Searching for the impact of involvement

1. Searching for the impact of involvement Bobby Duffy 16th July 2007 bobby.duffy@ipsos-mori.com

2. Support for involvement increases • Return for costs/effort of involvement likely to become a focus at some point…although… • I believe that the biggest improvements in public services are driven not by the oversight of central government, but by local people – by communities having a chance to say what they want Hazel Blears to LGA 5th July 2007 • Gordon Brown highlighted four areas in first major statement: • power of initiative: community calls for action • input into decisions through citizen juries etc • new rights of scrutiny of local services • control of neighbourhood budgets through ballots – participatory budgeting

3. But past reviews point toweakness of evidence… • The evidence about the potential contribution of community involvement to improved service delivery in deprived areas … is not well developed or articulated. SQW • …this review has found little direct recent research on the individual benefits of participation or how it motivates involvement. Involve • …as this survey should make clear, the evidence base in this area is far from solid… much of the British research is qualitative and sometimes impressionistic. There are real difficulties in the way of establishing reliable measures of community engagement and its benefits. ippr

4. NDC survey data can help • Two measures – involvement in NDC activities and influence over local decisions • Impact on three areas • satisfaction with area/quality of life • feelings of community • trust in NDC/council • Number of difficulties • with measures (nature, quality vs quantity of involvement) • with cause and effect – direction of relationship and other things intervening • But one of best sources of evidence there is – report being drafted

5. Is involvement/influence related to positive outcomes? Four types of survey evidence

6. Influence vs. contentment with local area Don’t feel able to influence Feel able to influence Good quality of life Feel NDC improved area Satisfied with area Source: NDC Survey 2006 Base: 15,972 residents aged 16+

7. Involvement vs. feelings of community Not involved in NDC activities Involved in NDC activities Neighbours look out for each other Know most/many people in neighbourhood Feel part of the local community Source: NDC Survey 2006 Base: 12,675 residents aged 16+

8. Haringey Sheffield Islington Nottingham Hull Brent Liverpool Fulham B’ham Aston Doncaster But impact of influence not clear at area level… Feelings of influence 2006 (%) Satisfaction with area 2006 (%) Source: NDC Survey 2006 Base: 15,792 NDC residents aged 16+

9. Brent Lambeth Hull Luton Walsall Sandwell B’ham Kings N Manchester …same true for involvement Levels of involvement 2006 (%) Trust in local NDC partnership 2006 (%) Source: NDC Survey 2006 Base: 13,008 NDC residents aged 16+

10. People friendly (16%) Feel safe after dark (13%) NDC improved area (11%) Trust local council (9%) Satisfied state of repair of home (8%) Neighbours a problem (-7%) Run down properties problem (-7%) Drug dealing/use a problem (-8%) Vandalism/graffiti a problem (-10%) Gangs a problem (-11%) Regression on satisfaction with area as a place to live shows there are more important factors Satisfaction with area as a place to live 32% of variance explained by the model Source: NDC Survey 2006 Base: 15,792 NDC residents aged 16+

11. Know people in neighbourhood (21%) People friendly (14%) Can influence decisions (12%) Involved in local organisations (10%) Trust local council (8%) NDC improved area (8%) Involved in NDC activities (7%) Feel safe after dark (5%) Age 16-24 (-6%) White ethnicity (-8%) …but influence and involvement are related to feeling part of the community Feeling part of the local community 28% of variance explained by the model Source: NDC Survey 2006 Base: 15,792 NDC residents aged 16+

12. Trust in NDC is nearly all about delivery… NDC improved area (59%) Trust local council (18%) Trust in (name of NDC partnership) Trust local police (11%) Can influence decisions (4%) Trust local health services (4%) Involved in NDC activities (4%) 50% of variance explained by the model Source: NDC Survey 2006 Base: 13,008 NDC residents aged 16+

13. Looking at change in individuals’ feelings of influence Q Do you feel you can influence decisions that affect your area? 2004 2006 2002 No Yes Don’ t know Source: Longitudinal data NDC Surveys 2002, 2004 & 2006 Base: 19,574 (2002) 19,663 (2004) & 15,792 (2006) residents aged 16+

14. But hides greater individual change… Q Do you feel you can influence decisions that affect your area? Never felt able to influence Did feel able in 2002, do not in 2006 Did not feel able in 2002, do feel able in 2006 Have always felt able to influence Source: Longitudinal data NDC Surveys 2002 & 2006 Base: 19,574 (2002) & 15,792 (2006) residents aged 16+

15. Increased feelings of influence related to improvements in other views Never felt able to influence Did feel able in 2002, do not in 2006 Did not feel able in 2002, do feel able in 2006 Always felt able to influence Satisfaction with area increased Source: Longitudinal data NDC Surveys 2002 & 2006 Base: 19,574 (2002) & 15,792 (2006) residents aged 16+

16. Initial conclusions • Mixed evidence – but overall fairly encouraging (if have reasonable expectations)? • More important things in determining some of the outcomes claimed for involvement/influence – but seems key for others • Although note lapsed involved/influencers tend to be most negative – one of the risks of promoting involvement? • BUT unpicking cause and effect very difficult, even with longitudinal data • Needs more work – but firm evidence very difficult • Experimental design varying levels of involvement, with pre/post measures? • Need better measures of reasons for and nature/quality of involvement • Return to people to unpick reasons for responses?

17. Searching for the impact of involvement Bobby Duffy 16th July 2007 bobby.duffy@ipsos-mori.com