B   COMMUNITY WELL BEING/SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

1   Population

1.1   Estimated Population by District

Source: ONS 2000 population estimates. Crown copyright 2001. (N.B. Figures are all rounded independently).

2   Perceptions of Neighbourhood and Service Provision

‘Suffolk Speaks’

A baseline survey was conducted by the MORI Local Government Research Unit (1999) on behalf of Suffolk County Council, some of the districts and the other main partner organisations - Suffolk Health, Suffolk Learning and Skills Council (LSC) and Suffolk Police.

This survey was designed to examine the attitudes and perceptions of Suffolk residents on a wide range of subjects including quality of life, quality and usage of local services and issues relating to crime and community safety. (These are discussed in the section C – Crime).

MORI interviewed 3,030 residents (aged 16+). Separate booster exercises were undertaken in 4 districts – Babergh, Mid Suffolk, Suffolk Coastal and Waveney. The results from the booster exercises are included in the main statistics.

Surveys are carried out twice a year on different subjects which are chosen by the partners. A re-survey of the baseline survey will take place in 2002 to assess changes in public opinion from 1999.

Living in Suffolk

• 9 out of 10 Suffolk residents are happy with their local area as a place to live. This is among the most positive findings ever recorded by MORI.

Q Thinking about this local area, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with it as a place to live?

2.1

Source: MORI ‘Suffolk Speaks’ 1999 Base:3030 Suffolk Residents 16+

Q What would you say are the good things about your local area?

The top three answers were:

• Peaceful/quiet = 49%

• Nice area = 33%

• Good shopping facilities = 25%

Other factors mentioned were low crime rate, access to countryside, good school and good community spirit.

22% of those interviewed claimed that there were no bad things about their local area.

The top five priorities for improving quality of life for all residents interviewed were:

• Developing facilities and opportunities for local young people

• Protecting shops and other facilities in villages

• Making the local area a safer place to live in

• Developing local public transport links

• Increasing employment opportunities.

The importance placed on the priorities above changed slightly depending on the type of area people live in. Urban dwellers placed most importance on ‘making the local area a safer place to live’ (35%). Those living in small towns placed most importance on ‘developing facilities and opportunities for young people’ (34%) and rural inhabitants placed most importance on ‘protecting shops and other facilities in villages’ (51%).

Quality of Life

Residents in Suffolk have a wide range of priorities for the public sector. However, they consider that crime and health issues are the most important factors in improving the quality of life of local people, consistent with MORI findings elsewhere.

In the first panel wave of research, (Jan-Feb 2001) Suffolk Speaks panel members were very positive about their area as a place to live – over eight in ten (83%) were satisfied with the area. In the second wave (June-July 2001), residents were asked how people’s quality of life could be improved.

Two-fifths (41%) of panel members said reducing crime rates and the number of offenders who go on to commit more crimes would improve the quality of life of local people. Three in ten (31%) advocated measures that help older people to live as independently as possible and a similar proportion (29%) said that the protection of children who might be at risk of physical or mental abuse is among the most important factors.

Residents also mentioned the following as among the most important priorities for improving the quality of life in Suffolk:

• Improving the health of everyone, particularly those on low incomes (25%)

• Reducing road congestion and increasing the use of public transport (23%)

• Increasing the percentage of household waste recycled (21%)

• Increasing the amount of housing which is built on previously developed land (20%)

• Reducing the number of under-25s who use hard drugs (17%)

Generational differences

Quality of life priorities vary according to age. Older residents are more likely than young people to prioritise reducing crime rates and the number of offenders who go on to commit more crimes, with just under half of over 35s (45%) supporting this measure compared to a third of 16-24s (30%). A similar pattern can be seen with those wanting to help older people live as independently as possible. Residents in the over 55 age bracket are four times as likely than 16-24 year class residents to name this as a priority (52% and 12% respectively).

On the other hand, younger people are more inclined to support moves to provide better protection for children against mental and physical abuse and to increase the percentage of household waste that is recycled. Almost half of those aged between 16 and 24 (46%) mention child protection as a major priority compared to only a quarter of those over 35 (25%). Three in ten young adults (28%) favour an expansion in recycling with two in ten elderly residents (18%) backing this.

Q1 Which two or three do you think are most important to improve the quality of life to local people?

Source: MORI, Suffolk Speaks, Jan-July 2001

Priorities among men and women

Significant, but not major, differences between men and women exist among quality of life issues.

• Women are more supportive of moves that will benefit children and older people generally; with a third of women (34%) prioritising better child protection compared to a quarter of men (25%), and 20% of women prioritising helping children attain better results at school in contrast to 14% of males.

• Support for helping residents be more self-reliant in retirement is also strongest among women, with a third prioritising this prospect (34%) compared to a quarter of men (27%).

• Men on the other hand are more likely than women to back measures that will reduce crime rates, 45% compared to 38%.

• In addition, three in ten men (29%) name improving the health of everyone, especially those on low incomes, as a significant priority with just two in ten women backing this issue (21%).

Priorities between districts

Quality of life priorities for local people also vary between district council areas.

• Whilst four in ten Suffolk residents prioritise reducing crime rates and re-offending (41%), this figure is highest in Forest Heath and Waveney (both 47%) and lowest in St Edmundsbury (33%).

• Overall, a third (31%) of residents favour helping older people live increasingly independent lives, a share which is significantly greater in St Edmundsbury (39%) than it is in Forest Heath and Ipswich (both 25%).

Source: ‘Suffolk Speaks’ MORI 2001

Satisfaction with Public Services (1999)

High Satisfaction

Education

• Particularly with regard to nursery/pre-school education.

Social Services

• Particularly with regard to care for both the elderly, and those with a physical or sensory disability.

Services for Children and Young People

• Satisfaction results for childcare facilities were the highest recorded recently by MORI.

• 69% of users of children’s areas/ playgrounds were happy with them.

Leisure Services

• Three-quarters of users are satisfied with the leisure facilities in their area.

• Satisfaction levels are even higher for parks and libraries.

• Residents of Ipswich had the highest district satisfaction level at 70%.

Low Satisfaction

Education

• Residents of small towns are more dissatisfied than residents generally with primary and secondary schools.

• Those in lower socio-economic groups are also more dissatisfied with primary and secondary schools.

Transport

• Public transport is one of the main concerns of Suffolk residents.

• Less than half are satisfied with public transport, although it rises slightly amongst regular users.

• The two groups who are particularly dissatisfied with public transport are rural residents (38%) and full-time workers (30%).

• The groups of people within the MORI survey who were the most dissatisfied with the road network, were those groups who use roads most regularly; owner-occupiers (27%) and full-time workers (29%).

Social Services

• A significant proportion of users are critical of services for disabled children, and the support services for carers.

Services for children and young people

• A higher number of users of services for young people were dissatisfied with them (42%), than those who were happy with them (34%).

Source: ‘Suffolk Speaks’ MORI 1999

3   Participation in Community Organisations

There are a large number of community organisations operating in Suffolk providing support and advice in many different fields from bereavement to childcare. Suffolk InfoLink lists many of these organisations and is available either through your local library or at http://infolink.suffolkcc.gov.uk.

Suffolk Commission on the Voluntary Sector

Suffolk Association of Voluntary Organisations (SAVO) secured Millennium Festival Funding to conduct “an impact assessment on the Voluntary Sector in Suffolk”. The Suffolk Commission on the Voluntary Sector, with an independent board of Commissioners, was launched in July 1999 and the full report is now available.

The report is an in depth study into the voluntary sector within the county. The Commission covered 2,700 organisations by questioning voluntary organisations, volunteers, and service users. They also held focus groups with Councillors and representatives from the Health Authority.

The key findings of the survey are:

• Almost all voluntary organisations have been established for more than six years, and over 70% for 15 years or more.

• The highest proportion of voluntary organisations work in the areas of Community Care, Education, and Sport and Leisure. Almost half work with children, young people and families.

• Volunteers in Suffolk work equivalent to 7,000 full time workers at a value of at least £60 million per annum.

• Three quarters of volunteers are over 36 years of age, and almost three quarters work part-time. The voluntary workforce is equivalent to that employed in manufacturing in Suffolk.

3.1   Working Area of Organisations (508 responses)

Source: Report into the Voluntary Sector in Suffolk.
The Suffolk Commission on the Voluntary Sector. September 2000.

3.2   Client/User Group Served

Source: Report into the Voluntary Sector in Suffolk.
The Suffolk Commission on the Voluntary Sector. September 2000.

3.3   Hours Worked by Volunteers (338 responses)

N.B the sum of the number of organisations is more than 338 as groups had volunteers working different hours.
Source: Report into the Voluntary Sector in Suffolk. The Suffolk Commission on the Voluntary Sector. September 2000.

Suffolk Constabulary’s Vehicle Watch Scheme

The Suffolk Vehicle Watch scheme began in 1991 and as at 30-6-2000 had a total of 59,562 members.

The scheme works by members placing a fluorescent green sticker in the window of a vehicle. This informs the police that the vehicle would not normally be used between 12 midnight and 5am, encouraging any police officers who see the vehicle on the road between these times to stop and check it.

3.4   Number of Vehicle Watch stickers issued

Source: Community Safety Unit, Suffolk Constabulary. 30/ 6/ 2000

Neighbourhood Watch Scheme

Suffolk Constabulary works in partnership with many community and business groups to help make Suffolk a safer community. For instance watch groups are formed for the benefit of people who live or work in particular areas or in particular occupations. E.g. Farm Watch, School Watch and Shop Watch.

Neighbourhood Watch is the best known and the most effective example of the community and police working in partnership to prevent crime, build safer communities and improve quality of life. In the UK in 2000 there are over 155,000 Neighbourhood Watch schemes in operation and over 10 million people directly benefiting from Neighbourhood Watch initiatives. Neighbourhood Watch is now the largest voluntary organisation in the country.

Within Suffolk in 2000 there were 1714 schemes in operation, including over 88,000 households. This is 31% of all Suffolk households. The overall numbers have not changed significantly in the past year.

Source: Suffolk Constabulary website at http://www.suffolk.police.uk

3.5   Involvement in Neighbourhood Watch Schemes by Constabulary area

Source: Community Safety Unit, Suffolk Constabulary. 2000

Community Capacity Building

Single Regeneration Budget Round 6 scheme “People at the centre of Ipswich”

The £500,000 scheme is targeted at the Town Ward and Waterfront areas of Ipswich and will be used to build capacity in the community to achieve sustainable community led solutions to the problems of unemployment, crime, poor health, education under achievement and low environmental quality.

Ipswich Regeneration Board (IRB) is the partnership responsible for the delivery of this bid. Its members are:

A Community Development Team is actively engaging with the community and is successfully attracting local people to access the community chest fund for small grants up to £2,500 to undertake local projects.

To date (Nov 2001) 19 local groups and individuals have been supported through the community chest that include:

• Town Ward Word Residency - Local writer, storyteller and performer to undertake a 13 day residency at the 3 Neighbourhood Centres to capture written, spoken and artwork from the community and produce on a CD Rom as a lasting resource for the community. Artist to perform and display work within the Neighbourhood Centres and throughout a series of summer events.

• Bangladeshi Women’s Swimming Project - support the private hire of Fore Street swimming pool for 12 two hourly swimming sessions for Bangladeshi women in a culturally sensitive environment. Project aims to reduce social isolation, build confidence and improve the health of Bangladeshi women.

• Rethink Disability - Active Antics Projects run a wide range of programmes for disabled people living within Town Ward. Funding to train volunteers to work with the project.

• Not Redundant Recycled - application to provide work experience for New Deal, volunteers with learning difficulties and ‘difficult to place’ individuals, as part of the recycling and collection scheme operating within the bid area.

3 Neighbourhood Centres have been established in Austin Street, Bramford Road and Grimwade Street to enable the community to engage with the community development team, access training and participate in local events.

The scheme runs until the 31st March 2003.

Contact:  Rosemary Sturgiss, Community Development Team Leader
Tel:  01473 251834
Email:  rosemary.sturgiss@ipswich-cvs.org.uk

4   Voting Turnout

The turnout in the 1999/2000 district council elections is much lower than it was in 1997. This not an unusual occurrence, as 1997 also included a general election, which always has a much higher voter turnout than standard local elections. The 2001 county council turnout figures are 10% below 1997 levels which was reflected across the UK in the national election turnout.

The figures for district and county councils are not directly comparable at local level, i.e. there are 80 county councillors and 186 district councillors, and the boundaries are not necessarily co-terminus.

See Appendix 3 District and county council election results (voting turnout)

CONTACTS - COMMUNITY WELL BEING/SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT