (in this case, a slight majority who were dissatisfied with the actions taken,
         net satisfactions of -9.7 and -3.3 respectively), but it does put them in perspective.




Question 5A and B: Please indicate what the current speed limit is in the road where
you live. If you live in a road with a 30 or 40 M.P.H. speed limit, please state how you
feel about this.




2.20     In this section, panellists were asked to indicate the speed limit for the road where they live.
         If they lived on a road where the speed limit was 30 or 40 M.P.H., they were then asked to
         comment on whether this should be increased, stay the same or be decreased. It must be
         noted that respondents who failed to indicate the speed limit of the road they live on were
         excluded from the analysis of this question.




2.21     The large majority of respondents (85.6%) indicated that they lived on roads with a 30
         M.P.H. speed limit. Amongst these panellists, opinion was almost exactly split between
         ‘decrease (speed limit) to 20 M.P.H.’ (50.4%) and ‘(the speed limit should) stay the same’
         (48.5%). Respondents appeared to have very definite views on this subject, as only 1.1%
         indicated they ‘don’t know’.




2.22     As to be expected, only 1.4% of panellists, less than 20 (<20), indicated that they lived on
         roads with a 40 M.P.H. speed limit. When asked to comment on this limit, 60.0% of them
         indicated they would like is reduced to 30 M.P.H., while 33.3% said it should ‘stay the same’.
         It is interesting to note that not one panellist stated that they would like to see the speed limit
         increased. Due to the small numbers involved in this particular analysis, it is important to
         note that the opinions of this ‘sub-set’ of the panel can in no way be seen as representative.




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               10
                                                              VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




       Table 6.     Panellists feelings on the speed limit in the road where they live

                                                                                                        % of
                                                                                                      Responses

Residents living in 30 M.P.H. roads (934)
Decrease to 20 M.P.H.                                                                                      50.4
Stay the same                                                                                              48.5
Don’t know                                                                                                  1.1
Residents living in 40 M.P.H. roads (<20)
Decrease to 30 M.P.H.                                                                                      60.0
Stay the same                                                                                              33.3
Increase to 50 M.P.H.                                                                                       0.0
Don’t know                                                                                                  6.7

Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading. > indicates a base response less
than the number stated
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)



Question 6: Highways Management functions in Torbay can be provided in a number
of ways. Please indicate your preference from the list below.


2.23   Finally, in the Highways Management section, panellists were given a list of possible ways
       that highways management functions could be provided in Torbay, and were asked to
       comment on which one they would prefer. Almost every member of the panel (base = 1,218)
       answered this question.


2.24   As Figure 2 illustrates, just under half of respondents (47.9%) would prefer the entire service
       to be provided by council staff, as it is at present. Respondents were less than enthusiastic
       about the whole service being run by the private sector consultants and contractors, with
       only 4.3% in favour of this change. A significant number (32.7%) would like to see a
       combination of overall management by council staff and routine works by private sector
       contractors. 15.2% of respondents stated they ‘don’t know’.




                                                    11                                 RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         Figure 2. Residents preference for the provision of highways management functions
                         in Torbay.


                      15.2%
                                                                          Entire service provided by
                                                                          council staff (as present)




                                                                          Entire service provided by
                                                                          private sector consultant and
                                                                  47.9%   contractor


                                                                          Combination of overall
                                                                          management by council staff
      32.7%                                                               and routine works by private
                                                                          sector contractors


                                                                          Don’t know


                                          4.3%




3        CRIME AND COMMUNITY SAFETY


3.1      Safer Communities Torbay is a partnership of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary, Torbay
         Council, Devon and Cornwall Probation Service, Devon Fire and Rescue, Torbay Voluntary
         Service and the South and West Devon Health Authority. These organisations, and others,
         have been working together in Torbay to deliver the objectives of the Community Safety
         Strategy 1999-2002. The partnership is currently preparing it’s next action plan, and wanted
         to find out the ViewPoint panellists’ personal experiences and opinions / thoughts on crime
         and disorder in Torbay.




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               12
                                                               VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 7: Please look at the following list and give your opinion as to the extent
each represents a problem in your local neighbourhood.


3.2      ViewPoint panellists were given a pre-determined list (A to P) and asked to comment on the
         extent each item represented a problem in their local neighbourhood.                    As this question
         relates to the local neighbourhoods of Torbay, an individual analysis of each of the three
         towns was deemed more appropriate. Brixham results are looked at first.


3.3      When studying the answers given by Brixham residents (see Table 7), it is pleasing to note
         that for most options, very few respondents indicated they had ‘no opinion’.                        Perhaps
         surprisingly, the only exceptions to this were ‘unemployment’ (19.1%) and ‘misuse of drugs’
         (17.0). Approximately three-quarters (77.0%) of Brixham residents considered that ‘beggars’
         were ‘not a problem’ in their local neighbourhood. Similarly, they appear to be unconcerned
         with ‘graffiti on walls and buildings’ (73.0% ‘not a problem’), nuisance neighbours (69.7%)
         and ‘joyriding in cars or motorbikes’ (66.7%).


         Table 7.      Extent of problems in Brixham neighbourhoods

                                                                            A problem                           No
                                                   Not a                                          A very      opinion
                                                                     A slight     A serious
                                                  problem   Total                                serious
                                                                     problem      problem
                                                                                                 problem
                                                  Row %     Row %     Row %         Row %        Row %         Row %

A     Lack of appropriate street lighting (189)    61.9     37.6       28.0           4.8           4.8         0.5
B     Nuisance neighbours (188)                    69.7     28.7       23.9           2.1           2.7         1.6
      Rubbish / litter lying around regularly
C
      (193)
                                                   43.5     56.5       33.2          13.0          10.4         0.0
D     Graffiti on walls and buildings (189)        73.0     26.5       19.0           6.9           0.5         0.5
      Vandalism to buildings, cars,
E
      playgrounds etc. (190)
                                                   54.7     45.3       31.1          11.1           3.2         0.0
F     Speeding traffic (190)                       23.7     75.8       42.6          19.5          13.7         0.5
      Cycling, skateboarding or roller blading
G
      on footways (191)
                                                   47.6     52.4       27.7          18.8           5.8         0.0
H     Joyriding in cars or motorbikes (186)        66.7     25.8       16.1          7.0            2.7          7.5
I     Young people ‘hanging around’ (188)          47.3     51.1       34.0          10.1           6.9          1.6
J     Dog nuisance (189)                           40.7     58.7       38.1          14.3           6.3          0.5
K     Misuse of drugs (188)                        53.2     29.8       14.4          10.1           5.3         17.0
      Safety of young people and children
L
      (187)
                                                   46.0     48.1       31.0          10.7           6.4         5.9
M     Unemployment (188)                           45.2     35.6       14.4          12.2           9.0         19.1
      Drunken people causing a nuisance
N
      (192)
                                                   59.4     37.5       24.0           9.9           3.6         3.1
O     Beggars (191)                                77.0     18.3       13.1           3.7           1.6         4.7
P     Abandoned cars (191)                         63.4     31.9       24.1           5.8           2.1         4.7

Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




                                                      13                                RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




3.4      Over three-quarters (75.8%) of respondents living in Brixham who answered this question
         thought that ‘speeding traffic’ was a problem. Nearly one fifth (19.5%) indicated that this was
         ‘a serious problem’ and 13.7% stated that it was ‘a very serious problem’. Other issues
         highlighted as ‘a problem’ included ‘dog nuisance’ (58.7%), ‘rubbish / litter lying around
         regularly’ (56.5%), ‘cycling / skateboarding or roller-blading on footways’ (52.4%) and ‘young
         people hanging around’ (51.1%). Please note the numbers in brackets when interpreting
         these results.


3.5      Looking now at Paignton, Table 8 shows that a significant minority of respondents, as in
         Brixham, had ‘no opinion’ with regard to ‘unemployment’ (18.0%) and ‘misuse of drugs’
         (12.5%). Again in line with Brixham, a majority of panellists identified ‘beggars’ (77.5%) and
         ‘graffiti on walls and buildings’ (73.8%) as not being a problem in the neighbourhood they live
         in. However, in contrast to Brixham, 67.3% of Paignton panellists stated ‘misuse of drugs’
         was ‘not a problem’.
         Table 8.        Extent of problems in Paignton neighbourhoods

                                                                                    A problem
                                                              Not a                                    A very     No
                                                                               A slight   A serious
                                                             problem   Total                          serious   opinion
                                                                               problem    problem
                                                                                                      problem
                                                             Row %     Row %   Row %       Row %      Row %     Row %

A     Lack of appropriate street lighting (423)               64.8     34.3     27.4        4.0        2.8       0.9
B     Nuisance neighbours (424)                               72.6     27.4     22.2        2.8        2.4       0.0
      Rubbish / litter lying around regularly
C
      (426)
                                                              37.3     62.4     41.1       15.5        5.9       0.2
D     Graffiti on walls and buildings (189)                   73.8     25.5     19.1        4.5        1.9       0.7
      Vandalism to buildings, cars,
E
      playgrounds etc. (424)
                                                              53.8     45.3     29.6       11.1        4.5       0.9
F     Speeding traffic (422)                                  21.6     77.9     40.8       22.3        14.8      0.5
      Cycling, skateboarding or roller blading
G
      on footways (426)
                                                              46.2     52.1     33.0       10.1        9.0       1.7
H     Joyriding in cars or motorbikes (424)                   68.8     23.6     15.2       5.0         3.3       7.6
I     Young people ‘hanging around’ (420)                     57.1     41.5     31.0       5.9         4.5       1.4
J     Dog nuisance (422)                                      49.1     50.5     34.1       10.4        5.9       0.5
K     Misuse of drugs (422)                                   67.3     20.2     10.8       6.5         2.9      12.5
      Safety of young people and children
L
      (416)
                                                              55.1     40.1     27.3        8.6        4.3       4.8
M     Unemployment (421)                                      46.2     35.8     19.2       10.4        6.2      18.0
      Drunken people causing a nuisance
N
      (422)
                                                              65.9     30.6     21.6        6.2        2.8       3.6
O     Beggars (422)                                           77.5     18.7     12.6        3.1        3.1       3.8
P     Abandoned cars (422)                                    62.6     34.6     23.5        6.4        4.7       2.8

Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)


3.6      The majority of respondents living in Paignton (77.9%) held the view that ‘speeding traffic’
         was a problem, 22.3% thought it was ‘a serious problem’. A large proportion (14.8%)
         regarded ‘speeding traffic’ as ‘a very serious problem’, along with ‘rubbish lying around

RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                   14
                                                               VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         regularly’ (62.4%), ‘vandalism to buildings, cars, playgrounds etc.’ (45.3%) and ‘dog
         nuisance’ (50.5%).


3.7      As with Brixham and Paignton respondents, a high percentage of panellists living in Torquay
         had ‘no opinion’ with regard to ‘unemployment’ (18.8%) and ‘misuse of drugs’ (13.3%). Table
         9 below shows that over two thirds of Torquay panellists considered that ‘beggars’ (73.2%),
         ‘graffiti on walls and buildings’ (71.6%), ‘joyriding in cars or motorbikes’ (68.3%) and
         ‘nuisance neighbours’ (68.1%) were ‘not a problem’ in their neighbourhood. Similar to
         Brixham and Paignton, 63.8% of Torquay residents identified ‘lack of appropriate street
         lighting’ as ‘not a problem’.


3.8      Again, a large majority of Torquay respondents (76.8%) regarded ‘speeding traffic’ as a
         problem. Over one fifth (21.4%) indicated that this was ‘a serious problem’ and 16.1%
         considered it ‘a very serious problem’. Approximately two thirds of Torquay panellists
         (63.3%) also thought ‘rubbish / litter lying around regularly’ was a problem, with 23.8%
         seeing it as a ‘serious’ or ‘very serious’ problem.


         Table 9.     Extent of problems in Torquay neighbourhoods

                                                                            A problem
                                                   Not a                                          A very        No
                                                                     A slight     A serious
                                                  problem   Total                                serious      opinion
                                                                     problem      problem
                                                                                                 problem
                                                  Row %     Row %     Row %         Row %        Row %         Row %

A     Lack of appropriate street lighting (594)    63.8     34.8       27.1           5.6           2.2         1.3
B     Nuisance neighbours (589)                    68.1     30.6       21.4           6.3           2.9         1.4
      Rubbish / litter lying around regularly
C
      (605)
                                                   36.4     63.3       39.5          15.0           8.8         0.3
D     Graffiti on walls and buildings (598)        71.6     26.9       20.7           4.7           1.5         1.5
      Vandalism to buildings, cars,
E
      playgrounds etc. (595)
                                                   47.2     50.9       35.8           9.7           5.4         1.8
F     Speeding traffic (598)                       23.1     76.8       39.3          21.4          16.1         0.2
      Cycling, skateboarding or roller blading
G
      on footways (601)
                                                   55.7     43.4       29.6           8.0           5.8         0.8
H     Joyriding in cars or motorbikes (599)        68.3     23.4       14.9          4.5            4.0          8.3
I     Young people ‘hanging around’ (599)          50.1     48.4       33.1          9.2            6.2          1.5
J     Dog nuisance (601)                           50.9     48.1       30.9          11.3           5.8          1.0
K     Misuse of drugs (596)                        59.9     26.8       12.8          8.2            5.9         13.3
      Safety of young people and children
L
      (595)
                                                   48.7     42.0       28.2           9.6           4.2         9.2
M     Unemployment (592)                           48.3     32.9       18.2          10.0           4.7         18.8
      Drunken people causing a nuisance
N
      (600)
                                                   55.2     41.0       24.5           7.3           9.2         3.8
O     Beggars (600)                                73.2     22.8       8.8           5.7            8.3         4.0
P     Abandoned cars (599)                         48.7     47.2       28.5          10.2           8.5         4.0

Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)



                                                      15                                RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 8A: How concerned or unconcerned are you about going out alone in your
local neighbourhood during the evening / night?


3.9      Back in the second ViewPoint survey, we asked panellists how concerned or unconcerned
         they were about going out alone in their local neighbourhood during the daytime, and during
         the evening / night. With regard to going out alone during the daytime, only 14.0% of
         respondents indicated that they were ‘concerned’. In contrast, a relatively high number of
         respondents (52.0%) stated they were concerned about going out alone during the evening /
         night.


3.10     So that comparisons could be made with the main area of concern, panellists were again
         asked about their concern for going out alone in their local neighbourhood, but only during
         the evening / night (see Figure 3). Results indicate that, across the Bay, the net concern rate
         has fallen from +21.0 (quite high concern) in 1999 to –2.8 (slight unconcern) in 2001. In this
         questionnaire, Table 10 shows 37.2% of residents stated they were ‘concerned’ about going
         out during the evening / night, compared with 52.0% in 1999; a decrease of 14.8%. It is
         important to note when making the comparison that the panel was 1,000 strong for the
         second ViewPoint, where as this number has increased to approximately 1,600 for ViewPoint
         Five.
         Figure 3. Respondents level of concern for going out alone in their local
                         neighbourhood during the evening / night, ViewPoint Two and Five


                                                                                               ViewPoint Five (2001)
                                                                    13.3
       Very unconcerned                                                                        ViewPoint Two (1999)
                                                             11.0



                                                                                             26.6
      Fairly unconcerned
                                                                              19.0



 Neither concerned nor                                                               22.9
     unconcerned                                                           17.0



                                                                                             27.1
        Fairly concerned
                                                                                                           34.0



                                                       10.0
         Very concerned
                                                                              19.0


                            0.0         5.0         10.0            15.0      20.0    25.0          30.0   35.0        40.0




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                        16
                                                                VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




3.11     A gender analysis of this question (see Table 10) shows that back in 1999 approximately
         twice as many females as males were concerned about going out during the evening / night.
         It is then pleasing for the Safer Communities Torbay partnership that the 2001 survey shows
         concern among females has decreased by 17.6%. Male concern has also decreased by
         11.3%.


3.12     Again, when studying an age group analysis, it is pleasing to note that levels of concern
         have decreased across all age groups. However, it is the more mature age groups (65+
         year-olds, where concern was highest in 1999), that show the most significant decreases
         (17.7% 65-74 year-olds and 19.6% 75+ year-olds respectively). It is also interesting in note
         that residents of Paignton, who in 1999 showed the most concern, are now (in 2001) less
         concerned than Torquay panellists.


         Table 10.    Respondents level of concern for going out alone in their local
                      neighbourhood during the evening / night.

                                                                     Concerned Panellists
                                                             1999 –          2001 –       Change
                                                          ViewPoint Two ViewPoint Five 1999-2001
                                                               %               %            %

Torbay                                                           52.0                    37.2                -14.8

Gender
  Male                                                           37.0                    25.7                -11.3
  Female                                                         64.0                    46.4                -17.6

Age
  16-25 Year-olds                                                46.0                    35.5                -10.5
  25-34 Year-olds                                                51.0                    39.6                -11.4
  35-44 Year-olds                                                49.0                    35.4                -13.6
  45-54 Year-olds                                                42.0                    24.9                -17.1
  55-64 Year-olds                                                44.0                    34.9                 -9.1
  65-74 Year-olds                                                56.0                    38.3                -17.7
  75+ Year-olds                                                  73.0                    53.4                -19.6

Geographical Area
  Brixham                                                        45.0                    29.5                -15.5
  Paignton                                                       55.0                    35.4                -19.6
  Torquay                                                        51.0                    40.9                -10.1

Total base no. ViewPoint 2 = 702 (includes missing returns)
Total base no. ViewPoint 5 = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




                                                     17                                  RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 8B: How concerned or unconcerned are you about going out alone in the
centre of the town in Torbay you visit most often?



3.13     Regarding this question, panellists were first asked to identify which town they visit most
         often. Unfortunately, just under a third of panellists who answered question 8B, failed to do
         this. The implications of this are dealt with in 3.15 below. Analysing from a bay wide
         perspective, it can be seen (Table 11 below) that ViewPoint panellists are generally
         concerned about going out alone in the Town centre they visit most often (net concern
         +52.1). This is in direct contrast to the positive change in attitude regarding going out in their
         neighbourhoods. Over two-thirds of the panel (68.2%) stated they were ‘concerned’ and
         female panellists (+64.5) are almost twice as concerned as their male counterparts (+36.9)
         about going out alone in the same areas.




3.14     An age group analysis of this question shows that, perhaps surprisingly, just over two thirds
         (68.7%) of 25-34 year-olds stated they were ‘concerned’ about going into the town centre
         they visit most often (net concern of +52.1). This level of net concern was higher than that
         found in 16-24 Year-olds (+30.6), 35-44 Year-olds (+49.5) and 45-54 Year-olds (+47.7). The
         greatest level of concern was found among 75+ year-olds, 46.8% of which stated that they
         were ‘very concerned’ (net concern +62.6).




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               18
                                                                VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




       Table 11.      Respondents level of concern for going out alone in the centre of the
                      town in Torbay they visit most often.

                         Very          Fairly       Neither              Fairly              Very               Net
                       concerned     concerned    concerned or        unconcerned         unconcerned         concern
                                                  unconcerned
                         Row %         Row %            Row %            Row %               Row %


Torbay (1,219)            31.7          36.5            15.8               12.3                 3.8            +52.1

Gender
  Male                    23.2          35.3            20.0               16.2                 5.3            +36.9
  Female                  38.6          37.5            12.3                9.1                 2.5            +64.5

Age
  16-24 Years             16.1          43.5            11.3               21.0                 8.1            +30.6
  25-34 Years             21.6          47.1            13.7               14.7                 2.9            +51.0
  35-44 Years             26.0          40.2            17.2               12.7                 3.9            +49.5
  45-54 Years             25.5          40.3            16.2               12.5                 5.6            +47.7
  55-64 Years             32.1          36.7            14.2               11.0                 6.0            +51.8
  64-75 Years             38.3          30.4            18.9               10.6                 1.8            +56.4
  75+ Years               46.8          27.4            14.2               11.1                 0.5            +62.6

Geographic Area
  Brixham                 21.1          29.8            21.9               18.4                 8.8            +23.7
  Paignton                25.9          34.0            18.9               17.5                 3.7            +38.7
  Torquay                 34.7          42.3            12.0                8.9                 2.1            +66.0

Missing (382)             35.9          34.0            15.7               10.2                 4.2            +55.5
  Brixham                 31.5          25.9            25.9               13.0                 3.7            +40.7
  Paignton                27.7          37.7            15.4               15.4                 3.8            +46.2
  Torquay                 42.4          33.8            13.1                6.1                 4.5            +65.7

Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)


3.15   When looking at any geographical (town) analysis, it must be noted that approximately one
       third of panellists who answered question 8B failed to indicate which town centre they visited
       most often. Therefore, as this is a significant proportion of the panel, at the bottom of Table
       11, above, the question has been analysed using the ‘missing’ panellists town of residence.
       This can only be used as a guide, as it can not be assumed that the town centre residents
       visit most often is the centre of the town where they live.


3.16   Using the results from those that confirmed the town they visit most often, a geographic
       analysis shows that over three-quarters (77.0%) of respondents who visit Torquay town
       centre are ‘concerned’. In comparative terms, visitors to Torquay town centre (net concern
       +66.0) are approximately twice as likely to be ‘concerned’ than those panellists that visit
       Paignton (+38.7), and almost three times as concerned than those that visit Brixham (+23.7)
       town centre.
                                                   19                                    RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 9A: Please state the reason why you are concerned about going out alone
in your local neighbourhood during the evening / at night.


3.17     Only the 735 panellists who answered ‘fairly or very concerned’ or ‘neither concerned nor
         unconcerned’ in Question 8A were asked to answer this. Some 420 panellists went on to
         answer the question. They were given a list of possible concerns, and asked to indicate
         which ones applied to them. Respondents were allowed to choose as many reasons as they
         wished. It is important to note that the base number of ‘cases’ in Figure 4 refers to the
         number of respondents that indicated at least one reason.



         Figure 4. Respondents level of concern for going out alone in their local
                         neighbourhood during the evening / at night.

                                                                                                            33.6
                             Crowds of youths on the street                                                         39.6
                                                                                                           31.5
                                                                                                   26.3
                          Drunks or vagrants on the streets                          16.4
                                                                                     16.7
                                                                       5.6                                         Torquay (232)
                                           Noisy neighbours               8.2
                                                                             11.1                                  Paignton (134)
                                                                               12.9
                                    Area has bad reputation                9.7                                     Brixham (54)
                                                                       5.6
                                                                                           19.8
                                   Past experience of Crime                              17.9
                                                                            9.3
                                                                                                  25.0
                                  Drug addicts Living in area                     12.7
                                                                            9.3
                                                                                                   26.3
                                 Concern about verbal abuse                                          28.4
                                                                                                            33.3
                                                                                                                   38.8
                            Concern about physical assault                                                          39.6
                                                                                                                       42.6
                                                                                                                                  52.6
                    Concern about being mugged or robbed                                                                        50.0
                                                                                                                                          59.3
                                                                         6.5
 Concern about harassment due to race / religion / sexuality                9.0
                                                                      3.7
                                                                         6.0             Numbers in brakets represent the base
                                                 Don't Know            4.5
                                                                              11.1       number of respondents for each town
                                                                          6.9
                                                       Other            5.2
                                                                          7.4
                                                % of Cases
                                                                0.0        10.0          20.0       30.0          40.0        50.0       60.0    70.0



3.18     Overall, respondents across the Bay were most concerned about ‘being mugged or robbed’
         (54.0% of all cases). This was followed by ‘concern about physical assault’ (40.4%) and
         ‘crowds of youths on the streets’ (34.9%). At the other end of the scale Torbay residents
         appear to be least concerned with ‘concern about harassment due to race / religion /
         sexuality’ (6.4%), ‘noisy neighbours’ (8.3%) and ‘area has a bad reputation’ (9.4%).



RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                        20
                                                                                    VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




3.19    A geographic analysis shows that reasons for concern about going out alone in your local
        neighbourhood are very similar in all three towns. However, significantly more Paignton
        residents (39.6%) were concerned about ‘crowds of youths on the street’ than those living in
        Torquay (33.6%) and Brixham (26.3%) were. Although only a small proportion of
        respondents, 9.0% of Paignton respondents were concerned about ‘harassment due to race
        / religion / sexuality’. This was one third more than Torquay residents (6.5%), and two thirds
        more concerned than those respondents living in Brixham (3.7%) were. Similarly, Torquay
        residents were significantly more concerned about ‘drug addicts living in the area’ (25.0%)
        than Paignton (12.7%) and Brixham (9.3%) residents.


Question 9B: Please state the reason why you are concerned about going out alone
in your most visited town during the evening / at night.


3.20    This question was set out exactly the same as Question 9A, however, this time we wanted to
        know why the panellists were concerned about going out alone at night / during the evening
        in the town centre they visited most often. Those panellists that did not state which town
        centre they visited most often in Question 8A were excluded from the analysis of this
        question. Again, panellists could choose as many reasons as they wished, and the number
        of cases in Figure 5 refers to the number of respondents that indicated at least one reason.
        Figure 5. Panellists reasons for concern about going out alone in their most visited
                       town during the evening / at night.

                                                                                                                                      72.3
           Crowds of youths on the street                                                                                            70.9
                                                                                                                                          75.0
                                                                                                                                                 80.7
        Drunks or vagrants on the streets                                                                                 60.0
                                                                                                                 51.8
                                                 2.3
                          Noisy neighbours     0.6
                                               0.0                                                         Torquay (311)
                                                                              24.8
                  Area has bad reputation                          13.1                                    Paignton (175)
                                                                  12.5
                                                                   13.2                                    Brixham (56)
                 Past experience of Crime                       10.3
                                                          7.1
                                                                                            37.0
               Drug addicts Living in area                                          27.4
                                                                             23.2
                                                                                                   44.1
             Concern about verbal abuse                                                    36.0
                                                                                                          48.2
                                                                                                                   55.3
          Concern about physical assault                                                                   49.7
                                                                                           35.7
                                                                                                                          59.8
 Concern about being mugged or robbed                                                                                         63.4
                                                                                                          48.2
 Concern about harassment due to race /                     9.3
                                                              10.9
 religion / sexuality                                 5.4
                                                   2.6                       Numbers in brakets represent the base
                                                    4.0                      number of respondents for each town
                            Don't Know                      8.9
                                                    3.2
                                Other              2.3
                                                   1.8
                                % of Cases
                                             0.0          10.0        20.0      30.0        40.0      50.0              60.0     70.0      80.0         90.0




                                                                    21                                             RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




3.21     Throughout Torbay the top reasons of concern given by ViewPoint panellists included
         ‘crowds of youths on the street’ (72.7% of all cases), ‘drunks or vagrants on the streets’
         (64.1%) and ‘concern about being mugged or robbed’ (57.1%). Of least concern to panellists
         were, perhaps unsurprisingly, ‘noisy neighbours’ (1.0%), ‘concern of harassment due to race
         / religion / sexuality’ (8.5%) and ‘past experience of crime’ (10.2%).


3.22     Respondents reasons of concern for going out in the town centre they visited most often
         varied significantly from town to town. For example, 80.7% of Torquay town centre visitors
         indicated they were concerned about ‘drunks or vagrants on the streets’. This compared to
         51.8% of Brixham visitors and 60.0% of Paignton visitors. Similarly, 24.8% of Torquay
         visitors say they are concerned due to the fact the ‘area has a bad reputation’, compared to
         12.5% of Brixham and 13.1% of Paignton visitors.


Question 10 A and B: Please indicate if there is any specific place where you feel
particularly unsafe in your local neighbourhood (A) and most visited town (B).


3.23     Viewpoint respondents were asked to indicate any place within Torbay where they felt
         particularly unsafe. This could be somewhere in their local neighbourhood, or in their most
         visited town centre. Due to the open-ended nature of this question, an extremely diverse
         range of answers was obtained. The results of this question are available for analysis should
         this be required.


Question 11: Please say how concerned you are about the following offences.


3.24     For this question the whole panel were presented with a list of criminal offences and asked
         to comment on how concerned or unconcerned they were about becoming a victim of each
         one. The offences that the panel were most concerned with were ‘being burgled’ (net
         concern +70.7), ‘having property / vehicle damaged’ (+62.8) and ‘being robbed’ (+52.4). It
         must also be noted a significant proportion of respondents (36.6%) indicated that they were
         ‘concerned’ about ‘being harassed or insulted on public transport’.


3.25     In general, Torbay residents appear to be unconcerned with ‘being harassed because of
         colour / race / religion (-84.5 net concern), disability (-71.8) or sexuality (-71.7). It should be
         noted that 1991 Census figures show that 0.72 per cent of the Torbay population classify
         themselves as belonging to ‘minority ethnic groupings’ (not White British, White Irish or
         White Other). This could be argued to make the 7.8% of panellists who indicated that they
         were concerned about ‘being harassed because of colour / race / religion’ a significant


RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               22
                                                                VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




        minority. Similarly, 28.4% of all ViewPoint panellists consider themselves to have a ‘disability’
        (visual, hearing or mobility). This highlights the importance of the 14.2% of respondents who
        indicated they were ‘concerned about being harassed due to disability’.

        Table 12. Panellists concern for being a victim of the following criminal offences

                                          Not         Not      Concerned        Fairly          Very            Net
                                       concerned   concerned                  concerned       concerned       concern
                                         at all
                                        Row %       Row %       Row %           Row %           Row %

Being Burgled (873)                      1.7         12.9        34.7            28.2            22.5          +70.7
Having a vehicle stolen at home
(837)                                    8.5         29.3        29.6            21.9            10.8          +24.5
Having a vehicle broken into at home
(819)                                    8.5         22.3        31.1            22.8            15.1          +38.2
Having a bicycle stolen (731)            38.3        35.0        13.8             8.3             4.5          -46.6
Having your property / vehicle
damaged (838)                            3.3         15.3        35.1            24.0            22.3          +62.8
Being robbed (844)                       2.8         21.0        38.2            20.3            17.8          +52.4
Being assaulted (822)                    4.5         26.9        35.3            19.0            14.4          +37.2
Being sexually assaulted or harassed
(790)                                    13.9        38.4        25.8            12.5             9.4           -4.6
Being involved in a traffic accident
(814)                                    6.1         25.8        36.1            19.7            12.3          +36.1
Being harassed because of colour /
race / religion (773)                    46.3        45.9         4.8             1.8             1.2          -84.5
Being harassed because of sexuality
(771)                                    42.9        42.9         8.9             2.6             2.6          -71.7
Being harassed because of disability
(773)                                    46.7        39.2         7.4             3.0             3.8          -71.8
Being harassed or insulted on public
transport (786)                          26.0        37.5        20.4            10.3             5.9          -27.0
Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)


Question 12 A and B: With regard to your local neighbourhood, how concerned or
unconcerned are you about leaving your house / dwelling empty during the day (A)
and during the evening / night (B)?


3.26    As with Questions 8A and 8B, this question was first put to panellists back in the ViewPoint
        Two survey (1999). During the day 6 in 10 respondents expressed concern about leaving
        their house empty, 16.0% were ‘very concerned’ and 44.0% stated they were ‘fairly
        concerned’. In the evening / at night three quarters of respondents (75.0%) said they were
        ‘concerned’ about leaving their property empty, 30.0% stated they were ‘very concerned’.



3.27    Although figures are still high, it is pleasing to note that there has been a significant
        decrease in the level of concern between 1999 and 2001. ‘Leaving your house empty during
        the day’ produced a net concern of +41.0 in 1999, compared with +11.2 in 2001. Similarly,
        the ViewPoint Five panel (net concern +39.3) are significantly less concerned about leaving


                                                      23                                 RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         their house empty during the evening / at night than the ViewPoint Two panel (net concern
         +63.0) were back in 1999.



3.28     Looking specifically at leaving the house empty during the day, Table 13 below shows that
         concern has decreased equally amongst male (decrease of 14.2%) and female (decrease of
         16.6%) panellists from 1999 to 2001. In ViewPoint Two, 67.0% of panellists aged 75+ were
         ‘concerned’, the joint highest percentage of all age groups, whereas ViewPoint Five shows
         the concern levels for this age group to have decreased by 23.3% over the three years.
         Similarly, in 1999 63.0% of Paignton residents were ‘concerned’, the highest of all three
         towns. Figures for 2001 now show only 41.8% of Paigntonians to be concerned, a decrease
         of 21.2%.


         Table 13. Panellists concern for leaving their house / dwelling empty during the day
                         and during the evening / at night

                                  % of Concerned Panellists – Daytime       % of Concerned Panellists – Evenings /
                                                                                          at Night
                                  ViewPoint       ViewPoint      Change      ViewPoint   ViewPoint       Change
                                 Two (1999)      Five (2001)    1999-2001   Two (1999) Five (2001) 1999-2001

Torbay                             60.0              44.4           -15.6      75.0         61.8          -13.2

Gender
  Male                             61.0              46.8           -14.2      75.0         62.0          -13.0
  Female                           59.0              42.4           -16.6      74.0         61.6          -12.4

Age
  16-24 Years                      40.0              22.6           -17.4      63.0         47.5          -15.5
  25-34 Years                      58.0              34.3           -23.7      79.0         63.7          -15.3
  35-44 Years                      59.0              44.1           -14.9      75.0         59.1          -15.9
  45-54 Years                      67.0              50.9           -16.1      78.0         64.2          -13.8
  55-64 Years                      62.0              50.9           -11.1      73.0         66.7           -6.3
  65-74 Years                      56.0              43.1           -12.9      73.0         59.6          -13.4
  75+ Years                        67.0              43.8           -23.2      80.0         62.5          -17.5

Geographic Area
  Brixham                          53.0              41.5           -11.5      66.0         54.4          -11.6
  Paignton                         63.0              41.8           -21.2      78.0         60.2          -17.8
  Torquay                          60.0              47.1           -12.9      75.0         65.4           -9.6

Total base no. ViewPoint 2 = 702 (includes missing returns)
Total base no. ViewPoint 5 = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




3.29     Results shows that panellists concern about leaving their houses empty during the evening /
         at night is higher than for the daytime. However, the general trend of decreasing concern
         across gender, age groups and towns of residence is very similar. When the ViewPoint Two

RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                 24
                                                                     VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         survey was conducted 80.0% of panellists aged 75+ were ‘concerned’ (the highest level of
         concern in any age group). ViewPoint Five results show this figure to be 62.5%, a decrease
         of 17.5%.


Question 13: Please state to what extent you agree or disagree with the following
comments


3.30     Panellists were presented with a list of statements regarding their perception of crime related
         issues in Torbay, and asked to state to what extent they agreed or disagreed with each one.
         Both positive and negative statements were used, so it should be remembered that
         disagreement with a negative statement produces a positive result.


         Table 14. Panellists’ agreement with following statements

                                                 Strongly    Agree   No opinion      Disagree      Strongly         Net
                                                  agree              either way                    disagree      agreement
                                                 Row %       Row %     Row %          Row %         Row %

I avoid town centres after dark due to fear of
assault (1,192)                                    4.2       17.7       24.6           37.2          16.3          -31.6
I avoid going out alone at night (1,203)           5.6       20.7       19.5           33.1          21.2          -28.0
When on holiday I worry about my house
being burgled (1,190)                              2.9       14.6       19.6           42.6          20.3          -45.3
My car is safe when parked in Town Centre
car parks (1,159)                                  5.7       34.6       28.7           27.5           3.5           +9.3
There is not really a crime problem where I
live (1,191)                                       3.9       30.1       17.2           42.7           6.1          -14.8
I have not noticed any drug abuse in the
area I live in (1,196)                             4.9       15.6       11.5           53.1          14.8          -47.3
I have not noticed alcohol abuse in the area
where I live (1,197)                               6.8       23.1       11.4           46.4          12.2          -28.7
I feel safe out alone at night (1,197)            13.0       40.3       21.1           22.2           3.4          +27.7
Beggars and vagrants make me worry for
my personal safety (1,191)                         5.4       26.0       25.1           33.7           9.8          -12.1

Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




3.31     It is pleasing to note that most of the statements in this question gained a positive response
         from the panel (see Table 8). The statement that attracted the most positive response was
         ‘When on holiday I worry about my house being burgled’. This gained a net agreement of –
         45.3, meaning the panel strongly disagreed with the statement. Other statements which
         gained a strong positive response included ‘I avoid town centres after dark due to fear of
         assault’ (-36.6 net agreement), ‘I avoid going out alone at night’ (-28.0) and ‘I feel safe out
         alone at night’ (+27.7).


3.32     However, it is suggested here that the Safer Communities Torbay Partnership take note of
         the significance of the panels response to the statement ‘I have not noticed any drug abuse
                                                            25                                RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         in the area where I live’. This gained a net agreement of -47.3 across the bay, indicating that
         the panel strongly disagrees with this statement. A geographic analysis shows that
         disagreement with the statement is significantly higher in Paignton (-59.7 net agreement) to
         disagreement levels in Brixham (-46.4) or Torquay (-38.8).


Question 14: How often do you think crime in Torbay is mentioned in the local paper
or on local television and radio stations?


3.33     This question was straightforward in that panellists were asked to indicate how often they
         thought the local newspaper and television / radio stations mentioned crime in Torbay.
         Respondents were constrained by a predetermined list ranging from ‘every day’ to ‘never’.


         Figure 6. How often do you think the local paper, television or radio stations mention
                         crime in Torbay?

                                             3.8
                                      1.9
                                                                                 Every day
                           8.5




                                                                                 Couple of times a week




                                                                                 Once a week

          26.3

                                                                    59.4
                                                                                 Once a fortnight




                                                                                 Rarely




3.34     As Figure 6 illustrates, the majority of respondents (59.4%) think that crime in Torbay is
         mentioned ‘every day’ by the local media. Furthermore, 26.3% of those panellists that
         responded stated they thought crime in Torbay was mentioned more often than ‘a couple of
         times a week’. It is also interesting to note that only 3.8% of panellists think that crime is
         ‘rarely’ mentioned, and only 0.2% think that it is ‘never’ mentioned. It is, however, very clear
         from these results that the vast majority of panel members consider themselves to be highly


RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               26
                                                                VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




       exposed to crime through the media which could be argued to heighten their level of
       concern.




Question 15: Have you been a victim of car crime in the last 12 months?



3.35   Firstly, panellists were asked if they had been a victim of car crime in the last 12 months,
       with just over 1 in 10 (13.0%) of respondents indicating that they had. Those respondents
       who had been a victim were then asked where the most recent occurrence had taken place.




3.36   A geographic analysis shows that 59.6% of victims were Torquay residents, 33.6% lived in
       Paignton and 6.8% were Brixham residents (Table 15). It must be noted that the small size
       of this sub-set of the panel (base = 146 respondents, confidence interval +/- 8.1%) makes it
       unrepresentative. However, the results will be of interest to the police when dealing with the
       wider, geographical issues of car crime within the Bay.


       Table 15. Panellists that have been victims of car crime within the last year.



                                                  Brixham (<20)      Paignton (49)        Torquay (70)        Torbay
                                                      Col %             Col %                Col %            Col %

On your Drive or on the road outside your home           50.0              61.2                80.5             71.9
Elsewhere in your neighbourhood                          10.0               2.0                2.3              2.7
In a town centre car park in Torbay                      10.0               4.1                0.0              2.1
At your place of work                                    10.0               2.0                1.1              2.1
On the street in a town centre in Torbay                  0.0              10.2                11.5             10.3
Somewhere else                                           20.0              20.4                4.6              11.0

Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading. > indicates a base response less
than the number stated
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




3.37   The majority (71.9%) of victims indicated that the crime had taken place ‘on their drive or on
       the road outside their home’. Only 10.3% of victims stated the crime had occurred ‘on the
       street in a town centre in Torbay’ and 2.1% stated it had happened ‘in a town centre car park
       in Torbay’. This low level of this last result could be a reflection of the success of recent
       security improvements made to many of the town centre car parks.

                                                    27                                   RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 16: Have you been a victim of crime (other than car crime) in the last 12
months?


3.38     This question concentrated on other criminal offences that panellists’ might have been a
         victim of in the last year. As can be seen from Figure 7, only a minority of respondents
         (9.7%) answered in the positive. A geographic analysis of panellists who have been victims
         of other crimes shows that 11.4% reside in Torquay, 8.1% live in Brixham and 8.0% are
         Paignton residents (see Figure 7). Due to the very small sub-set of panellists (base = 109,
         confidence interval +/- 9.4%) means that the results of this question should not be seen as
         representative of Torbay as a whole.



3.39     Those panellists that indicated they had been a victim of crime (other than car crime) within
         the last 12 months were then asked to indicate what type of crime it was from a
         predetermined list. Panellists were also given the option of specifying any crime that was not
         included in this list.


         Figure 7. Panellists that have been a victim of crime (other than car crime) in the last
                         12 months.



     Torquay                                                                                   11.4




    Paignton                                                             8.0


                                                                                    Yes


    Brixham                                                               8.1




       Torbay                                                                      9.7




                0.0                2.0                4.0         6.0   8.0        10.0          12.0




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               28
                                                            VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




3.40    The results show panellists have experienced a wide range of crimes. The types of crime
        that the largest numbers of respondents had been a victim of were ‘theft of purse / handbag /
        wallet’ (17.7% of victims), ‘silent / strange telephone calls (13.5%), house burglary (12.5%)
        and ‘being subject to verbal abuse’ (11.5%). Crimes that only a small number of respondents
        had been victims of were ‘been insulted on basis of sexuality (1.0%), ‘been involved in a
        traffic accident’ (1.0%) and ‘theft of mobile telephone (2.1%). In addition to this, not one
        panellist stated they had ‘been insulted on basis of gender or ethnicity’. Again, It must be
        noted that this is a very small sub-set of the panel (base = 96, confidence interval +/-
        10.0%), and therefore should not be viewed as being representative of the Bay’s wider
        population.


        Table 16. Respondents who have been the victim of crime (other than car crime) in
                      the last 12 months – Type of Crime.

                                                                                      % of Responses (96)

House Burglary                                                                                    12.5
Shed of garage burglary                                                                            7.3
Theft of a bicycle                                                                                 3.1
Theft of a purse / handbag / wallet                                                               17.7
Theft of a mobile phone                                                                            2.1
Bogus official / suspicious callers at home                                                        4.2
Silent / strange phone calls                                                                      13.5
Threatened by a stranger                                                                           8.3
Harassed by someone damaging property                                                              8.3
Been subject to verbal abuse                                                                      11.5
Been insulted on basis of gender                                                                   0.0
Been insulted on basis of ethnicity                                                                0.0
Been insulted on basis of sexuality                                                                1.0
Been assaulted in / in fight                                                                       3.1
Been involved in a traffic accident                                                                1.0
Other                                                                                              6.3

Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading.
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)


Question 17 A and B: If you have been a victim of car crime or any other form of
crime in the last 12 months, did you report this to the Police?


3.41    This question was aimed at panellists who had been a victim of crime in the last 12 months
        (any panellists who had answered ‘yes’ to either Question 15 or 16). A joint analysis shows
        that overall 55.9% of respondents who stated they had been a victim of car crime, and who
        answered this question indicated that they had reported the incident to the police. Similarly
        60.8% of panellists who were the victims of other types of crime stated that they had
        reported the incident (see Table 17).


                                                    29                               RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




3.42     A geographic, town analysis shows that 59.0% of victims of crime (other than car crime), that
         live in Paignton, reported the incident to the Police. As Table 17 illustrates, this figure is
         slightly less than for residents living in Brixham (60.0%) and Torquay (61.8%), as well as for
         all residents of Torbay (60.8%). When looking at car crime in Torbay, 69.8% of Paignton
         residents who had been a victim in the last 12 months reported the incident to the Police.
         This is significantly higher than the rates for Torquay (48.6), Brixham (50.0%) and the Bay
         as a whole (55.9%). Again, the small same sample size means that these figures are in no
         way representative of the Torbay population, however the town information should prove
         useful to the partnership in targeting further research.


         Table 17. ViewPoint Respondents who have been victims of crime within the last 12
                         months: Reporting of Crime to Police

                                                       Victims of Crime           Victims of Car Crime
                                                    Reported     Not Reported   Reported      Not Reported
                                                     Row %          Row %        Row %           Row %

Torbay (OC = 130, CC = 127)                            60.8         39.2          55.9           44.1
  Brixham                                              60.0         40.0          50.0           50.0
  Paignton                                             59.0         41.0          69.8           30.2
  Torquay                                              61.8         38.2          48.6           51.4

Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading. OC – Other Crime, CC – Car
Crime.
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)



Question 17C: If you answered ‘not reported’, please state the main reason for each
type of crime.



3.43     In Question 17C panellists who had been a victim of car crime in the last 12 months but not
         reported it were asked to give a reason why from a pre-determined list. As Figure 8 shows,
         50% of panellists did not report the crime to the Police because they felt ‘there was nothing
         they (the Police) could do’. Another large proportion (28.0%) felt that the ‘incident was to
         trivial’ to report. It must also be of concern that 20% of the panellists stated they ‘intended to
         report but thought they (the Police) would not be interested’. However, it is pleasing to note
         that only 2.0% of victims did not report the incident because they had ‘no insurance’.


3.44     Looking at types of crime other than car crime, approximately one third (32.4%) of victims
         indicated that they did not report the incident to the Police because they felt ‘there was
         nothing they (the police) could do’. Again, it will be of concern to the Police that 26.5% of the
         victims stated that they ‘intended to report but thought they would not be interested’ and


RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                30
                                                                       VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




          5.9% indicated they did not report the incident because they were ‘scared of reprisals’. It is
          also interesting to note that 23.5% of respondents did not report the incident because they
          thought it was ‘too trivial’.


3.45      It is important to note the very small number sample used in this question. The base number
          of respondents for Car Crime equalled 50, producing a confidence interval of +/- 13.9%,
          whereas the base number of respondents for other types of crime was 34, a confidence
          interval of +/- 18.7%. Although clearly not representative, these results are useful to the
          Police when dealing with the wider issues of why victims of crime do not report it.



          Figure 8. Reasons why Panellists who have been victims of crime have not reported
                         it to the police.


                                                                                                    Car Crime (50)
                        Other
                                              5.9
                                                                                                    Other Crime (34)

                                        2.0
   No point - No insurance
                                              5.9

                                                                        28.0
       Incident was too trivial
                                                                23.5

                                                                                  Numbers in brackets ( )
          Scared of reprisals                                                     represent base response
                                              5.9
                                                                                  for each heading
   Intended to report but                                20.0
 thought they would not be
         interested                                                26.5

                                                                                                            50.0
       Nothing they could do
                                                                               32.4

                                  0.0           10.0   20.0             30.0            40.0             50.0            60.0




Question 18: Which of the following do you do, or have you done, out of concern for
personal safety or property security?



3.46      Panellists were given a predetermined list and asked to indicate which things they did, or
          had done, out of concern for personal safety or property security. Panellists were allowed to
          state as many actions as they wished and were given the opportunity to add any action that



                                                        31                                      RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         was not originally included. The number of cases in Table 18 refers to the number of
         panellists that selected at least one option.


3.47     Overall, the most popular action that ViewPoint panellists take, or have taken out of concern
         for personal safety or property security is to ‘use fitted window locks’ (70.6% of cases). Other
         actions that were popular amongst the panel included ‘carry a mobile phone’ (64.4%), ‘have
         external security lighting’ (57.8%) and ‘use car alarm / immobiliser’ (51.7%). Only 14.6% of
         respondents indicated they were / are ‘receiving advice on home / personal security from the
         Police’, with 18.0% who were / are ‘receiving advice on home / personal security from
         another source’.


         Table 18. Actions that panellists take, or have taken, out of concern for personal
                         safety or property security by Gender.

                                                                                  % of Cases
                                                                             Male Female Torbay

A    Carry a personal alarm                                                   3.3      10.4      7.3
B    Use a steering lock for the car                                          33.5     25.8      29.3
C    Use a car alarm / immobiliser                                            61.3     44.2      51.7
D    Received advice on home / personal security from the Police              15.7     13.7      14.6
E    Received advice on home / personal security from other source            15.3     20.1      18.0
F    Use a burglar alarm                                                      26.6     24.1      25.2
G    Have external security lighting                                          59.0     56.9      57.8
H    Use a timer on internal lighting                                         41.2     42.5      41.9
I    Use fitted window locks                                                  70.1     71.0      70.6
J    Use a chain on front door                                                29.7     33.9      32.1
K    Carry a mobile phone                                                     59.8     68.0      64.4
L    Other                                                                    3.3      4.5       4.0

Note – 1,185 cases (confidence interval = +/- 2.8%), 4,939 responses.
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)


3.48     A gender analysis (see Table 18 above) shows that, perhaps unsurprisingly, female
         panellists are significantly more likely to carry a personal alarm (10.4% of cases) than male
         panellists (3.3%). Similarly, male respondents are more likely to ‘use a steering lock for the
         car’ (33.5% of cases) and ‘use a car alarm / immobiliser (61.3%) than female respondents
         (25.8% steering lock and 44.2% car alarm / immobiliser).




Question 19: Have you security marked (e.g. postcode, registration number, other
code) any of the following which is your property?




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               32
                                                                       VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




3.49   The whole panel was asked to indicate whether they security mark property in their homes,
       their vehicles or their families’ bicycles. It is pleasing to note 623 respondents (confidence
       interval +/- 3.9%) indicated that they had security marked at least one of the options. As
       Figure 9 shows 62.9% of respondents to this question indicated that they had security
       marked ‘property in their home’ and about the same number (62.0%) stated that they had
       security marked ‘their vehicle’. Only 13.3% of respondents stated they had security marked
       ‘their families bicycles’.




       Figure 9. Respondents who have security marked possessions.


                                                                                                    % of cases
                         Other        2.6




         Your families bicycles                  13.3




                  Your vehicle                                                                             62.0




         Property in your home                                                                              62.9




                                  0         10          20        30         40           50          60           70




Question 20: Are you a member of Neighbourhood Watch?



3.50   For this question, panellists were asked if they were a member of a Neighbourhood Watch
       scheme, 27.0% stated they were indeed a member (base = 1,202, confidence interval +/-
       2.8%). A gender analysis shows that 27.2% of male panellists belong to Neighbourhood
       Watch, which approximately equals the 26.8% of female panellists that are also members.




                                                             33                                 RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         Table 19. Panellists who are members of Neighbourhood watch schemes.

                                                                          % of respondents in
                                                                     Neighbourhood Watch schemes

Torbay (1,202)                                                                  27.0

Gender
   Male                                                                         27.2
   Female                                                                       26.8

Age Group
   16-24 Years                                                                  14.5
   25-34 Years                                                                  12.1
   35-44 Years                                                                  17.6
   45-54 Years                                                                  24.1
   55-64 Years                                                                  38.9
   65-74 Years                                                                  31.4
   75+ Years                                                                    33.0

Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading.
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




3.51     An age group analysis shows that the number of panellists aged 16-24 that are members
         (14.5%) is greater than the number of 25-34 Year-olds (12.1%) that belong to a scheme.
         However, membership of the Neighbourhood Watch scheme is far greater amongst the older
         members of the panel. As might be expected, the highest membership levels could be found
         amongst panellists aged 55-64 (38.9%). Where as 31.4% of 65-74 Year-olds and 33.0% of
         75+ Year-olds stated that they were members.




Question 20A: Please say how effective your Neighbourhood Watch is regarding the
following aspects of the schemes.


3.52     The panellists that are members of Neighbourhood Watch were then asked to comment on
         the effectiveness of some aspects of the scheme. The base number of panellists for this
         question is 324, producing a confidence interval of +/- 5.4%.




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               34
                                                                         VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         Figure 10. Effectiveness of Neighbourhood Watch schemes in Torbay.




       Deterring crime in your area               45.1                              32.5                    22.4




        Informing you about crime
                                                    51.0                             21.8                  27.2
                prevention




         Informing you about local
                                                       54.4                         13.7                31.9
              criminal activity

            Effective
            No Opinion
            Ineffective               0%   10%   20%     30%       40%    50%      60%      70%      80%       90%   100%




3.53     The Safer Communities partnership will be pleased to note that 54.4% of members thought it
         was ‘effective’ in ‘informing you about local criminal activity’ with 22.2% of panellists stating it
         was ‘very effective’. Just over half of members (51.0%) stated that the Neighbourhood
         Watch scheme was ‘effective’ at ‘informing you about local crime prevention’. Although a
         sizeable majority (21.8%) of members indicated they had ‘no opinion’ and over a quarter,
         27.2%, stated that it was ‘ineffective’.



3.54     A large majority of ViewPoint panellists that are members of neighbourhood watch (45.1%)
         stated that they thought the scheme was ‘effective’ at ‘deterring crime in your area’.
         However, a large majority of members (32.5%) also indicated they had ‘no opinion’, and
         22.4% thought it was ‘ineffective’. Another significant majority of respondents (31.9%)
         indicated that the scheme was ‘ineffective’ at ‘informing you about local criminal activity’.




                                                              35                                  RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 20B: If you are not a member of Neighbourhood Watch, please select any
statement that applies to you.



3.55     This question was aimed at panellists who stated they were not members of a
         Neighbourhood Watch scheme in Question 20. These ‘non-members’ were presented with a
         predetermined list of possible reasons why they have not joined the scheme, and asked to
         select any that applied to them. Again, as this is a multiple response question, the number of
         ‘cases’ referred to in Table 20 represents the number of panellists that selected at least one
         reason (which will add to more than the 772 panellists involved).



         Table 20. Panellists who are not members of Neighbourhood Watch schemes –
                         Reasons for not being a member.

                                                                                         % of cases

A    Too busy – I don’t have enough time (128)                                              16.6
B    Don’t know how to join (272)                                                           35.2
C    No need – I live in a safe area (93)                                                   12.0
D    Never thought about it (269)                                                           34.8
E    It’s for retired people only (5)                                                       0.6
F    It doesn’t work (58)                                                                   7.5
G    I don’t like my neighbours (18)                                                        2.3
H    Other (113)                                                                            24.7

Note – 772 cases, 956 responses.
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




3.56     The most popular reasons given for not being a member of Neighbourhood Watch were
         ‘don’t know how to join’ (35.2% of cases) and ‘never thought about it’ (34.8%). It is pleasing
         to note that only 7.5% of panellists that indicated they were not a member of Neighbourhood
         Watch because ‘it doesn’t work’ and only 0.6% of non-members think ‘it’s for retired people
         only’.



3.57     Approximately a quarter of respondents to this question (24.7%) gave a reason that was not
         on the list, although it is interesting to note that only 14.6% actually filled in the ‘other -
         please specify below’ box. The range of reason panellists gave was very diverse, but
         included such reasons as ‘no local Neighbourhood Watch’, ‘Informal watch by neighbours’



RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               36
                                                           VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




        and ‘meetings at inappropriate times’. The full list of ‘Other’ suggestions is available for
        further analysis.


Question 21: When considering improving safety and reducing crime, what three
things do you think are the most important for your neighbourhood?


3.58    The whole panel was then asked to consider actions that could be taken to improve safety
        and reduce crime in their local neighbourhood. Panellists were given a predetermined list
        and asked to select the three actions that they considered most important. Over 97% of the
        panel gave their opinions, meaning 1,131 panellists selected at least one action that they felt
        was important. Again, please note that multiple responses total percentages add up to more
        than 100%, in this case 295.8%, this takes into account respondents being able to make up
        to three choices.
        Table 21. Panellists’ most important improvements to increase safety and reduce
                    crime in their neighbourhood.

                                                                                                 % of cases

A      Better or increased street lighting                                                            19.7
B      More Police patrols                                                                            64.6
C      Lower speed limits                                                                             22.7
D      More activities for young people                                                               32.2
E      Better environment (removal of graffiti etc.)                                                  3.8
F      Better home security                                                                           16.0
G      Better communication between locals and police                                                 32.3
H      More drugs education / services                                                                4.0
I      Development of community wardens                                                               39.8
J      Increased training / job opportunities for all                                                 13.3
K      More CCTV                                                                                      22.2
L      More help for parents to raise children                                                        9.8
M      More work with offenders to help them avoid re-offending                                       15.5

Note – 1,131 cases, 3,346 responses.
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)



3.59    Table 21 shows the most popular improvements were 'more police patrols' (64.6% of cases),
        'development of community wardens' (39.8%), 'better communication between locals and
        police' (32.3%) and ‘more activities for young people' (32.2%). Of least importance to
        respondents with 3.8% of all cases was 'better environment (removal of graffiti etc.)' and
        'more drugs education / services' (4.0%).




                                                    37                              RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         Table 22. Panellists’ most important improvements to increase safety and reduce
                         crime in their neighbourhood by town of residence.

                                                                              % of cases
                                                                      Brixham Paignton Torquay

A      Better or increased street lighting                              23.7        19.5        18.6
B      More Police patrols                                              63.3        60.7        67.9
C      Lower speed limits                                               21.5        25.9        20.9
D      More activities for young people                                 39.0        34.0        28.8
E      Better environment (removal of graffiti etc.)                    2.8         4.6         3.6
F      Better home security                                             14.7        16.2        16.3
G      Better communication between locals and police                   29.9        32.2        33.0
H      More drugs education / services                                  1.7         3.3         5.2
I      Development of community wardens                                 40.1        38.6        40.5
J      Increased training / job opportunities for all                   10.7        17.0        11.4
K      More CCTV                                                        21.5        22.3        22.3
L      More help for parents to raise children                          11.3        6.3         11.8
M      More work with offenders to help them avoid re-offending         15.3        15.0        15.9

Number of cases                                                          177         394         560
Number of responses                                                      523        1,165       1,658

Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




3.60     A geographic analysis (Table 22) shows that residents views on which improvements are
         most important in their local neighbourhood are broadly similar across all three Torbay
         towns. The most popular improvement by far was ‘more Police patrols’, which was a choice
         of 68.1% of Torquay respondents, 62.8% of respondents from Brixham and 61.8% of
         Paignton respondents. It is interesting to note that 41.4% of Brixham respondents thought
         that ‘more activities for young people’ was an important improvement, whereas only 29.7%
         of Torquay residents felt the same.


4        ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT AND THE COMMUNITY


4.1      The United Kingdom Government requires Torbay Council to have 100% of all its services
         accessible on-line (i.e. through the Internet) by 2005. This is in addition to the existing ways
         people can contact the Council (in-person, by telephone, by letter etc.). There is money
         available from the Government to improve accessibility to the Internet and information
         technology in Torbay and help the Council with the cost of marketing services accessible on-
         line. Torbay has to bid for this money against other Councils. The answers given by
         ViewPoint panellists here will help improve our bid and the likelihood of it succeeding.



RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               38
                                                                                        VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 22A and B: Which of the following do you have in your home (A) and please
say which ones you personally use (B)?


4.2       Firstly, we wanted to assess what equipment and electronic services ViewPoint panellists
          have in their homes, and what equipment and services they personally use. Panellists were
          presented with a list, and asked to select any option that applied to them. Because this is a
          multiple response question, the total number of selections will be greater than the total
          number of respondents, and the percentages will not add up to 100% (145.9% in this case).


4.3       As Figure 11 illustrates, approximately two thirds of respondents (64.4% of cases, base =
          1,136, confidence interval +/- 2.9%) stated that they have equipment with Internet / e-mail
          access in their homes. Using this result, on a bay wide scale, it could be stated with
          statistical confidence that somewhere between 61.5% and 67.3% of homes in Torbay could
          potentially have access to the electronic services that we could deliver. Just under half of
          respondents (49.7%) stated they had PC / Personal computers with access to the Internet in
          their homes. However, nearly one-third (27.3%) indicated they had no form of access to the
          Internet / e-mail.



          Figure 11. Electronic equipment and services that panellists have in their homes, and
                            which items / services they personally use.


                   None of the above                                                           27.3
                                                                                        24.7                           Have in the Home
  Other device to access the Internet       1.3                                                                        Personally Use
    (e.g. Internet TV, Internet Box)        1.1

                          WAP phone                     6.7
                                                     5.1
      Games Console (e.g. Dreamcast)           3.1
        with access to the Internet          1.9

On-Digital / ITV Digital without E-mail              5.8
                                                     5.6

   On-Digital / ITV Digital with E-mail      1.3
                                            0.9

                  Cable / Eurobell TV                                  15.0
                                                                       14.9

            Sky Digital without E-mail                                     15.9
                                                                    12.5

               Sky Digital with E-mail                        9.0
                                                   4.9
      PC / Personal Computer without                            10.7
               Iternet access                                  10.2
 PC / Personal Computer with Iternet                                                                                               49.7
               access                                                                                                                         56.0

                                      0.0                  10.0                  20.0           30.0            40.0             50.0                60.0
                                                                                           % of Cases




                                                                            39                                   RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




4.4      Respondents who answered Question 22A were asked to indicate which of the services or
         equipment in their home they personally use (Question 22B). Again, respondents could
         select more than one box, so percentages add up to more than 100%. Similar to Question
         22A, 64.8% (base = 915, confidence interval +/- 3.2%) of respondents indicated they
         personally use equipment in their home that has access to the Internet / e-mail. Just over
         half of respondents (56.0% of cases) indicated they personally use a PC / Personal
         Computer with Internet access.


4.5      It is of some concern that just under a quarter (24.7%) of respondents stated they used
         ‘none of the above’, even though the question asked about personal use. In retrospect, the
         design of this question could have been improved, and this option should have been
         removed from this part of the question. Due to this, very little or no filtering of responses
         from this result was possible for some other questions in this section.


Question 23 and 24: Do you have an e-mail address that we can communicate with
you as a ViewPoint panellist (Q23) and would you be interested in completing
ViewPoint questionnaires by e-mail and / or web site (Q24)?


4.6      This question has been asked to panellists in previous ViewPoint Surveys, and was asked
         again because more and more people are going ‘on-line’, as Question 22 illustrates.
         Panellists were also asked if they were prepared to complete ViewPoint questionnaires via e-
         mail or the Council’s web site. We are currently investigating ways of consulting this way in
         the future as it could prove to be a very cost-effective and speedier way of corresponding
         with ViewPoint members




4.7      Of the 556 panellists who completed the multiple option Question 24, 45% gave a negative
         response to e-consultation (by e-mail or through the web site). However, 35% stated they
         were interested in completing ViewPoint by e-mail, 22% were interested in completing
         ViewPoint via the web site, and over 18% crossed ‘maybe’.


Question 25: How do you normally (i.e. most often) access your e-mail?


4.8      This question was answered by 454 respondents (confidence interval of +/- 4.6%).
         Approximately half of them (50.7%) indicated that they accessed their e-mail through
         Outlook / Outlook Express on a Personal Computer. A further 39.2% stated they accessed


RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               40
                                                                VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         e-mails through a web site. (such as Yahoo mail or Hotmail) All other methods were only
         used by 10.1% of respondents.


4.9      An age group analysis (see Table 23) illustrates that 80.6% of 16-24 Year-old respondents
         access their e-mails ‘through a web site (Yahoo, Hotmail)’. Older respondents appear to
         favour ‘Outlook / Outlook Express’ to view their e-mails, 57.3% of 35-44 Year-olds stated
         they use this method as well as 52.8% of 45-55 Year-olds and 59.3% of 55-64 Year-olds. A
         socio-economic analysis shows that 66.7% of Group V respondents access their e-mails
         through a web site (Yahoo, Hotmail), a far greater proportion than all other groupings where
         accessing e-mail via ‘Outlook / Express’ appears to be more popular (Table 23).


         Table 23. How Respondents access their e-mail accounts.

                       Through a web       With Outlook /    Through Sky,       With a non-IBM             Other
                       site e.g. Yahoo    Outlook Express   On-Digital / ITV    compatible PC
                       mail, Hotmail or    on a Personal      Digital Box       e.g. Apple etc.
                             other           Computer
                            Row %             Row %             Row %                Row %                 Row %

Torbay                      39.2               50.7               2.2                  1.3                  6.6

Gender
  Male                      32.5               57.3               2.6                  1.7                  6.0
  Female                    46.4               43.6               1.8                  0.9                  7.3

Age Group
  16-24 Year-olds           80.6               11.1               2.8                  0.0                   5.6
  25-34 Year-olds           32.3               54.8               1.6                  0.0                  11.3
  35-44 Year-olds           35.0               57.3               1.0                  1.9                   4.9
  45-54 Year-olds           39.6               52.8               1.9                  0.0                   5.7
  55-64 Year-olds           29.6               59.3               2.5                  2.5                   6.2
  65-74 Year-olds           39.6               47.9               2.1                  4.2                   6.3
  75+ Year-olds             44.4               33.3              11.1                  0.0                  11.1

Geographic Area
  Brixham                   39.2               49.4               2.5                  1.3                  7.6
  Paignton                  38.7               51.1               2.9                  2.2                  5.1
  Torquay                   39.5               50.8               1.7                  0.8                  7.1

Socio-economic Group
  I                         32.4               48.6               2.7                  5.4                  10.8
  II                        39.5               51.0               2.0                  0.7                   6.8
  III(N)                    39.9               52.4               2.8                  0.7                   4.2
  III(M)                    40.4               47.2               1.1                  1.1                  10.1
  IV                        36.7               53.3               3.3                  3.3                   3.3
  V                         66.7               33.3               0.0                  0.0                   0.0

Note – Base number of respondents for this table = 454 (confidence interval of +/- 4.6%)
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




                                                      41                                 RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 26: Thinking about the Internet, please place a cross by the statement that
applies to you.


4.10     This question was aimed at the 318 respondents that stated they were non-PC (Personal
         Computer) users in Question 22A and B. Some 307 went on to give an answer. The vast
         majority of them (83.7%) had ‘heard of the Internet, but had never used it’. Over 1 in 10
         respondents (15.0%) stated that they had ‘never heard of the Internet’. Only 1.3% indicated
         that they had ‘used the Internet’ and we can only presume this was at a library, Internet café
         or a friends house.




         Figure 12. Non-PC (personal computer) users – Age group analysis.



                                                  2.2%
                                                             2.8%                      16-24 Years
                                                                     6.6%



                                                                                       25-34 Years
                                                                            9.4%

        37.7%
                                                                                       35-44 Years




                                                                                       45-54 Years




                                                                              16.7%    55-64 Years




                                                                                       65-74 Years




                                                                                       75+ Years
                                              24.5%




4.11     An age analysis, Figure 12 above, illustrates that the vast majority of these respondents are
         older panellists. Approximately one third of stated non-PC users were aged 75+, a further
         24.5% were aged 65-74 Years-old and 16.7% aged 55-64 Years.




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                      42
                                                                VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 27: Where do you normally, i.e. most often, access the Internet?




4.12   Of the 648 ViewPoint panel members that answered this question, the majority (69.1%)
       stated they accessed the Internet most often ‘from home’. Just under 2 in 10 respondents
       (18.4%) indicated they used the Internet ‘at work’. Of all the remaining options for regular
       access the only significant use was ‘at another persons home’ with 5.4% (see Table 24). It
       may be of some concern to the Council that only 1.9% of respondents indicated they
       accessed the Internet in a ‘public library’. All other locations listed, with the exception of
       ‘College / University / Other educational training institution with 3.1%, proved to be little used
       all getting less than 1%.


       Table 24. Where Panellists normally access the Internet.

                                                                                                          Col %

Home                                                                                                        69.1
Work                                                                                                        18.4
School                                                                                                       0.5
College / University / Other educational training institution                                                3.1
Government Office                                                                                            0.3
Another person’s home                                                                                        5.4
Public library                                                                                               1.9
An internet café / shop                                                                                      0.8
Community or voluntary organisation                                                                          0.3
Somewhere else                                                                                               0.3

Note – Base number of respondents for this table = 648 (confidence interval of +/- 3.8%)
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




Question 28: About how often do you use the Internet nowadays?




4.13   Approximately half (52.2%) of all respondents answered this question (base = 652,
       confidence interval +/- 3.8%). The vast majority of them (70.9%) indicated that they used the
       Internet ‘at least once a week’. Included within this majority 37.6% stated that they used the
       Internet ‘daily’. Surprisingly some 15.3% stated they used it ‘less than once a month’ (See
       Table 25).




                                                   43                                    RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         Table 25. How regularly do respondents access the Internet?

                                                                                                                    Col %

Daily                                                                                                               37.6
At least once a week                                                                                                33.3
At least once a month                                                                                               11.7
Less than once a month                                                                                              15.3
Don’t Know                                                                                                           2.1

Note – Base number of respondents for this table = 652 (confidence interval of +/- 3.8%)
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




Question 29: What sort of things get in the way of you using the Internet more often?


4.14     This question was aimed at panellists who had indicated they used the Internet less often
         than once a week in Question 28 (190 respondents, 184 of which answered this question). It
         must again be noted that, as respondents could select more than one option in this question,
         the percentage of cases adds up to more than 100% (in this case 207.1%). The number of
         cases, plus the number of responses is clearly stated in Figure 13 below.


         Figure 13. Factors that limit Internet use of respondents who go ‘on-line’ less than
                         once a week.


                           Other                7.6           Number of cases = 184, number of responses = 381


         Do not own a computer                                          23.9

          Limited / no access to
                                                 8.2
            computer at work

          Speed of connection /
                                                                17.9
           computer is to slow

             Quality of software        1.6


                 Lack of interest                                                         36.4


                    Lack of time                                                                            48.4


  Need to improve surfing skills                                        23.9


             Price of equipment                        10.3


         Cost of telephone calls                                               28.8                              % of Cases


                                    0             10             20             30            40             50               60




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                  44
                                                            VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




4.15   As figure 13 above illustrates, just under half of respondents (48.4% of cases) indicated they
       do not use the Internet more because of ‘lack of time’. Other main factors limiting use were
       ‘lack of interest’ (36.4%), ‘cost of telephone calls’ (28.8%), ‘do not own a computer’ and
       ‘need to improve surfing skills’ (both 23.9%). Factors that do not appear to effect the amount
       of time these panellists spend surfing the Internet, include ‘quality of software’, (1.6% of
       cases) ‘limited / no access to computer at work’ (8.2%), and 10.3% of cases stating ‘price of
       equipment’.




Question 30 and 30A: Torbay Council’s Library Services has already made some
services available on-line, please say if you are aware and have used these services?
(Q30), and if you are interested or uninterested in using these facilities (Q30A)?




4.16   On average, 650 respondents answered each statement in this question (average
       confidence interval +/- 3.8%). It must be of concern to the Council that, generally, the vast
       majority of respondents, (an average of 83.4% of respondents being aware but not using
       each service), were aware of the on-line services that are provided BUT do not use them.
       (Table 26) Of all the services, the highest level of awareness and usage was for ‘the
       complete library catalogue on the Internet’, with 4.7% stating this. However, 78.2% again
       stated awareness but non-use. The overwhelming message is the high level of awareness
       aligned with a low level of usage. These results indicate further research by the Council into
       this area.


        Table 26. Respondents’ awareness of current on-line services provided by Torbay
                    Council.

                                                                            Aware          Aware         Unaware
                                                                           and used        and not
                                                                                            used
                                                                             Row %         Row %          Row %

A   The complete library catalogue on the internet site (678)                  4.7        78.2             17.1
B   The facility to see your borrower records, e.g. books on loan (642)        2.5        83.8             13.7
C   The option to renew your books on the internet (641)                       1.4        86.9             11.7
D   The ability to reserve a book on the internet site (647)                   1.1        87.2             11.7
E   Clubs and organisations listings in Torbay on the Internet site (648)      3.5        80.9             15.6
                                                                 Average %                83.4
Note – Average base number of respondents for this table = 650 (confidence    interval of +/- 3.8%)
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




                                                  45                                 RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




4.17     In addition to being asked about their awareness of the above services, panellists were also
         asked about their interest in using them in the future. Of the 650 panellists that answered the
         first part of this question, an average of 565 panellists (confidence interval +/- 4.1%) went on
         to answer each question in this section. It is encouraging that over half of respondents, for
         each on-line service, indicated that they would be interested in using it in the future. Table 27
         below shows the service that generated the most interest was ‘the complete library
         catalogue on the Internet site (64.2% of respondents ‘interested’). Least interest, but still
         high, was for the ‘facility to see your borrower records’ (50.7% of respondents ‘interested’).




         Table 27. Respondents’ interest in using the services currently provided in the
                         future.

                                                                            Interested     Not interested
                                                                             Row %            Row %

A   The complete library catalogue on the internet site (678)                  64.2            35.8
B   The facility to see your borrower records, e.g. books on loan (642)        50.7            49.3
C   The option to renew your books on the internet (641)                       60.2            39.8
D   The ability to reserve a book on the internet site (647)                   62.2            37.8
E   Clubs and organisations listings in Torbay on the Internet site (648)      62.0            38.0
                                                                 Average %     59.9
Note – Average base number of respondents for this table = 656 (confidence interval of +/- 4.1%)
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




Question 31: Please say how often you use the Council’s Internet site.




4.18     This question was answered by 732 panellists (confidence interval +/- 3.6%), the vast
         majority of whom (77.3%) stated that they had ‘never used’ the Council’s Internet site. It
         must be noted, however, that due to problems with the routing of questions in this section,
         some panellists that do not have access to the Internet may have given an answer here.
         Less than 1 in 10 respondents (4.6%) indicated they used the web site more than ‘at least
         once a month’. A further 17.4% stated that they used it less than this, with 5.6% indicating
         that they visited the site ‘less than once in 12 months’ (see Figure 14).




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               46
                                                                           VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




        Figure 14. How often respondents use the Council’s Internet site

                                                                                                          % of Respondents
                  Don't Know       0.7



                   Never Used                                                                                         77.3



 Less than once in 12 months                 5.6



  Less than once in 6 months                  6.6



       Less than once a month                5.2



         At least once a month          3.0



          At least once a week         1.6                   Base respondents = 732, confidence interval +/- 3.6%



                                 0.0           10.0   20.0      30.0      40.0       50.0       60.0       70.0       80.0       90.0




Question 32: Please say how interested you would be in using the following features
if they were added to our web site?


4.19    Panellists were presented with a list of features that could be added to the Council’s web
        site, and then asked to say how interested they would be in using each one. Respondents
        were asked to indicate their opinion on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not interested and 5
        very interested.


4.20    Combining levels 4 & 5 to give respective high-average levels of interest, respondents were
        most interested in ‘booking and payment facilities for theatres and events’ being a feature on
        the web site, with a 22.6% average level of interest. A ‘planning applications database’
        attracted the second highest level of interest at 16.35%, with the facility to complete most
        Council forms on-line being the third most popular feature (interest level of 16.05%).
        However, it should be noted that on average 34% of respondents stated they were not
        interested in any of the facilities.




                                                               47                                   RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




QUESTION 33: Thinking about the future, how interested are you in using the
internet?


4.21     Although this question was aimed at panel members who had not heard of the Internet, or
         had heard of it but never used it, due to earlier routing problems some panellists who had
         used the Internet also answered. 1131 respondents answered in total, compared with the
         303, who should have, had the routing been clearer.


4.22     Looking at the 303 non–user respondents (confidence interval +/-5.1%) who correctly
         answered this question, and combining the two levels of positive and negative interest, it was
         found that 36.4% stated they were interested but the majority, 63.6% stated that they were
         still not interested in using the internet. The Council can build on the positive fact that around
         a third of non-users stated an interest in using the internet.


4.23     When the results from the total 1131 respondents (confidence interval +/-1.9%) were looked
         at, this pattern was reversed with the majority, some 705, expressing an interest. This
         however, is not surprising as the 1131 included a large number of respondents who had
         previously stated use of the internet. The remaining 426 expressed no interest.


QUESTION 34: What are the main reasons you are not using the internet at the
moment?


4.24     Of the 705 respondents who expressed an interest in using the Internet in Question 33, only
         475 went on to answer this question. It can be assumed that this large dropout in numbers is
         due to previous routings regarding use / non-use of the Internet. It should be noted that this
         was a multiple response question, meaning respondents could select more than one reason,
         and therefore the percentages given below total more than 100%. Questions 35 & 36 are
         also multiple response questions.


4.25     As shown in Figure 15 below, the two most common reasons given by those panellists who
         did answer were ‘cost / cannot afford it’ (37.9% of cases), and ‘no computer’ (37.1% of
         cases). Similarly, 19.6% stated that they ‘ do not have access to the Internet’. Lack of the
         necessary knowledge also seems to be a barrier, with 21.3% of respondents stating that
         they ‘don’t know how to use the Internet’. In addition, it is of interest that 29.9% of
         respondents stated they had ‘no time’ or were ‘too busy’.




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               48
                                                            VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




                 Figure 15. Reasons why respondents are not using the internet at
                 the moment.



                                      6.5                                  No computer 37.1%
                             11.4
                                                         37.1
                                                                           Cost / cannot afford it 37.9%

                   21.3
                                                                           No access 19.6%


                                                                           No time / too busy 29.9%


                                                                           Don't know how to use internet
                                                                           21.3%

                   29.9                                                    Computer needs upgrading / too
                                                                37.9       slow 11.4%

                                                                           Other 6.5%

                                      19.6


                                    % of respondents




QUESTION 35: What if anything puts you off the idea of using the Internet?


4.26   Of the 426 respondents who stated they had no interest in using the Internet, 400 went on to
       answer this multiple response question. Not surprisingly, 53% answered that they were just
       ‘not interested’ or that the Internet ‘doesn’t appeal’, whilst 44.3% of respondents stated that it
       is because they ‘don’t have a computer’.         37% believed they ‘do not need to use the
       Internet’, whilst 30% answered that they were ‘too old’. As in Question 34, cost is again a
       problem, with 23% of respondents stating that they ‘cannot afford it’. It is of interest that
       20.3% state that they ‘don’t know how to use the Internet’, or think it is ‘too complicated’,
       implying an area for action for the Council to reduce this figure. Interestingly, less than 12%
       of respondents are still scared or worried about using the internet- a figure that is hard to
       imagine 5 years ago.




                                                   49                                RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




QUESTION 36: Which of the following would encourage you to use the Internet, or for
existing users, encourage you to use the Internet more?


4.27 1103 panellists answered this question, with over half (52.1%) stating that free or cheaper
         access would encourage them to use the internet, or use the internet more, and 23.3%
         stating that free or cheaper lessons would encourage them. Along with the results from
         Questions 34 & 35, figure 16 shows that cost is clearly an issue when it comes to Internet


                Figure 16. Factors which would encourage panellists to use the internet, or use the
                                                 internet more.

                        Free / cheap lessons                                              23.3


                      Free / cheaper access                                                                                           52.1


           Computer lessons for older people                                       19.9                            % of cases

             A course where I can learn at my
                                                                                   19.8
                       own pace

             Lessons for complete beginners                                16.3


              A demonstration of the internet                             16.1

                Advice on ways to access the
                                                                   11.2
                          internet

                Help with other special need          0.8


           Help with my visual impairmement            1.4


               Tailored training for my needs                9.4

                                                                                          Number of cases = 1103, number of responses =2292
                      Local facility in my area              8.9


                          None of the above                                                      28.6


                                                  0          10                   20              30             40              50           60




         use. Regarding lessons, ‘a course where I can learn at my own pace’ was selected by 19.8%
         of panellists, similarly 16.3% wanted lessons for complete beginners, with demonstrations
         (16.1%) and advice (11.2%) on internet use also being highlighted as encouraging factors.
         Interestingly, despite previous figures regarding older people and Internet use, 19.9% say
         that lessons would encourage them. Further analysis of the 219 respondents who selected
         this option (confidence interval +/- 6.2) shows that 20% are under 54 years old.




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                            50
                                                             VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




QUESTION 37: Public access to the Internet could be made available from the
following locations in the future. Please choose your 3 most convenient locations
and prioritise them from 1 to 3, with 1 being your most **********




4.28    Due to an unfortunate typographical omission within this question, as highlighted above by
        the asterisks, the analysis has limited significance. The analysis below is based upon the
        assumption that panellists presumed, ‘1’ was the most convenient location, and ‘3’ the least.
        Indeed, looking at the results, we can assume that indeed this was most likely the case.


4.29    Accepting the above assumption, the most convenient location was clearly ‘libraries –
        improved access’, with over one third of respondents (38.8%) placing a ‘1’ next to this. The
        second most popular choice here was ‘supermarkets / shopping centres’ (23.8% of cases),
        which suggests a need for further research into possibilities for using private bodies such as
        supermarkets as public access internet locations. The third most convenient ‘first priority’
        location was ‘post offices’ (11.7% of cases), however; this result should be viewed in the light
        that post offices were the most popular 2nd and 3rd priority as the most convenient location.
        ‘Schools / colleges’ was the favourite location of 8.3% of respondents, and 7.3% chose
        ‘banks’.   All other options were chosen as a favourite location by less than 12% of
        respondents in total, and this pattern is followed with the 2nd and 3rd most convenient
        locations. Full results for all 3 priorities can be seen in Table 28 below.


        Table 28. Most convenient locations for respondents to access the Internet.


                                                                                       % of cases
                                                                            1st           2nd               3rd
                                                                          Priority      Priority          Priority

A      Banks                                                                7.3             12.3            14.1
B      Bus / Train Stations                                                 1.2             2.0             4.6
C      Community Centres                                                    2.5             8.5             7.7
D      Job Centres                                                          3.0             3.3             7.9
E      Libraries – Improved access                                          38.8            14.7            14.0
F      Museums                                                              2.0             2.4             1.5
G      Schools / Colleges                                                   8.3             11.8            10.6
H      Supermarkets / shopping centres                                      23.8            16.0            14.1
I      Torbay Council’s Connections Offices                                 2.6             5.4             8.8
J      Post Offices                                                         11.7            24.5            17.0

Number of cases                                                             642             661             659

Note – Average base number of respondents for this table = 654 (confidence interval of +/- 2.6%)
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)


                                                    51                                RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




QUESTION 38 & 38A: Torbay Council’s libraries currently offer free access to the
internet and support with using the internet, please say if you are aware and have
used these facilities (Q38), and if you are interested or uninterested in using these
facilities (Q38A)?


4.30     An average of 978 panellists answered the above questions. The most significant result is
         that 75% of respondents were unaware that ‘training and support with using the internet’ is
         available in Torbay Council libraries, whilst 52.9% were unaware of the free internet access
         available (41.6% were aware of this but had not used it.) Only 5.5% of respondents were
         aware of and had used the free access, whilst even less (1.9%) were aware of and had used
         the training and support.


4.31     Looking at the interest levels in using these facilities, over half of the respondents expressed
         interest in making use of ‘free access to the internet’ (non-interest 47.9%). Slightly less
         respondents were interested in ‘training and support with using the Internet’, with interest at
         45.7% and non-interest at 54.3%. These results imply a need to improve awareness of the
         facilities that are available through the library service.




Question 39: Please say if you agree or disagree with the following statements about
the development of future internet based services and new ways of accessing
Council Services


4.32     On average, 1117 respondents gave their opinion on each of the 11 statements used in this
         question. The full range of opinions can be seen in Figure 17 below. Overall, panellists are
         more in favour of Torbay Council developing a call centre rather than Internet based
         services. Combining ‘agree’ & ‘strongly agree’, and ‘disagree’ & ‘strongly disagree’, almost
         three-quarters of respondents (71.1%) would ‘prefer to speak to a person by telephone
         rather than use the organisation’s web site’. In second place with an overall 70.7%
         respondents agreed that ‘Torbay Council should give priority to developing a call centre
         because of it’s large retired population who may not know how to use the internet’.




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               52
                                                                    VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




              Figure 16. Panellists opinions on the future development of internet
                                         based services

          "Torbay Council should give equal emphasis to
        developing a call centre and its internet/web based
                             services"

        "Torbay Council should develop more internet/web
         based services in preference to developing a call
                              centre"

         "Torbay Council should give priority to developing
         call centre as it's large retired population may not
                    know how to use the internet"

            "Torbay Council should only further develop it's
           internet services if extra funding is won from the
                              government"


            "A call centre should only be developed if extra
               funding is won fron the UK government"


           "Torbay Council should develop a telephone
         service with operators capable of dealing with the
                        majority of queries"

          "All the Council's paper application forms should
         be available to be completed on the Council's web
                                site"

          "I want to be able to make all payments to the
         Council with a debit/credit/switch card through the
                         Council's web site"

           "I like the convenience of finding out information                                       strongly
            myself on a web site rather than contacting an                                          disagree
                        organisation by telephone"
                                                                                                    disagree

          "Torbay Council should develop an out of normal
           office hours telephone service in preference to                                          no opinion
                     developing it's internet site"
                                                                                                    agree
         "I prefer to speak to a person by telephone rather
           than use the organisation's web site to find out                                         strongly
                             information"                                                           agree

                                                                0   10      20        30       40       50       60




4.33   An age analysis of these two questions shows that surprisingly, almost half of 16-24 year
       olds (overall 49.2%, 30 respondents) agree that they would prefer to speak to a person
       rather than use the web site, with over two thirds (63.9% overall, 39 respondents) agreeing
       that priority should be given to a call centre due to the large retired population.



                                                          53                                 RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




4.34     In line with the statements respondents agreed with, the statement most strongly disagreed
         with was ‘Torbay Council should develop more Internet / web based services in preference to
         developing a call centre’, with 53.9% of respondents overall disagreeing with this.
         Furthermore, over half of respondents (51.9%) state they do not want to ‘make all payments
         to the Council with a debit/credit/switch card through the Council’s web site’, again
         suggesting a reluctance in general in making use of internet financial facilities.




5        LOCAL HEALTH CARE


Guidance on Confidence Intervals




5.1      The questions for the Torbay Primary Care Trust (PCT) in ViewPoint Five should be divided
         into two sections. The first section requested the opinions of the panel regarding levels of
         expenditure on six key objectives. In addition, each objective had a range of PCT Actions.
         An average of 1,080 respondents completed each action, which means that we can be
         statistically confident that the opinions given, at a 95% confidence level, have a confidence
         interval of +/ – 3.0%. This can be seen as being broadly in line with what the total bay
         population might say.


5.2      The second section contained a number of questions making up a special Health and Well-
         Being survey. These questions required self-assessment from panel members. As such, the
         numbers of respondents answering each question should be treated as a sample, with a
         confidence interval reflecting each sample size. The nearer each sample size is to the full
         panel response of 1,600, the more confident we can be that the result is representative of
         the bay. (However, the sample size is of core importance and the confidence interval reflects
         the sample, rather than what the bay population as a whole might say.)




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               54
                                                          VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 40 A to F: Please say what level of increased resources / funding would you
like to see allocated to each ‘action’.


5.3   This question dealt with six key Objectives of the Torbay Primary Care Trust. Panellists were
      given a range of resources and asked to give their opinion as to how the Primary Care Trust
      should allocate those resources against each Key Action. An ‘other’ option was given for
      each Objective, and the number of ‘other’ comments is given for each objective in brackets.
      Information regarding these comments is available for further research, and can be found in
      Appendix A. Each ‘other’ action starts with a very simple summary, based upon numbers
      received per similar written suggestion.


5.4   Figure 18 below shows that for the objectives overall, 82.4% of respondents thought there
      should be increase in resources, whilst 16.2% stated the Primary Care Trust (PCT) should
      allocate the same, and 1.5% stated thought that the PCT should decrease resources.


Figure 18. Respondents opinion on levels of future resource allocation by the PCT




                  16.2%       1.5%

                                                                  increase resources
                                                                  Same resources
                                                                  less resources

                                          82.4%




5.5   Next we looked at the highest response levels for objectives at the three levels of resource
      allocation, i.e. increase, same, or less. The highest response for ‘increase’ was 94.9% of
      respondents indicated they would like to see an increase in the level of resources for
      ‘developing better ways to treat disease (reduction of waiting times)’. The top objective when
      looking at allocating the ‘same’ level of resources was ‘easier access to health and social
      care services’ (23.2%). Finally, the objective which attracted the highest vote for a ‘decrease’
      in current resource levels was ‘develop better ways to prevent disease’ (3.0%)




                                                  55                               RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 41: How often do you do the following types of activities in an energetic
and continuous session of at least 20 minutes, sufficient to make you perspire?


5.6      These questions referred to the type and frequency of activities done by panellists, and their
         feelings towards doing more activity. Nine activities were presented and were answered by a
         sample, which ranged between a high of 1,092 and a low of 765. This gives a sample mean
         of 939, which has a confidence interval of +/-3.2%.


5.7      Table 29 illustrates the nine activities, and the panels response as to how often they are
         undertaken. Looking at activities undertaken once or twice a week, the top activity with 46%
         was ‘Hard physical work, DIY at home / garden’. In addition, approximately 1 in 10
         respondents (11.0%) stated they did this 3 to 4 times a week, and 7.4% indicated ‘5 or more
         times a week’ (base = 1,033, confidence interval +/-3.0%).


         Table 29. Respondents participation in energetic activities

                                                    Frequency per Week                    Sample                Gender
                                                                         Not
                                                                5+                          Confidence
                                           1 or 2    3 to 4           usually or   Size                  Male      Female
                                                              times                          Interval
                                                                        never
                                             %         %       %          %        Num.       +/- %       %          %

Keep fit, aerobics, dancing or
exercises                                  23.2       6.2     3.9        66.8      984         3.1       44.2       55.8
Brisk walking                              34.6      19.7     24.3       21.4      1,092       3.0       45.0       54.8
Jogging or running                         5.4       2.4      0.7        91.5       902        3.3       45.2       55.8
Swimming                                   22.1      2.5      0.9        74.5       960        3.2       44.2       55.1
Cycling                                    5.9       2.1      1.4        90.6       913        3.2       44.9       54.3
Hard Physical work in my job               10.6      6.6      13.2       69.5       922        3.0       45.7       54.9
Hard Physical work e.g. DIY at
home or in the garden                      46.0      11.0     7.4        35.6      1,033       3.0       45.1       54.9
Other sport                                14.9       3.6     1.5        80.0      880         3.3       46.4       53.6
Other activity                             18.2       5.4     3.5        72.9      765         3.5       45.6       54.4
Statistical mean                           20.1       6.6     6.3        67.0      939         3.2       45.1       54.9

Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)


5.8      Looking at ‘brisk walking’, 24.3% of respondents stated that they undertook this activity
         ‘more than 5 times a week’. Further to this, 19.7% stated they took part in brisk walking
         ‘three to four times a week’, 34.6% participated ‘1 to 2 times a week’ and 21.4% of
         respondents ‘never’ take part in this activity (base = 1,092, confidence interval +/-3.0%).
         Perhaps unsurprisingly, bearing in mind the ‘brisk walking’ figures, 91.5% of respondents
         indicated that they ‘never’ took part in ‘jogging or running’.




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                  56
                                                                    VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




5.9     This same table also shows that the most popular activity was ‘brisk walking’, with 78.6%
        (base = 1,092, confidence interval +/- 3.3%) stating they take part. Second most popular
        here is ‘hard physical work, DIY at home/garden’ with 64.4% of respondents (base = 1,033,
        confidence interval +/- 3.8%) stating they do this. It should be noted that a significant
        percentage of the sample stated ‘Not usually / Never’ against certain activities. The activities
        which the most panellists indicated they ‘don’t usually / never’ participate in were ‘jogging
        and running’ (91.5%) and cycling (90.5%). On average across all activities, 67% of
        respondents stated they ‘didn’t usually’ or ‘never’ take part in each activity.




        Table 30. Respondents participation in energetic activities (by age grouping)

                                                                    Age group percentages
                                           16-24    25-34   35-44      45-54    55-64     65-74            75+       Total
                                             %        %       %          %        %         %               %        Num.

Keep fit, aerobics, dancing or exercises    8.9     13.2    19.0        15.3       15.6        16.6       11.3       326
Brisk walking                               5.2      8.9    17.1        18.6       18.5        17.9       13.6       858
Jogging or running                         19.5     18.2    20.8        18.2       14.3        7.8         1.3       77
Swimming                                    8.2      9.0    22.9        17.1       20.4        13.5        9.0       245
Cycling                                     9.3     17.4    24.4        19.8       12.8        12.8        3.5       86
Hard Physical work in my job                8.5     12.8    24.9        28.5       17.8        5.7         1.8       281
Hard Physical work e.g. DIY at home or
in the garden                              2.3      8.6     15.6        22.3       21.7        17.3       12.3       665
Other sport                                 9.7     12.6    18.9        16.0       20.6        13.1        9.1       175
Other activity                             10.6     13.0    17.9        20.3       15.5        13.5        9.2       207

Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)


5.10    Table 30 looks at the same activities but highlights the age ranges of respondents taking
        part. It can be seen that, in general terms, the middle-range age groups show a
        preponderance towards activity. However, the results do show a wide spread across all
        activities listed. Studying the top activities by percentage of respondents taking part, as
        identified above in Table 30, the highest level of participation comes from 45-54 Year-olds in
        each case. It can also be clearly seen, not surprisingly, that ‘Jogging or running’ is the
        favourite of the younger panel members.


5.11    Table 31 below shows that, generally, Socio-economic group IIIN (non-manual) dominates
        most forms of activities with II (managerial) and IIIM (manual) fairly evenly matched for
        second place. Again, looking at the top activities by percentage of respondents taking part,
        the highest level of participation comes from IIIN (non-manual) in each case. A separate
        town analysis closely mirrors the total population percentage in each town.




                                                       57                                    RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         Table 31. Respondents participation in energetic activities (by Socio-economic
                         grouping)

                                                                          Socio-economic Groups
                                             I               II        IIIN        IIIM       IV   V     Total
                                             %               %          %           %         %    %     Num.

Keep fit, aerobics, dancing or
exercises                                   8.5          35.2          31.4      18.9        5.7   0.3   318
Brisk walking                               4.6          27.8          35.9      23.6       7.1    0.9   844
Jogging or running                          5.3          31.6          32.9      21.1       9.2     0     76
Swimming                                    4.6          25.4          40.0      23.3       5.8    0.8   240
Cycling                                     6.0          25.3          30.1      30,1       7.2    1.2    83
Hard Physical work in my job                4.3          21.6          24.5      36.3       12.2   1.1   278
Hard Physical work e.g. DIY at
home or in the garden                       6.4          25.5          33.4      27.5        6.8   0.5   659
Other sport                                 9.8          29.9          32.8      21.3        5.7   0.6   174
Other activity                              6.8          25.6          35.3      24.6        6.8   1.0   207

Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)



Question 42: Which of the following statements best describe your feelings towards
doing more physical activity.


5.12     A sample of 1,196 respondents answered this question, which at a 95% confidence limit
         gave a confidence interval of +/- 2.8%. Table 32 below shows how the sample responded as
         well as providing sub-sample confidence intervals. Approximately 4 in 10 respondents
         (40.9%) stated ‘I am unable to do more physical activity (medical / disability)’. Of these
         panellists, 42.9% were male, 57.1% female, and the highest socio-economic group was IIIN
         (non-manual) with 33.0%. This high percentage perhaps reflects the ‘top-heavy’ age
         structure of the bay, mirrored in the panel. A further 5.9% of respondents stating ‘I am too
         old to do any more physical activity’ adds weight to this view.


5.13     Almost one third (28.0%) of respondents stated ‘I would like to do more physical activity’.
         Further analysis of these respondents shows that 48.4% were male, 51.6% were female and
         the dominant socio-economic group (SEG) was IIIN (non-manual), with 36.2%. A further
         16.1% of respondents stated ‘I am not interested in doing more physical activity’ and 9.1%
         indicated ‘I do enough physical activity’.




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                    58
                                                                     VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




        Table 32. Respondents feelings towards participating in more physical activities

                                                                      Respondents          Confidence          % of total
                                                                                            Interval         respondents
                                                                            Num.               +/- %                   %

I would like to do more physical activity                                   335                 5.3                28.0
I am not interested in doing any more physical activity                     193                 7.0                16.1
I do enough physical activity at the moment                                 109                 9.4                9.1
I am unable to do more physical activity (medical problems,
disability)
                                                                            489                 4.4                40.9
I am too old to do any more physical activity                                70                11.7                 5.9
Total                                                                      1,196                2.8                100.0

Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)


Questions 43 and 44: Thinking about smoking, which one of the following statements
applies to you?


5.14    A sample of 1,199 respondents answered Question 43, which at a 95% confidence limit
        gives a confidence interval of +/- 2.8% for this sample. Figure 19 illustrates how the sample
        responded. It is clear from the results that a very significant majority of respondents state
        they do not smoke (83.9%). This could be argued to reflect the current high levels of social
        attitude against smoking in general and a reflection of changing life style patterns.


        Figure 19. Respondents smoking habits

                                        2.7
                                                                                         Never smoked / stopped
                          13.5                                                           smoking more than 6
                                                                                         months ago



                  2.8
                                                                                         Ex-smoker – stopped
                                                                                         smoking less than 6
                                                                                         months ago




                                                                                         Regular smoker – at
                                                                                         least 1 cigarette / cigar /
                                                                                         pipe a day




                                                                                         Occasional smoker –
                                                                                         less than 1 cigarette /
                                                              81.1                       cigar / pipe a day




                                                     59                                       RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




5.15     Looking at those that stated that they ‘never smoked / stopped more than six months ago’,
         43.4% were male, 56.6% were females, and the most dominant socio-economic group
         (SEG) was IIIN (non-manual) with 36.5%. Just over 1 in 10 respondents (13.5%) stated they
         were a ‘regular smoker – at least 1 cigarette / cigar / pipe per day’. 50.0% of regular smokers
         were male and the highest SEG was IIIN (non-manual) with 33.5%. Whilst not directly
         comparable, and now somewhat dated, results from the 1999 Health Survey for England
         (31.8) using a standardised rate per 100 persons, show that this sample of people have
         many more non smokers than would normally be expected. However, this high percentage of
         non smokers may be more reflective of today’s                 enlightened ‘healthy’ attitude against
         smoking and also the older age pattern of the panel which mirrors that of the bay.


Questions 45: Which of the following statements best describes your feelings about
stopping smoking?


5.16     Of the 194 panellists who stated that they smoked, 180 (confidence interval +/- 6.7%) went
         on to answer this question. It is pleasing to note that just over of half of respondents (52.8%)
         stated that they ‘would like to give up some time in the future’. 10.6% stated they ‘intended to
         give up in the next 6 months’ and 7.8% stated they ‘intended to give up in the next month’.
         Table 33 shows that only just over a quarter of respondents (28.9%) stated they ‘did not
         want to give up’.


         Table 33. Smokers views on ‘giving up’

                                                                  Respondents   Confidence       % of total
                                                                                 interval      respondents
                                                                     Num.          +/- %            %

I don’t want to give up smoking                                       52           13.6           28.9
I intend to give up smoking within the next month                    <20           28.9           7.8
I intend to give up smoking within the next 6 months                 <20           24.1           10.6
I would like to give up smoking some time in the
                                                                      95           10.1           52.8
future
Total                                                                180            7.3           100.0

Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)


Questions 46: Do you drink alcoholic drinks at least once a week?


5.17     A sample of 1,179 respondents answered this question which, at a 95% confidence limit,
         gives a confidence interval of +/- 2.8% for this sample. The table below (Table 34) gives
         details, however the main finding is that 801 respondents (67.9%) stated ‘yes’, of which
         50.8% were male, 49.2% female. (Socio-economic grouping IIIN was highest with 35.4%).


RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               60
                                                          VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




        Table 34. Respondents drinking habits – Do you drink alcoholic drinks at least once
                    a week?

                                                          Yes                  No                  Number
                                                         Col %                Col %                 Num.

Torbay – Total Numbers                                   801                   378                  1,179

Gender
  Male                                                   50.8                  32.0                  528
  Female                                                 49.2                  68.0                  651

Age
  16-24 years                                            5.4                   4.5                   60
  25-34 years                                            9.1                   7.4                   101
  35-44 years                                            18.4                  13.5                  198
  45-54 years                                            19.4                  15.1                  212
  55-64 years                                            17.0                  20.1                  212
  65-74 years                                            17.5                  19.6                  214
  75+ years                                              13.4                  19.8                  182

Geographic Area
  Brixham                                                16.9                  14.0                  188
  Paignton                                               33.6                  37.3                  410
  Torquay                                                49.6                  48.7                  581

Socio-economic Group
  I                                                      6.5                   3.6                   64
  II                                                     28.2                  22.4                  303
  III(N)                                                 36.4                  38.0                  417
  III(M)                                                 23.2                  24.0                  270
  IV                                                     6.1                   11.2                  89
  V                                                      0.6                   0.8                    8

Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)



Question 47: Approximately, how many alcoholic drinks do you have each week?



5.18    The sample (801) who stated that they do drink were then asked ‘Approximately, how many
        alcoholic drinks do you have each week?’ A sub-sample of 792 responded (confidence
        interval of +/- 3.5%) of which 49.7% were male and 50.3% were female.


5.19    It is interesting to note that just over two thirds of those respondents (68.0%) who stated
        they did not drink, were female. When studying an age group analysis, the majority of
        respondents (over 60.0%) who were non-drinkers were over 55 years of age. A geographical
        and socio-economic analysis showed no significant findings.



                                                    61                             RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




5.20     Units of Alcohol were then used to analyse the answers given (alcopops were assumed to
         be one unit of alcohol per bottle). Regarding alcohol consumption, in health terms it is
         recommended to drink below 14 units per week for women, and 21 units per week for men.
         A percentage analysis shows that the vast majority of respondents answering this question
         (83.6%) do in fact drink below the recommended health level, with just 16.4% drinking above
         it.


5.21     A gender analysis found that 13.8% of all females aged 17 upwards (base = 55) were
         consuming over 14 units per week (confidence interval +/- 13.2%). Similarly, it was found
         that 19.0% of all males aged 17 upwards (base = 75) were consuming over 21 units per
         week (confidence interval +/- 11.3%). It may be of interest that respondents between 45-54
         years old make up the largest majority (over 30.0% for each sex) of those who consume
         over the recommended amount. Whilst not directly comparable, these results are similar with
         those from the 1999 Health Survey for England .


         Table 35. Respondents drinking habits – Units of alcohol consumed above
                         recommended weekly limit.

                                       Males over 17 consuming over 21   Females over 17 consuming over 14
                                           units of alcohol per week         units of alcohol per week
                                                      Col %                             Col %

Sample Number                                                75                         55

Age
  16-24 years                                             8.2                           9.1
  25-34 years                                             0.0                          12.7
  35-44 years                                            20.4                          12.7
  45-54 years                                            32.7                          30.9
  55-64 years                                            12.2                          16.4
  65-74 years                                            14.3                          14.5
  75+ years                                              12.2                           3.6

Geographic Analysis
  Brixham                                                 6.1                          30.9
  Paignton                                               40.8                          20.0
  Torquay                                                53.1                          49.1

Socio-economic Group
  I                                                       8.2                           3.6
  II                                                     32.7                          29.1
  III(N)                                                 26.5                          34.5
  III(M)                                                 28.6                          25.5
  IV                                                      4.1                           7.3
  V                                                       0.0                           0.0

Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)



RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                    62
                                                           VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




5.22    Looking at the geographical analysis of drinking habits, the figures show that Torquay male
        and female percentages are well matched. In Paignton, more males than females consume
        alcohol at this level with the reverse (more females than males exceeding the limit) in
        Brixham. It must be noted however, that the sub-sample sizes we are dealing with here are
        very small. As such the confidence with which we can state that these results are
        representative of a larger area is extremely low. Further analysis of unit consumption is
        recommended from a Health Authority perspective.




Questions 48 and 49: How tall are you (without shoes), and how much do you weigh?



5.23    Respondents were asked to estimate their height and weight and a sample of 1,112
        (confidence interval +/- 2.9%) responded to both questions, made up of 45.4% males and
        67.4% females. From the information given by respondents the Body Mass Index (BMI) can
        be calculated, by weight in kilograms being divided by height in metres squared. From a
        health perspective, a BMI of more than 25 and less than 30 is said to be overweight and a
        BMI of 30 or more refers to obesity.


        Table 36: Gender and age analysis of those respondents with a BMI greater than 25
                    and less than 30.

                                          Number of Respondents                            Col %

Total                                                461                                  100.0%

Gender
  Male                                               248                                  53.8%
  Female                                             213                                  46.2%

Age Group
  16-24 Year-olds                                    <20                                  <3.0%
  25-34                                              <40                                  <8.0%
  35-44                                               69                                  15.0%
  45-54                                               86                                  18.7%
  55-64                                               90                                  19.5%
  65-74                                              111                                  21.1%
  75+                                                 58                                  12.6%

Total base no. = 1,112 (excludes missing returns)




5.24    Of those respondents who answered this question, 41.5% (461 panellists, confidence
        interval +/- 4.6%) were found to have a BMI of more than 25 and less than 30, indicating
                                                63                                  RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         ‘overweight’. It is also interesting to note that 14.7% (164 panellists, confidence interval +/-
         7.6%) have a BMI of 30 or more, indicating ‘obesity’ (45.1% male, 54.9% female). Included
         within this figure are less than (<) 1% of respondents with a BMI of 40 or more (50.0% male,
         50.0% female). Whilst not directly comparable, and now somewhat dated, the results from
         the 1999 Health Survey for England (37.6) using a standardised rate per 100 persons,
         indicate that this sample of people have higher BMI levels than would be expected.


5.25     Looking at Socio-economic Groups (SEG) of those with a BMI of 25 or more, panellists
         classed as IIIN (non-manual) made up the majority of the sample (36.0%). For a gender and
         age group analysis of respondents, please see Table 36 above. Where small numbers are
         involved the less than (<) symbol has been used. Further analysis on this topic is
         recommended from a Health Authority perspective and against any known national trends. A
         full set of Top-Line result tables for this health section are reproduced at Appendix B




6        CHILDREN LOOKED AFTER


6.1      Under the Children’s Act, the Council has a duty to meet the needs of any child in Torbay
         that (for whatever reason) require suitable accommodation. Torbay Council’s Social Services
         Directorate currently have, at the time of writing, over 200 ‘looked after’ children who cannot
         live with their own families.


6.2      It is important to note that Torbay Council considers every ‘looked after’ child on an individual
         basis. However, the Council considers it extremely helpful to have a bay wide perspective on
         the issues covered in this section. The answers given in this section will be used by the
         Council when considering the issues of meeting the needs and priorities of children looked
         after and the resources for this.


Question 50: If a child cannot live with its family, in general terms, where do you
consider they should live?


6.3      Panellists were presented with a list of possible places a child could live (if not with its own
         family), and asked to rank each one from 1 to 5, in order of preference. Panellists were also

RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               64
                                                                   VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




        given a ‘don’t know’ option. It is important to note that respondents were allowed to rank up
        to five options, and therefore the numbers for each option are different.


6.4     To help analyse the data further, weighting has been applied to each ‘vote’. Any option
        ranked 1 has been given a weighting of 5, an option ranked 2 given a weighting of 4 and so
        on until rank 5, which has been given a weighting of 1. This then produces a ‘weighted
        score’ for each rank regarding each placement.


6.5     Looking at the options (see Table 37), clearly the most preferred placement amongst
        panellists was ‘with their extended family’ where 78.7% of all weighted votes were ranked
        one, 12.1% ranked two and 6.9% ranked three. It is also clear that the majority of panellists
        do not want to see ‘looked after’ children placed ‘in a children’s home’ as 73.3% of weighted
        votes were ranked five, 9.1% ranked four and 7.0% ranked three. It is also important to note
        that almost 1 in 10 panellists (9.5%), a significant minority, indicated ‘don’t know’.


        Table 37. Panellists preference for the placement of ‘looked after’ children

                                                    Placement Option
         In a Children’s                            With their extended     With an adopted          With friends of the
                            With a Foster Carer
              Home                                         family                family                    family
Rank     WR*        Col %     WR*       Col %        WR*         Col %      WR*        Col %         WR*         Col %

1         65        6.6       290       12.9        2790        78.7        390          15.1         375         14.2
2         40        4.0       484       21.5        428         12.1        868          33.6        1,432        54.4
3         69        7.0       714       31.7        246          6.9        942          36.4         450         17.1
4         90        9.1       762       33.8         66          1.9        370          14.3         332         12.6
5        725       73.3        4         0.2         14          0.4         17           0.7          45          1.7

Total    989      100.0      2,254     100.0        3,544      100.0       2,587        100.0        2,634        100.0

WR* refers to weighted ranking. Each vote for rank 1 has been given a weighting of 5, rank 2 a
weighting of 4 and so on until rank 5, which has been given a weighting of 1.
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)


Question 51: Please rate the follow statements about children looked after.

6.6     For Question 51 panellists were presented with a list of statements regarding children looked
        after, and asked to prioritise them on a scale of one to five, with one being a lower priority
        and five being the higher priority. To help panellists make a balanced judgement, they were
        also presented with information on how much Torbay spends on looked after children, and
        how this compares to other Councils. As there were no restrictions put on respondents, there
        was a natural tendency to rate most or all statements as a high priority, which should be
        remembered when studying the results.




                                                        65                                  RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




6.7       Figure 20 below shows that panellists would like to see ‘the safety of the child’ given high
          priority, as 84.8% of respondents gave this a rating of five, and a further 9.0% gave the
          statement a rating of four. Similarly, 70.6% of respondents gave ‘providing a stable, secure
          environment for the child’ a rating of five, while 20.8% gave a rating of four, making this
          another high priority. Approximately two-thirds of respondents (69.8%) rated ‘raising
          educational attainment of children looked after’ at two, three or four, suggesting it should be
          of medium priority.


6.8       It is interesting to note that 34.5% of respondents indicated that ‘reducing the cost to the
          Council of children looked after’ should be made a low priority (rating of one). Only 9.7%
          stated that it should be made a high priority (rating of five) and 55.9% of respondents rated
          the statement at two, three or four (medium priority).


          Figure 20. Respondents priorities regarding children looked after in Torbay.

       Providing a alternative family            3.1
                                                       6.0                                                              The bases number of respondents
       environment e.g. foster care                                        22.4
                                                                                     29.2                               are indicated in brackets () after
                  (1,125)                                                                            39.2               each question
                                           0.6
       Providing a stable, secure           1.6
                                                       6.5
    environment for the child (1,159)                                  20.8
                                                                                                                                            70.6

   Helping children looked after stay           2.8
                                                  4.3
      'on the straight and narrow'                                   18.9
                 (1,126)                                                               30.0
                                                                                                            44.0
                                               1.9
      Looking after their health care             4.0
                                                                      19.5
             needs (1,140)                                                                32.1                                    Rated 1 (lowest priority)
                                                                                                          42.5
                                                 3.4                                                                              Rated 2
          Raising the educational                           8.5
       attainment of children looked                                               28.4
                                                                                            32.9                                  Rated 3
                after (1,110)                                                     26.8
                                                                                                                                  Rated 4
                                                                                              34.5
   Reducing the cost to the Council                                    20.9
                                                                              24.8                                                Rated 5 (highest priority)
    of children looked after (1,093)                         10.2
                                                             9.7
                                               1.2
                                               1.0
       The safety of the child (1,157)               4.1
                                                             9.0
                                                                                                                                                              84.8

                                         0.0               10.0     20.0          30.0             40.0          50.0      60.0        70.0        80.0          90.0
                                                                                  % of Respondents for Each Statement




Question 52: Please say whether you are aware or unaware of the following benefits
and facts of being a foster carer.


6.9       In order to provide more choice for looked after children, Torbay Council intends to further
          develop its foster care services. The answers given in this section will be used to measure
          potential demand in the community to be a foster carer, assess awareness of fostering


RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                                    66
                                                                                 VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




         benefits, and help with the recruitment drive. The following questions were in no way
         intended as a direct appeal to be a foster carer.




6.10     Panellists were first presented with a list of facts and benefits associated with being a foster
         carer, and asked to state their awareness of each one. Please note that due to a
         grammatical omission, sub-section (E) of this question could not be analysed. As is
         illustrated by Figure 21 below, generally awareness levels were low across all facts and
         benefits.


6.11     Just under half of respondents (49.7%) indicated they were aware that ‘fostering allowances
         cover the costs of any child placed with you’. Other facts and benefits which gained the
         highest awareness levels were ‘Social Services organise training sessions to prepare foster
         carers’ (47.3% of respondents aware) and ‘a person can still be a foster carer if they work
         part-time’ (44.9% aware). Approximately three-quarters (77.0%) of respondents were not
         aware that ‘basic allowances are tax free and don’t affect benefits’. Similarly, 73.0% were not
         aware that ‘the period of time for fostering is a matter of choice on behalf of the foster carer’.


         Figure 21. Panellists awareness of facts and possible benefits associated with being
                           a foster carer.


 Basic allowances are tax free and
                                                                          77.0                                                 23.0
   don't affect benefits (1,112)


The period of time for fostering is a
 matter of choice on behalf of the                                      73.0                                                27.0
        foster carer (1,113)


   A person could still be a foster
                                                                   65.5                                                 34.5
  carer if they work full-time (1,114)



   A person could still be a foster
                                                            55.1                                                 44.9
 carer if they work part-time (1,112)


  Social Services organise training
  sessions to prepare foster carers                        52.7                                                 47.3
               (1,114)


  Fostering allowances cover the
 costs of any child placed with you                       50.3                                                 49.7
               (1,111)


The bases number of                      0%   10%   20%          30%       40%       50%       60%       70%          80%       90%     100%
respondents are indicated in
                                                          % of Respondents for Each Statement
brackets () after each question
                                                                                                                 Not Aware            Aware




                                                                   67                                     RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 53: There are many different types of fostering. Please say if you are aware
or unaware of the following:



6.12     Panellists were again presented a list of different types of fostering, and asked to indicate
         which of these they were aware of and which they were unaware of. Awareness levels varied
         greatly for each type of fostering.




6.13     Just over half the panel indicated they were aware of ‘Short term Placements - providing a
         home for a young person whilst plans are made for the future’ (55.6% aware). Similarly,
         53.9% of respondents were aware of ‘Long term / Permanent Placements - providing a
         home for a young person until they achieve independence’ (see Table 38). At the other end
         of the scale, only 18.0% of respondents were aware of the ‘Supported Lodgings Scheme -
         offering a room in your home to a young person who is learning to live’.


         Table 38: Respondents awareness of different types of fostering.



                                                                                         Aware   Not Aware
                                                                                         Row %    Row %

     Supported Lodgings Scheme (1,103)
A
     Offering a room in your home to a young person who is learning to live
                                                                                         18.0      82.0
     Contract Care Scheme (1,105)
B
     Receiving a wage for looking after our more challenging children and young people
                                                                                         31.0      69.0
     Respite Care Scheme for children with special needs (1,105)
C
     Provide regular breaks for children with special needs and their families
                                                                                         49.1      50.9
     Long term / Permanent Placements (1,109)
D
     Providing a home for a young person until they achieve independence
                                                                                         53.9      46.1
     Short term Placements (1,108)
E
     Providing a home for a young person whilst plans are made for the future
                                                                                         55.6      44.4
     Respite Care Scheme (1,109)
F
     Providing regular breaks for children and young people
                                                                                         44.2      55.8

Note – numbers in brackets () represent base response for each heading
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               68
                                                           VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 54: Which of the following best matches your thinking about foster care?


6.14 This question asked panellists about their feelings and thoughts on becoming a foster carer.
       It is extremely pleasing to note that, after completing the rest of this section, nearly 1 in 10
       respondents (8.0%, base = 1,148) stated that they were ‘quite or very interested in becoming
       a foster carer’. As Figure 22 illustrates, only a very small percentage of respondents (0.3%)
       indicated they already were foster carers, and the vast majority (91.6%) stated that they
       were ‘not interested’ in becoming a foster carer.




       Figure 22: Panellists thinking about becoming a foster carer.

                             7.1%
                                    0.9%
                                                                         I am not interested in
                      0.3%                                               becoming a foster carer




                                                                         I am already a foster carer




                                                                         I am quite interested in
                                                                         becoming a foster carer




                                                                         I am very interested in
                                                                         becoming a foster carer
                                           91.7%




Question 55: Please say whether any of these facts and benefits have increased your
interest in becoming a foster carer.


6.15 Respondents who had stated that they were ‘quite or very interested in becoming a foster
       carer’ (base = 92 respondents) were then presented with a list of facts and benefits and
       asked to select any that had increased their interest. As panellists could select more than
       one option, percentages total to more than 100% (in this case 406.2%). Both the number of
       responses and number of cases are stated at the bottom of Table 39.




                                                   69                               RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




          Table 39: Facts and benefits that have increased respondents interest in becoming
                         foster carers.

                                                                                           % of cases

A     The period of time for fostering is a matter of choice on behalf of the fosterer’        51.5
B     Social Services organise training sessions to prepare foster carers                      45.4
C     A person could still be a foster carer if they work full-time                            46.4
D     A person could still be a foster carer if they work part-time                            20.6
E     A person could still be a foster carer after retirement                                  21.6
F     Fostering allowances cover the costs of any child placed with you                        47.4
G     Basic allowances are tax free and don’t affect benefits                                  36.1
H     Supported lodgings scheme                                                                28.9
I     Contract Care Scheme                                                                     11.3
J     Respite Care Scheme for children with special needs                                      13.4
K     Long term / Permanent Placements                                                         22.7
L     Short term Placements                                                                    36.4
M     Respite Care Scheme                                                                      24.7

Note – 97 cases, 394 responses
Total base no. = 1,250 (includes missing returns)



6.16 Just over half of respondents (51.5% of cases) indicated that knowing ‘the period of time for
         fostering is a matter of choice on behalf of the fosterer’ increased their interest. Other facts
         and benefits that increased interest were ‘a person could still be a foster carer if they work
         full-time’ (46.4% of cases) and ‘Social Services organise training sessions to prepare foster
         carers’ (45.4%).




7        CHANGES TO VIEWPOINT


7.1      As this ViewPoint questionnaire was a little longer than previous versions, we wanted
         panellists’ opinions on the longer format. It is more economical for the Council to make the
         ViewPoint questionnaires slightly longer, however, we very much want to keep all panellists
         ‘on board’ and so do not want to discourage them with overly lengthy questionnaires.




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               70
                                                                 VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Question 56: Please rate the length of this ViewPoint questionnaire on the following
scale:


7.2      Panellists were asked to rate the length of this questionnaire on a scale that ranged from
         ‘too short’ through to ‘about right’ and ‘too long’. It is pleasing to note that the vast majority of
         panellists indicated that the questionnaire was ‘about right’ (57.3%). However, it should also
         be noted that 40.0% of respondents rated the length of this questionnaire as between ‘a bit
         long’ and ‘too long’ (see Figure 23 below).


         Figure 23: Panellists opinions on the length of ViewPoint Five.

 70.0
             % of Respondents

 60.0                                                     57.3


 50.0



 40.0



 30.0


                                                                        19.9
 20.0

                                                                                                            11.0
                                                                                           9.1
 10.0

                                          2.1
              0.3           0.3
  0.0
           Too short       Short      A Bit Short   About Right     A Bit Long           Long           Too Long




        Geoff Chamings
        Research Manager
        Strategic Services Directorate
        Strategy & Research Division
        Tel. (01803) 208827

        Jonathan Williams                              Lucy Hoare
        Researcher                                     Researcher
        Strategic Services Directorate                 Strategic Services Directorate
        Strategy and Research Division                 Strategy and Research Division
        Tel. (01803) 208829                            Tel. (01803) 208839




                                                     71                                   RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




APPENDIX A : Printout of 'Other' comments Q40
Q40 A: Better Health
Simple number / order analysis of comments printed below:-
1 Largest proportion linked to better services for disabled and elderly
2 The need for an increase in health information / education
3 Increased access and services provided at Doctors surgery's
4 Social aspects
5 Obesity and diet
All other comments were a fairly even mix and spread
 CHEAP EYE + DENTIST                 CHARGES
DISABLED AND OLDER ELDERLY PE0PLE
RAISE MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS
ACROSS THE BOARD HELP FOR ELDERLY
ADVICE AWARENESS ON PREVENTION OF POOR
ALL CONTACT WITH THE NHS TO BE CHANGED
ASSISTANCE FOR DISABLED
AVOID WASTE AND DUPLICATION
BETTER EDUCATION GENERALLY PREVENTION
BETTER FACILITIES AT GP SURGERIES
BETTER HEALTH EDUCATION FOR-ALL
BETTER INFORMATION FOR YOUNG & POOR
BETTER SEX EDUCATION AVOIDING YOUTH
BETTER TRAINING FOR GP RECEPTION STAFF
CARE IN HOME FOR ELDERLY
CARE OF THE ELDERLY
CARE OF THE ELDERLY
COMMITMENT TO PREVENTIVE MEDICINE.
COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES
CUTTING WAITING TIMES
DEVELOP NEW WAYS OF ENGAGING PEOPLE
DIETARY NEEDS TOWARDS BETTER HEALTH
DISCIPLINE WOULD BE MOST EFFECTIVE
DISCOURAGE JUNK FOOD GOOD DIETS
DRUG AND ALCOHOL SERVICES
EDUCATION IN HUMAN VALUES
EDUCATION SHOULD INCLUDE RAISED AWARE
ENCOURAGE MORAL STANDARDS EVERYWHERE
ENCOURAGE PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
FAST EFFECTIVE PC CONNECTION BETWEEN
FORCE PEOPLE INTO WORK
FREE BUS FAIRS FOR THE ELDERLY
FUNDING FOR DISABLED
HEALTH CARE FOR HOMELESS


RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               72
                                               VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




HEALTH EDUCATION PREVENTION BETTER CURE
HEALTH PROMOTION + EDUCATION
HEALTH WARNING ON ALCOHOL AS ON CIGS
HELP FOR COMMUNITY CHEMISTS
HELP FOR DISABLED NEEDS IMPROVING
HELP FOR THE DISABLED
HELP FOR THE ELDERLY HEALTH CARE
HELPING ELDERLY SET ALL HELP THEY NEED
IMPROVE ACCESS TO MORE HEALTH IN FORMAT
IMPROVE ACCESS TO SERVICES FOR EVERY
IMPROVE DIETARY LEVEL OF SCHOOL MEALS
IMPROVE HEALTHCARE FOR ELDERLY
IMPROVE SERVICES FOR ELDERLY
IMPROVED CARE FOR MENTALLY ILL
IMPROVED FASTER ATTENTION ELDERLY PA
IMPROVEMENT FOR RETIRED PERSONNEL
IMPROVING ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE SERVI
IMPROVING ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTHCARE
INCREASE HELP FOR ELDERLY
INCREASE NOW SMOKING AREAS IN SHOPS
INFORM PEOPLE OF BENEFITS AVAILABLE
INSPECTIONS ON DOCTORS AND SURGEONS
JOINT WORKING HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVI
LESS RELIANCE ON PILLS-NATURAL OPTION
MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELLING
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
MORE GP SERVICES - WELL MAN CLINICS
MORE GPS NEEDED-REDUCE WAITING TIME
MORE USE OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
MUCH LESS BEUROCRASY-FAR TOO COSTLY
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS PHYSIOTHERAPY
NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT
OBESITY AWARENESS AND FREE HELP
OUT OF HOURS ACCESS FOR EMPLOYED
PEOPLE MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HEALTH
PREGNANCY IN UNDERAGE FEMALES
PRESCRIPTIONS FOR POORER PEOPLE
PREVENTATIVE MEDICINE
PREVENTIVE HEALTH EDUCATION FOR ALL
PROMOTE FITNESS/HEALTH AWARENESS
RETURN TO BEVANS ORIGINAL CONCEPTS
SAME FACILITIES FOR ALL-HEALTH NOT WE
SHORTEN   WAITING LISTS FOR TREATMENT
SPEAKERS/MATERIAL TO EXISTING YOUTH GR
STOP CLOSURE OF NURSING HOMES ETC
SUPPORT ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

                                          73                            RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




TACKLE THOSE WHO CHEAT NHS
TEACH FOOD NUTRITION IN SCHOOLS
TOP PRIORITY TO PROMOTE SELF RELIANCE
TRAINING FOR ALL NOT JUST YOUNG
TREAT OBESITY
TREAT THE SICK - LEAVE SOCIAL ENGINER

Q40 B: Prevent disease
Simple number / order analysis of comments printed below:-
1 Largest proportion linked to annual health checks/screening
2 Advice on diet exercise eating habits
3 Health education
4 Re-establish healthy lifestyles
All other comments were a fairly even mix and spread
HELPING OLDER PEOPLE GET MORE BENEF
LEAFLETS ABOUT FOOD ADDATIVES PRODU
ADDRESS VERY HIGH COST OF FRUIT+VEG
ADEQUATE INCOME TO AFFORD HEALTHY DI
ADVISE 0N BETTER NUTRITION A EXERCIS
ADVISING PEOPLE ON HEALTHY DIETARY L
AFFORDABLE HOUSING YOUNG SINGLE PEOP
ALL CLUBS PUBS CAFES ETC MADE SMOKLE
ANNUAL HEALTH CHECK OR MOT
AS ABOVE
ATMEN WHERE SELF-INFLICTED
ATTENTION TO DIET ADDITIVES ALLERGIE
BAN SUPERMARKET SALES OF ALCOHOL
BETTER ACCESS TO DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES
BETTER HEALTH EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS
BETTER HELP FOR MENTAL HEALTH
BETTER SUBSIDY OF SPORTS FACILITIES
CHILD INOCULATION
CLEAN BEACHES & WATER
CLENLINESS IN FOOT SHOPS ETC
DEMAND PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE COMPLEMENTARY &
DEVELOP PREVENTIVE MEDICAL TECHNIQUE
DIET HELP FOR OVER WRIGHT ADULTS KID
EDUCATE YOUNG IE SCHOOL
EDUCATION (HEALTH)
EDUCATION ABOUT PREVENTING DISEASE
EDUCATION ON HEALTY EATING FRUIT VEG
EFFECTIVE SCREENING SERVICES
ENCOURAGE ANUAL GENERAL CHECK-UPS
ENCOURAGE HEALTHIER DIETS

RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               74
                                                      VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




ENCOURAGE HEALTHY EATING HABiTS
EXERCISE/ACTIVITY FOR YOUNG PEOPLE
FAMILY WORKSH0PS RE HEALTH/NUTRITION
FREE ACCESS TO SPORT/HEALTH FOR THE
GIVING PEOPLE MORE HELP + INFO ABOUT
GIVING YOUNGSTERS VOLUNTARY WORK
HAVE HEALTH MOTS.FOR ALL-PREVENTION
HEALTH CHECKS EGBREAST/ WE1GHT/GENER
HEALTHY DIET
HELP WITH ALCOHOLISM
HELP WITH MEMBERSHIP FEES (COSTLY)
IMPROVE H0USING-SEE OXFORD REPORT199
IMPROVE SCREENING AND REGULAR CHECKS
INCREASE TARGETTED VACINATION/SCREEN
INFORMATION ABOUT EFFECT OF FOODS
INTRODUCEHEALTHYEATINGCLUBSFORALLAGE
MAKE SEX + DRUGS LESSONS COMPULSORY
MORE PREVENTATIVE ACTION EG CHECKUPS
NESS OF HEALTH ISSUES
NUTRITION EDUCATION
PEOPLE SHOULD OWN RESPONSIBILITY FOR
PREGNANCY ADVICE
PREVENTATIVE ADVICE TO ELDERLY
PROMDTE REGULAR HEALTH CHECKS 4 ALL
PROSTATE SCREENING
RE-ESTABLISH FAMILY LIFESTYLE
SELF INFLICTED PROBLEMS GET MORE
SPEND MONEY TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT
TEACHING IN CLEANLINESS
THE TIME YOU WAIT TO SEE A DOCTOR
USE EXSISTING YOUTH ORGANISATIONS MO
USE REAL LIFE CASES TO SCARE YOUNGST
WARN OF RISKS OF GAY LIFESTYLE
YEARLY FULL MEDICALS

Q40 C: Treat disease
Simple number / order analysis of comments printed below:-
1   Largest    proportion   linked     to   Waiting     lists/time           for      a     variety         of
      different conditions
All other comments evenly spread
ALL THESE ARE UP MOST     PRIORITIES
FUNDING FOR HOSPITALS
MORE SUPPORT AFTER
ALL 3 ACTIONS GIVEN EQUAL SHARE OF PR
ALL ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT
ALL NHS ASSETS FOR PUBLIC USE ONLY

                                            75                                 RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




ALL ROUND INCREASE TO REDUCE ALL WAIT
ALL SURGERY
ALL WAITING TIMES SHOULD BE REDUCED
ALL DOCTORS IN GROUP PRACTICES FORM A
ANY IIINESS IS BAD
BETTEr PlACES HOMES FOR THE ELDERLY
BETTER TREATMENT (FOR M)
BUY SERVICES OUTSIDE TORBAY/COUNTRY
CATARACT SURGERY
CHARGE PEOPLE LIKE THE FRENCH DO
CONSULTANT APPOINTMENTS
CREATE FASTTRACK FOR LESSER DISEASES
CUT DELAYING TACTICS
CUT H0SPITAL WAITING LISTS
DEMTAL AMD OPTICAL CARE
DENTAL TREATMENT
DIABETIC HEALTH SCREENING FOR ALL
EARLY PROGNOSIS
EMOTIONAL SUPPORT T0 CANCER PATIENTS
ENCOURAGE PRIVATE HEALTH CARE WHERE
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ELDERLY
EYe OPERATIONS
FAST-TRACK,EMERGENCY OUT PATIENT DESK
FINE PEOPLE WHO ABUSE SERVICE
HIPPOCRTIC OATH-SAVE LIVES-SUPPORTILL
HORM6NE PROBLEMS
IMPLEMENT PREVENTIVE MEDICINE.
IMPROVE COMMUNICATION - HOSPITAL GPS
IMPROVE DIAGNOSTIC WAITING TIMES/SCAN
IMPROVE NEUROLOGY DEPT SERVICES
IMPROVE WAITING TIME TO SEE A CONSULT
INCREASE EARLY DETECTION
M0RE BEDS IN TORBAY HOSPITAL
M0RE FUNDING FOR THE NHS GENERALLY
MAKE IT AN OFFENCE TO MISS APPOINTMEN
MB SUFFERERS SHOULD GET BETTER AFTER N
MORE EARLY SCREENING
MORE MONEY T0 UTALISE EXPENSIVE DRUGS
MORE RESEARCH FOR MALE CANCERS
MORE RESOURCES BY PEOPLE PAYING FOR
NOT QUALIF1ED TO COMMENT.
PHYSIOTHERAY ALTERNATIVES ACUPUNC ETC
QICKER REFERRAL
QUICKER ACCESS TO C0NSULTANTS
QUICKER ACCESS TO GPS
QUICKER ACCESS TO LOCAL SURGERY

RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               76
                                             VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




QUICKER RESPONSE TIMES FOR STROKE VIC
RATHER THAN LETHAL ChEMOTHERAPY WHICH
REDUCE ALL OTHER WAITING TIMES
REDUCE BUEROCRACY WITHIN HEALTH SERVE
REDUCE NUMBER OF SOCIALISED DO GOODER
REDUCE THE TIME WHEN YOU GET TO HOSPI
REDUCE WAITING TIMES FOR ALL PROCEDUR
REDUCE WAITING TIME BEFORE SPECIALIST
REDUCE WAITING TIME FOR ALL OPERATION
REDUCE WAITING TIME FOR ALL TREATMENT
REDUCE WAITING TIME FOR EVERYTHING
REDUCE WAITING TIME FOR EYE SURGERY
REDUCE WAITING TIME FOR FIRST VISIT
REDUCE WAITINg TImE FOR GREATEST NEED
REDUCE WAITING TIME FOR OPERATIONS
REDUCE WAITING TIME FOR SOME XRAYS
REDUCE WAITING TIME GENERAL SURGERY
REDUCE WAITING TIME GENERALLY
REDUCE WAITING TIME IN ANALYSING TEST
REDUCE WAITING TIMES FOR ALL
REDUCE WAiTING TIMES FOR ANY TREATMEN
REDUCE WAITING TIMES FOR APPOINTMENTS
REINSTATEMENT OF GENDERCOSMETIC NHS
SEXUALLY DISEASES
SHORTER TIME TO WAIT FOR APPOINTMENTS
SHORTER WAITING TIME FOR LESSER THING
SPITTING IS ON INCREASEANDMUSTBEFINED
STOP MANIPULATING WAITING LISTS-RATES
TORBAY HAS GOOD HEALTH CARE FACILITES
TREAT THE CAUSE NOT MASK THE SYMPTOMS
TREATING CASUALTIES QUICKER
TS HOME VISITS TO OLDER ILL PATIENTS
WAITING TIME FOR APPOINTMENTS

Q40 D: Support patients with chronic disease
Simple number / order analysis of comments printed below:-
1 Large proportion linked to supporting people with a larger variety of
     illnesses/diseases not just diabetes, depression or stroke
 MULTIPLE SCEROSIS
MORE FUNDS TO COPE WITH MS
SPECIACIST NURSES AND DOCTORS
ACCESS TO ALL TYPES OF HOME CARE
ACCIDENT AND EMERGENCY
ACTION SPEEDED UP FOR PEOPLE IN PAIN
AFTERCARE FOR CHD PATIENTS
ALL PEOPLE NEED HELP WHEN ILL IT IS

                                        77                            RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




ARTHRITIS
BETTER INFORMATION FOR FAMILY TO HELP
BETTER SERVICES GENERALLY
COELIAC DISEASE
CRIPPLED With OSTEOARTHRITIS IN FOOT
DEVELOP CARE FOR RESPIRATORY DISORDERS
DIABETIC TESTS FOR ALL AT MIDDLE AGE
EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ELDERLY
FUND GPI5 TO ALLOW MORE TIME PER PT
HEART DISEASE
HELP IN ALL AREAS OF CHR0NIC DISEASE
HELP PEOPLE APPRECIATE THEY ARE RESPON
HELP PEOPLE COPE WITH CANCER
HELP WITH ASPERGERS.
HELPING-PEOPLE WITH M.S
HELPING AFTER HEART ATTACK
HELPING CARERS WHO SUPPORT THESE PEOPL
HELPING PEOPLE COPE WITH ARTHRITIS
HELPING PEOPLE COPE WITH PARKINSONS
HELPING PEOPLE TO COPE WITH ASTHMA
HELPING PEOPLE WITH ANY DISABILITY
IMPROvE STATEGY IN DECIDINg m0ST NEED
INCREASE AWARENESS OF SELF HELP
MAKE ONE T0 0NES AVAILABLE TO PEOPLE
MORE ADVICE
MORE COMMUNITY NURSES FOR AGED
MORE COUNSELLINC PROVISION-COST EFFECT
MORE HELP FOR MENTALLY ILL
MORE PAIN CLINICS
NO NHS ****** TO CONSULTANTS
NOT JUST DEPRESSION BUT ALL MENTAL HEA
NOT QUALIFIED TO COMMENT
PARKINS0NS-BUT ALL DISEASES NEED MORE-
PARKINSONS DISEASE
QUICKER REFERRAL TO A SPECIALIST
REFERRALS TO SPECIALISTS IN ALL OF UK
SEE OBJECTIVE C PREVIOUS PAGE
SUPPORT PATIENTS WITH NERVE SYSTEM PRO
TREAT & CARE FOR WHOLE BODY MIND SOUL
WEIGHT LOSS PROGRAMMES

Q40 E : Easier access
Simple number / order analysis of comments printed below:-
1 Largest proportion linked to one-stop shops for all
2 People prefer seeing own doctor
3 Drop in centres for 16+, drugs, women, homeless
RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               78
                                                 VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




NIGHTIME     ONE-STOP CENTER
PEOPCE WITH CHRONIC MENTAL ILNESS
0NE STOP HEALTH CENTRE FOR 11-15YROLDS
A ONE-STOP HEALTH &.SOCIAL CENTRE FOR
A ONE STOP CENTRE FOR EVERY AGE GROUP
ADHOC VOLUNTARY RELIEF CARERS REGISTER
CONSDLIDATE ONE-STOP TO ALL AGE SECTOR
DEVELOP GP SURGERIES.HEART OF COMMUNIT
DONT THE ARROWS ALREADY EXIST
GP SERVICES       GPS SHOULD KNOW PATIENT
HAVE A 0NE STOP FOR ALL EG DOCTOR
I PREFER THE OLD FAMILY DOCTOR IDEA
INCREASE NHS DIRECT AWARENESS
MORE HELP FOR ELDERLY
NO APPOINTMENT CENTRES
NO INFO TO FORM OPINION PREFER DOCTOR
OLDER PEOPLE ARE LESS MOBILE NEEDISTOP
ONE-ST0P HEALTH&SOC CARE FOR ADULTS16+
ONE-STOP CENTRE FOR DRUG ADDICTS ALONE
ONE-STOP FOR ALL AGE GROUPS
ONE ST0P HEALTHY LIVING CENTRE FOR ALL
ONE STOP CENTRE FOR ALL
ONE STOP CENTRE FOR ALL AGE GROUPS
ONE STOP CENTRE FOR ALL AGES
ONE STOP CENTRE FOR WOMEN
ONE STOP CENTRE TO CROSS ALL AGES
ONE STOP FOR HOMELESS / TRAVELLERS
One STOP HEALTH CENTRE IRRESPECTIVE AG
ONE STOP HEALTH CENTRES COULD PROVE
OUT OF HOURS OPENING REDUCED STAFF
ONE STOP HEATH & SOCIAL CARE 4 EVERY
REJUVINATE HOSPITALS
SAME DAY APPOINTMENT ESSENTIAL
SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE NHS BUREAUCRACY
THERE SHOULD BE ONE CENTRE FOR ALL
WHY NOT 1-STOP FOR ALL AGES TOGETHER?
WHY SPLIT GENERATIONS WE ARE ALL FAMIY

Q40 F : Develop services
Simple number / order analysis of comments printed below:-
1 No comment stands out in particular apart from the general need to
     develop all services
ALL NEEDED
DENTISTS AND DOCTORS BACK IN SCHOOLS
HELP PEOPLE GET TO THE HOSPITAL FREE
ALL AREAS

                                            79                            RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




ALL THESE NEED SWIFT RELIABLE CONTACT
COMPARED OTHER AREAS TORBAY VERY GOOD
COMPREHENSIVE FOLLOW UP SUPPORT AFTER
DEVELOP COMMUNITY OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY
DEVELOP HOMEOPATHIC SERVICES
DEVELOP MENTAL HEALTH/ELDERLY SERVICES
DEVELOP MORE FACILITIES AT PAIGNTON
DEVELOP THE RANGE OF FAMILY PLANNING
DEVELOP THE TIME OF AVAILABILITY
DEVELOPE & MAINTAIN SPECIALIST NURSES
GET RID OF ADMINISTRATORS & MANAGERS
HOME HELP FOR DISABLED TO BE CHEAPER
IMPROVE/FREE PARKING AT/NEAR HOSPITALS
INCREASE RESIDENTIAL BEDS + RELEASE
MENTAL HEALTH ACCESS
MORE NHS DENTISTS
OUT-OF HOURS MINOR ADVICE ETC
OUT OF HOURS GP AVAILABILITY
PERSONAL HELP MORE USEFUL TO PUBLIC
PODIETCY IN FOXHOLE SHOULD RETURN
PRACTICAL HELP AT EYE CLINICS
REDUCE UNION ENFORCED MANNING LEVELS
SHORTEN        WAITING AND APPOINTMENTS GPS
SUPERVISION OF HOMES SEMI UNITS
THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF ALL HEALTH
WELL MAN / WOMAN CLINIC




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               80
                                                                                 VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




APPENDIX B
TORBAY PRIMARY HEALTH CARE TRUST - TOP LINE RESULTS


Q40 : Objectives A to F - Comparison Table

                                               Top Line res ults

                 -1              0               1               2                 3               4                To tal
               Coun t          Coun t          Coun t       Coun t           Coun t            Coun t            Coun t
 Q40A_1              12            261             313          233              152               119              1090
 Q40A_2               19             245             304              273              158             68              1067
 Q40A_3               22             145             211              223              200             292             1093
 Q40A_4               4              29              15               13               29              50                140
 Q40B_1    27              206             297             248              174              150               1102
 Q40B_2    46              251             273             205              207              97                1079
 Q40B_3    33              163             256             236              209              187               1084
 Q40B_4    2               15              9               10               14               35                85
 Q40C_1               3              29              89               173              377             401             1072
 Q40C_2               2              22              103              216              555             156             1054
 Q40C_3               3              55              200              301              433             58              1050
 Q40C_4               1               9               8               14               38              35                105
 Q40D_1    2               229             326             259              215              66                1097
 Q40D_2    16              204             303             230              239              107               1099
 Q40D_3    2               107             255             281              262              192               1099
 Q40D_4                    6               6               12               24               32                80
 Q40E_1               18             247             317              221              180             78              1061
 Q40E_2               36             289             295              225              144             58              1047
 Q40E_3               21             304             301              199              169             54              1048
 Q40E_4               13             164             236              214              249             212             1088
 Q40E_5                              15               5                6               10              35                    71
 Q40F_1               13             178             291              256              238             117             1093
 Q40F_2               3              122             294              310              248             120             1097
 Q40F_3               5              102             269              257              241             219             1093
 Q40F_4               1              10               8                1               16              19                    55
 Total base res pondents = 1,250


Q40a : Objective - Better Health

                                               Top Line res ults

                 -1              0               1               2                 3               4                To tal
               Coun t          Coun t          Coun t       Coun t           Coun t            Coun t            Coun t
 Q40A_1              12            261             313          233              152               119              1090
 Q40A_2               19             245             304              273              158             68              1067
 Q40A_3               22             145             211              223              200             292             1093
 Q40A_4               4              29              15               13               29              50                140

 Total base res pondents = 1,250




                                                                 81                                          RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Q40b : Prevent Disease

                                                 Top Line res ults

                    -1             0               1           2            3           4         To tal
                 Coun t          Coun t         Coun t       Coun t       Coun t      Coun t      Coun t
   Q40B_1              27            206            297          248          174         150        1102
   Q40B_2                46             251            273          205         207          97       1079
   Q40B_3                33             163            256          236         209         187       1084
   Q40B_4                  2             15              9           10          14          35             85
   Total base res pondents = 1,250




Q40c : Treat Disease

                                                 Top Line res ults

                    -1              0              1           2            3           4          To tal
                  Coun t         Coun t         Coun t       Coun t       Coun t      Coun t      Coun t
   Q40C_1                  3           29             89         173          377         401        1072
   Q40C_2                  2             22            103          216         555         156       1054
   Q40C_3                  3             55            200          301         433          58       1050
   Q40C_4                  1              9              8           14          38          35            105

   Total base res pondents = 1,250


Q40d : Better Support Services for Chronic Disease

                                                 Top Line res ults

                    -1             0               1           2            3           4         To tal
                 Coun t          Coun t         Coun t       Coun t       Coun t      Coun t      Coun t
   Q40D_1                  2         229            326          259          215           66       1097
   Q40D_2                16             204            303          230         239         107       1099
   Q40D_3                  2            107            255          281         262         192       1099
   Q40D_4                                 6              6           12          24          32             80

   Total base res pondents = 1,250


Q40e : Easier Access to Health & Social Care Services

                                                 Top Line res ults

                    -1             0              1            2            3           4         To tal
                 Coun t          Coun t         Coun t       Coun t       Coun t      Coun t      Coun t
   Q40E_1              18            247            317          221          180           78       1061
   Q40E_2                36             289            295          225         144         58        1047
   Q40E_3                21             304            301          199         169         54        1048
   Q40E_4                13             164            236          214         249         212       1088
   Q40E_5                               15              5            6          10          35              71
   Total base res pondents = 1,250




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                 82
                                                                                     VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Q40f : Primary, Community & Secondary Services

                                                    Top Line res ults

                 -1                0                  1                2               3                 4              To tal
              Coun t            Coun t              Coun t           Coun t         Coun t            Coun t           Coun t
 Q40F_1             13              178                 291              256            238               117             1093
 Q40F_2                3               122                 294              310             248               120            1097
 Q40F_3                5               102                 269              257             241               219            1093
 Q40F_4                1               10                     8               1                16             19                 55

 Total base res pondents = 1,250




TORBAY HEALTH AND WELL-BEING SURVEY


q41 : Frequency & Type of Activity



                                                                        5 or more times
           Once or twice a              3 or 4 times a                  a     week                   Not usually or                       Total
 Q41           22           23.2             61          6.2                38           3.9             65          66.8              98          100.0
 A         week
          Count8           %%           week
                                       Count           % %            Count           % %            never
                                                                                                    Count7          %%            Count4          %
 Q41B          37           34.6            21          19.7               26           24.3             23          21.4             109          %
                                                                                                                                                   100.0
 Q41C          849          %5.4            522         %2.4               56           %.7              4
                                                                                                         82          %
                                                                                                                     91.5             290          %
                                                                                                                                                   100.0
 Q41D          21            %
                            22.1             24          %
                                                         2.5                  9          %
                                                                                         .9              5
                                                                                                         71          %
                                                                                                                     74.5              2
                                                                                                                                       96          %
                                                                                                                                                   100.0
 Q41E          254          %5.9               19             %
                                                              2.1            13          %
                                                                                        1.4              5
                                                                                                         82           %
                                                                                                                      90.6             0
                                                                                                                                       91          %
                                                                                                                                                   100.0
 Q41F           98           %
                            10.6               61             %
                                                              6.6            12          %
                                                                                        13.2             7
                                                                                                         64           %
                                                                                                                      69.5             3
                                                                                                                                       92          %
                                                                                                                                                   100.0
 Q41G          47           %
                            46.0             11                %
                                                              11.0           276        %7.4             1
                                                                                                         36           %
                                                                                                                      35.6             2
                                                                                                                                      103          %
                                                                                                                                                   100.0
 Q41H          5
               13           %
                            14.9             432              %3.6           13         %
                                                                                        1.5              8
                                                                                                         70           %
                                                                                                                      80.0            388          %
                                                                                                                                                   100.0
 Q41I          1
               13           %
                            18.2               41             %
                                                              5.4            27         %
                                                                                        3.5              4
                                                                                                         55           %
                                                                                                                      72.9             0
                                                                                                                                       76          %
                                                                                                                                                   100.0
               9            %                                 %                         %                8            %                5           %




Q42 : Doing More Physical Activity

                Top Line Re s ults

                                             Q42
                                   Coun t                 %
 I wou ld like to do
                                         335              28.0%
 more ph ysical activity
 I am no t interested in
 do in g any more                        193              16.1%
 ph ysical activity
 I d o eno ugh physical
                                         109               9.1%
 activity at th e mo ment
 I am un able to do
 more ph ysical activity                 489              40.9%
 (medical p roblems
 I am too o ld to do an y
                                         70                5.9%
 more ph ysical activity
 To tal                                1196               100.0%
 Total Base respondents = 1,250



                                                                       83                                           RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Q43 : Smoking

                          Top Line Re s ults

                                                  Q43
                                         Coun t         %
   Never smoked /
   stop ped smo kin g more                   972        81.1%
   than 6 mon th s ago
   Ex-smo ker - stopp ed
   smokin g less th an 6                       33        2.8%
   mon th s ago
   Regu lar smoker - at
   least 1 cig arette / cig ar /             162        13.5%
   pipe a d ay
   Occasion al smo ker -
   less than 1 cigarette /                     32        2.7%
   cigar / p ip e a d
   To tal                                   1199        100.0%

   Total Base respondents = 1,250


Do not want to answer Q43

  Top Line Res ults

                 Do no t
                 want to
                 an swer,
                go to Q46
                   Coun t
   1                     10
   Total Base respondents = 1,250


Q44a : Regular Smokers Only
            Top Line Re sults

                 Q44a - R egu lar
               smokers - Cigarettes
                    per day
                C oun t         %
   2                      3      2.1%
   3                      4      2.8%
   4                      1        .7%
   5                  14         9.7%
   6                      6      4.2%
   7                      1        .7%
   8                      3      2.1%
   9                      1        .7%
   10                 35        24.3%
   12                     5      3.5%
   14                     1        .7%
   15                 27        18.8%
   20                 30        20.8%
   25                     2      1.4%
   30                     5      3.5%
   40                     1        .7%
   50                     1        .7%
   80                     1        .7%
   100                    3      2.1%
   To tal            144       100.0%

  Total Base respondents = 162


RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                   84
                                           VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Do not want to answer Q44 - regular smokers

 Top Line Re s ults

             Do not
             want to
             an swer,
            go to Q46
              Coun t
 1                      6
 Total Base respondents = 162




Q44b : Occasional Smokers only

          Top Line Re sults

              Q44b - Occasio nal
             smokers - Cigarettes
                  per week
              C oun t         %
 1                      5     21.7%
 2                      2      8.7%
 3                      1      4.3%
 4                      1      4.3%
 5                      3     13.0%
 6                      2      8.7%
 7                      1      4.3%
 8                      1      4.3%
 10                     5     21.7%
 15                     1      4.3%
 20                     1      4.3%
 To tal             23      100.0%

 Total Base respondents = 32




Do not want to answer Q44 - occasional smokers

 Top Line Re sults

             Do not
             want to
             an swer,
            go to Q46
              Coun t
 1                      2
 Total Base respondents = 32




                                      85                            RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Q45:Stopping smoking - smokers only

                  Top Line Re s ults

                                          Q45
                                 Coun t          %
   I d on 't want to give
                                      52          28.9%
   up smo king
   I inten d to g ive up
   smokin g within th e               14           7.8%
   next mon th
   I inten d to g ive up
   smokin g within th e               19          10.6%
   next 6 month s
   I wou ld like to give
   up smo king so me                  95          52.8%
   time in th e fu tu re
   To tal                            180        100.0%

   Total Base respondents = 194


Do not want to answer Q45 - smokers only

  Top Line Re s ults

               Do not
               want to
               an swer,
              go to Q46
                Coun t
   1                     4
   Total Base respondents = 194


Q46 : Alcoholic Drinks

            Top Line Res ults

                          Q46
                Coun t            %
   Yes              801           67.9%
   No                378          32.1%
   To tal           1179         100.0%

   Total Base respondents = 1,250


Q46 - Do not want to answer

  Top Line Res ults

               Do no t
               want to
               an swer,
              go to Q48
                Coun t
   1                     6

   Total Base respondents = 1,250




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                               86
                                                                         VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Q47 : Quantity of Drinking Alcohol per Week

                                                     Top Line re sults

                Q47_BEER                     Q47_SHERRY                    Q47_SPIRITS                 Q47_AL COPOPS
            Coun t         %              Coun t           %        Coun t              %            Coun t           %
 1                   74    20.5%                57         10.1%          51            15.3%              27         36.0%
 2                   86     23.8%             124          22.0%             95          28.4%              15         20.0%
 3                   46     12.7%              78          13.8%             34          10.2%               4          5.3%
 4                   28      7.8%              69          12.2%             28           8.4%              10         13.3%
 5                   21      5.8%              29           5.1%             20           6.0%               9         12.0%
 6                   21      5.8%              46           8.2%             25           7.5%               2          2.7%
 7                   12      3.3%              34           6.0%             27           8.1%               2          2.7%
 8                   9       2.5%              19           3.4%               8          2.4%               1          1.3%
 9                   4       1.1%               2            .4%               4          1.2%
 10                  19      5.3%              42           7.4%             16           4.8%               4          5.3%
 11                  1        .3%               1            .2%
 12                  5       1.4%              14           2.5%               4          1.2%
 13                  1        .3%               2            .4%               1           .3%
 14                  7       1.9%              22           3.9%               5          1.5%
 15                  11      3.0%               6           1.1%               1           .3%
 16                  1        .3%               1            .2%               1           .3%
 17                  1        .3%
 18                  1        .3%               1            .2%               1           .3%
 20                  5       1.4%               9           1.6%               3           .9%
 21                  2        .6%               3            .5%               2           .6%
 22                                             1            .2%
 24                  1        .3%
 25                  1        .3%                                              1           .3%
 28                  1        .3%                                              3           .9%
 30                  1        .3%                                              1           .3%
 31                  1        .3%                                              1           .3%
 34                                             1            .2%
 40                                             1            .2%
 44                                                                            1           .3%
 45                  1        .3%
 54                                             1            .2%
 60                                             1            .2%
 72                                                                                                          1          1.3%
 74                                                                            1           .3%
 To tal          361       100.0%             564         100.0%            334        100.0%               75        100.0%

 Total base respondents = 1,250


Q47 - Do not want to answer

 Top Line Re s ults

           Do not
           want to
           an swer,
          go to Q48
           Coun t
 1               12

 Total Base respondents = 361 Beer;
 564 Sherry; 334 Spirits ; A lc opop 75



                                                            87                                    RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Alcopop Drinkers analysis

                                          Top Line Re s ults

                     Q47_BEER                    Q47_SHERRY               Q47_SPIRITS
               Coun t            %            Coun t           %       Coun t       %
   1                 11          28.2%                 8       17.8%         12     31.6%
   2                  11         28.2%               13        28.9%         5      13.2%
   3                   6         15.4%               10        22.2%         4      10.5%
   4                   2           5.1%                3        6.7%         4      10.5%
   5                   3           7.7%                                      2          5.3%
   6                                                   3        6.7%         4      10.5%
   7                                                                         2          5.3%
   8                   1           2.6%                1        2.2%         2          5.3%
   9                   1           2.6%
   10                  3           7.7%                2        4.4%         3          7.9%
   12                                                  2        4.4%
   14                                                  1        2.2%
   15                  1           2.6%                1        2.2%
   54                                                  1        2.2%
   To tal             39         100.0%              45      100.0%         38     100.0%

   Total Base respondents = Beer 361: Sherry /Wine 564: Spirits 334, Alcopops 75


Spirits drinkers analysis

                                          Top Line Re s ults

                     Q47_BEER                    Q47_SHERRY             Q47_AL COPOPS
               Coun t            %            Coun t           %       Coun t       %
   1                 33          21.4%              20          8.8%         17     44.7%
   2                  34         22.1%               53        23.5%         7      18.4%
   3                  23         14.9%               26        11.5%         2          5.3%
   4                  12           7.8%              32        14.2%         5      13.2%
   5                  11           7.1%              12         5.3%         3          7.9%
   6                   9           5.8%              21         9.3%         1          2.6%
   7                   6           3.9%              12         5.3%
   8                   5           3.2%                5        2.2%
   9                   2           1.3%
   10                  4           2.6%              19         8.4%         3          7.9%
   12                  1            .6%                7        3.1%
   13                  1            .6%
   14                  4           2.6%                8        3.5%
   15                  4           2.6%                3        1.3%
   17                  1            .6%
   18                                                  1         .4%
   20                  1            .6%                4        1.8%
   21                                                  1         .4%
   22                                                  1         .4%
   24                  1            .6%
   30                  1            .6%
   31                  1            .6%
   54                                                  1         .4%
   To tal            154         100.0%            226       100.0%         38     100.0%

   Total Base respondents = Beer 361: Sherry /Wine 564spirits 334, A lc opops 75



RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                  88
                                                                 VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Sherry / Wine drinkers analysis

                                  Top Line Re s ults

               Q47_BEER                  Q47_SPIRITS            Q47_AL COPOPS
           Coun t         %           Coun t           %       Coun t          %
 1               59       27.7%             43         19.0%         19        42.2%
 2              54        25.4%            77          34.1%         12         26.7%
 3              26        12.2%            18           8.0%          2          4.4%
 4              15         7.0%            18           8.0%          4          8.9%
 5               9         4.2%            13           5.8%          4          8.9%
 6              12         5.6%            16           7.1%
 7               7         3.3%            14           6.2%          1          2.2%
 8               5         2.3%             3           1.3%
 9               2          .9%             2            .9%
 10              7         3.3%             9           4.0%          2          4.4%
 11              1          .5%
 12              2          .9%             3           1.3%
 14              5         2.3%             2            .9%
 15              5         2.3%
 16              1          .5%
 18                                         1            .4%
 20              1          .5%             2            .9%
 21                                         1            .4%
 24              1          .5%
 25                                         1            .4%
 28                                         1            .4%
 31              1          .5%
 44                                         1            .4%
 72                                                                   1          2.2%
 74                                         1            .4%
 To tal        213      100.0%            226      100.0%            45        100.0%

 Total Base respondents = Beer 361: Sherry /Wine 564: Spirits 334, Alcopops 75




                                                        89                                RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Beer drinkers analysis

                                          Top Line Re s ults

                   Q47_SHERRY                     Q47_SPIRITS              Q47_AL COPOPS
               Coun t            %            Coun t           %          Coun t      %
   1                 27          12.7%              18         11.7%            14    35.9%
   2                  47         22.1%               55        35.7%            6     15.4%
   3                  30         14.1%               18        11.7%            3      7.7%
   4                  27         12.7%               15         9.7%            6     15.4%
   5                  12           5.6%               8         5.2%            5     12.8%
   6                  17           8.0%              10         6.5%            2      5.1%
   7                   9           4.2%              10         6.5%            1      2.6%
   8                   9           4.2%               2         1.3%
   9                   1            .5%               2         1.3%
   10                 13           6.1%               7         4.5%            2      5.1%
   12                  6           2.8%               2         1.3%
   14                  7           3.3%               1          .6%
   15                  3           1.4%               1          .6%
   18                                                 1          .6%
   20                  1            .5%               1          .6%
   21                  1            .5%
   22                  1            .5%
   28                                                 1          .6%
   44                                                 1          .6%
   54                  1            .5%
   60                  1            .5%
   74                                                 1          .6%
   To tal            213         100.0%            154        100.0%           39    100.0%

   Total Base respondents = Beer 361: Sherry /Wine 564: Spirits 334, Alcopops 75


Q48 : Height analysis by Gender

                           Top Line re sults

                                               Inch es       Centimet
                                                 tall         res tall
   Gend er          Male         Coun t               520           520
                                 Mean                 69           177
                                 Median               70           179
                                 Mode                 70           179
                                 Col %            44.2%         44.2%
                    Female       Coun t              656           656
                                 Mean                 64           164
                                 Median               64           163
                                 Mode                 64           163
                                 Col %            55.8%         55.8%
   Group Total      Coun t                          1176          1176
                    Mean                              66           170
                    Median                            67           170
                    Mode                              68           173
                    Col %                        100.0%        100.0%

   Total base respondents 1,250




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                   90
                                                               VIEWPOINT: FINDINGS FROM THE FIFTH SURVEY OF PANEL MEMBERS




Q48 Do not want to answer

                Do not
                want to
                answer,
               go to Q50
 1   Coun t            10



Q49 : Weight Analysis by Gender

                            Top Line res ults

                                                            Kilog ram
                                                Po un ds       mes
 Gend er               Male         Coun t            511          511
                                    Col %          45.4%        45.4%
                                    Maximu m         385          175
                                    Mean             181           82
                                    Median           178           81
                                    Mode             182           83
                                    Min imu m         98           44
                       Female       Coun t           615          615
                                    Col %          54.6%        54.6%
                                    Maximu m         295          134
                                    Mean             150           68
                                    Median           147           67
                                    Mode             140           64
                                    Min imu m         91           41
 To tal respo ndents   Coun t                       1126         1126
                       Col %                      100.0%       100.0%
                       Maximu m                      385          175
                       Mean                          164           74
                       Median                        161           73
                       Mode                          182           83
                       Min imu m                      91           41
 Total base res pondents = 1,250




                                                     91                                 RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT
 Kilog ram
                                                             Po un ds       mes
   Gend er                   Male            Coun t                511          511
                                             Col %              45.4%        45.4%
                                             Maximu m             385          175
                                             Mean                 181           82
                                             Median               178           81
                                             Mode                 182           83
                                             Min imu m             98           44
                             Female          Coun t               615          615
                                             Col %              54.6%        54.6%
                                             Maximu m             295          134
                                             Mean                 150           68
                                             Median               147           67
                                             Mode                 140           64
                                             Min imu m             91           41
   To tal respo ndents       Coun t                              1126         1126
                             Col %                             100.0%       100.0%
                             Maximu m                             385          175
                             Mean                                 164           74
                             Median                               161           73
                             Mode                                 182           83
                             Min imu m                             91           41
   Total base res pondents = 1,250




RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE UNIT                                    96

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:286
posted:12/7/2010
language:English
pages:105
Description: Car Loan Agreement Between 2 Peopl document sample