MORI Residents Surveys - Background notes for PRC Presentation

Users of R&H Services

Among the questions in the MORI Residents Survey is one about people's use of services. Listing 32 services, including the six relating to R&H, the survey asks: "and which of these services, if any, do you or other members of your household use or benefit from?"

TABLE 1: Percentage of population using service

%	2004/5	Diff.	2002/3	Diff.	1999
"Countryside Sites including Country Parks"	43	-4%	45	-6%	48
"Country Footpaths and bridleways"	46	0	46	-2%	47
"Support for theatres, music, arts and festivals"	25	0	25	+178%*	91
"Community Centres"	20	-5%	21	+5%	20
"Heritage sites & Museums"	26	+13%	23	+77%*	132
"Libraries & Archives"	57	0	57	-5%*	603

* significantly affected by change in description

¹ In 1999 the description was "Arts Centres and support for the arts"

² In 1999 the description was "Museums"

³ In 1999 the description was "Libraries"

Explanation 1: In the 2004/5 survey, 43% of Hampshire residents said they used or benefited from countryside sites

Explanation 2: The difference between the 2002/3 and 2004/5 surveys in the number of users is a decline of 4% [a drop of two percentage points]

The majority of respondents claim their household uses or benefits from Libraries & Archives. Almost half of respondents also claim that their household uses or benefits from Countryside Sites and Footpaths. The arts, community centres and museums each appear to be used by or benefit up to a quarter of Hampshire's households.

Overall, the proportion of households benefiting from R&H services is fairly static. There are some signs of a small decline in the use of countryside sites since 1999. The museums have shown a three percentage point increase since the previous survey (2002/3), while the libraries have stabilised after a drop from 1999 to 2002/3.

[Note: Some background on the statistical significance of these data can be found on the last page of these notes]

The approximate number of Hampshire residents using or benefiting from each service can be calculated from the 2004/5 survey.

TABLE 2: Approximate number of users for each service (`000)

2004/5	Overall	15 and under	16/24	25/34	35/54	55/64	65+	BME
Countryside Sites including Country Parks	538	109	32	67	190	68	72	13
Country Footpaths and bridleways	576	118	40	73	204	71	70	9
Support for theatres, music, arts and festivals	313	61	25	32	106	43	46	6
Community Centres	250	52	21	32	84	26	35	5
Heritage sites & Museums	325	69	13	32	113	46	52	4
Libraries & Archives	713	136	52	74	234	97	120	18
Hampshire Population (2003)	1,251	246	129	152	365	152	207	28

Note 1: The above figures are derived from the question: "and which of these services, if any do you or other members of your household benefit from?"

Note 2: Population base data from ONS mid-year estimates 2003

Note 3: Figures above are only approximate due to multiple rounding

Explanation: Approximately 32,000 Hampshire residents aged 16-24 use the countryside. This age group makes up 129,000 of Hampshire's 1,251,000 population

Considering these figures in the context of Hampshire's population profile, it is clear that R&H services do not uniformly benefit all age groups. In particular, the proportion of 16 to 24 year olds benefiting is consistently lower than the proportion of this age group in the total population of Hampshire (see table 3). Overall, it would seem that the services primarily benefit the largest population group (35/54) at the expense of others - though there are variations within each service sector.

TABLE 3: 2004/5 Number using and percentage of each age group using

2004/5	Overall (`000)	15 and under% *	16/24 %	25/34 %	35/54 %	55/64 %	65+ %	BME %
Countryside Sites including Country Parks	538	20	6	13	35	13	13	2.42
Country Footpaths and bridleways	576	21	7	13	35	12	12	1.56
Support for theatres, music, arts and festivals	313	19	8	10	34	14	15	1.92
Community Centres	250	21	8	13	34	10	14	2.00
Heritage sites & Museums	325	21	4	10	35	14	16	1.23
Libraries & Archives	713	19	7	10	33	14	17	2.52
Hampshire Population (2003)	1,251	20	10	12	29	12	17	2.24

* note: figures for 15 and under are arrived at by deduction (i.e. this age group was not included in the survey) so must be treated as estimates only.

Explanation: 6% of Countryside users are aged 16-24. Though 16-24's form 10% of the Hampshire population

It is also possible to analyse the MORI survey data to estimate the number of users of each service on a district by district basis.

TABLE 4: Approximate number who use (`000) in each district

2003 pop.	District	Countryside	Footpaths	Theatre	Community	Heritage & Museums	Libraries & Archives
154	Basingstoke & Deane	55	86	45	34	37	83
110	East Hampshire	53	50	22	22	25	62
116	Eastleigh	67	61	42	26	29	66
109	Fareham	55	51	31	32	43	73
77	Gosport	18	21	12	14	22	41
86	Hart	39	52	23	16	18	46
116	Havant	52	46	29	26	30	73
171	New Forest	74	72	29	41	41	96
90	Rushmoor	27	23	15	7	6	47
111	Test Valley	47	53	30	12	33	69
110	Winchester	50	61	33	21	36	63

Explanation: 55,000 of Basingstoke & Deane's 154,000 residents use the countryside Table 5 provides more information on the demographic profile of users of R&H services

TABLE 5: Notional percentage of each demographic using R&H services

%	2004/5	2002/3	1999
Males	37	36	32
Females	36	36	33
16/24	24	27	32
25/34	34	33	31
35/54	43	41	36
55/64	39	44	34
65+	32	29	29
AB	44	46	43
C1	39	39	37
C2	31	31	31
DE	24	24	27
All (mean average)	36	36	33

Explanation 1: The figures in this table are broad indicators only, and should not be taken as actual measures of the proportion of users in Hampshire.

Explanation 2: In the 2004/5 survey a `notional' 37% of Hampshire male residents claim to use R&H services. [`notional' because it is not possible to uncouple the number of users of the different services].

Explanation 3: The last row showing `All' is simply the mean average of the notional percentage users. [note: As the above table is for indicative purposes only, I have used the mean rather than the median as in previous tables].

Looking at the user figures from a demographic perspective, it is clear that several groups are under-represented throughout each of the three surveys. They are the younger adults (16/24 and 25/34 age groups), the oldest age group (65+), and socio-economic groups C2 and DE.

While overall use has increased marginally from 33% to 36%, the use among 16/24's and DE's has declined - in the case of the 16/24 age group, the decline is particularly significant.

Satisfaction with R&H Services

The survey also asked respondents to say how satisfied they are with the services .

TABLE 6: Net satisfaction - Median Benchmarks [Residents]

%	Overall	16/24	25/34	35/54	55/64	65+	AB	C1	C2	DE	White	BME
1999	46	40	47	46	48	53	50	46	50	39	-	-
2002/3	54	40	50	58	57	52	58	59	53	44	-	-
2004/5	58	44	51	62	63	63	65	59	59	46	58	66

Explanation 1: `Net satisfaction' is `very satisfied' and `fairly satisfied' less `very dissatisfied' and `fairly dissatisfied'

Explanation 2 : Net satisfaction figures have been worked out for each of the six R&H services and median average calculated, thus figures in the above table can be used as benchmarks each service can compare with

Explanation 3 : `Residents' refers to all respondents of the survey - whether they use a particular service or not

As can be seen from Table 6, overall satisfaction among residents (users and non-users) with R&H services has continued to increase and currently stands at 58 percent net satisfied.

However, among the 16/24 age group, net satisfaction remains below the 50% mark. The 25/35 age group is barely much better.

In terms of socio-economic groups, DE's are less satisfied with R&H services than other groups.

It is heartening to note a two thirds net satisfaction rating from Black and Minority Ethnic [BME] residents in the county. (note: No BME figures are available for earlier years).

Tables 7 to 9 provide a little more detail of the make-up of the headline figures above.

Beyond all others, one service consistently produces low satisfaction scores - `Support for theatres, music, arts, and festivals'. While this service is a difficult one to measure, the figures can be taken as an indication of low satisfaction - even if residents are not making judgement solely on County Council services.

The library & archive service and the countryside service continue to set the satisfaction standards for others to follow.

TABLE 7: 2004/5 Net Satisfaction - All Residents

%	Overall	16/24	25/34	35/54	55/64	65+	AB	C1	C2	DE	White	BME
Countryside Sites including Country Parks	67	57	64	68	71	72	71	68	67	58	67	80
Country Footpaths and bridleways	60	52	58	62	61	63	63	61	61	54	60	68
Support for theatres, music, arts and festivals	32	17	30	36	25	40	38	32	33	21	32	57
Community Centres	43	36	36	45	48	47	44	47	42	38	44	38
Heritage sites & Museums	56	35	43	61	64	62	66	56	57	38	56	63
Libraries & Archives	70	52	65	72	74	79	72	72	72	63	70	85
Median Benchmark	58	44	51	62	63	63	65	59	59	46	58	66

Explanation: Countryside received an overall net satisfaction score of 67%, well above the R&H benchmark of 58% (as seen from table 6). Among 16-24 year olds, net satisfaction with the countryside was 57% - still well above the R&H benchmark of 44%.

TABLE 8: 2002/3 Net Satisfaction - All Residents

%	Overall	16/24	25/34	35/54	55/64	65+	AB	C1	C2	DE	White	BME
Countryside Sites including Country Parks	65	58	68	69	63	63	75	67	62	54	-	-
Country Footpaths and bridleways	55	59	58	55	54	49	58	58	54	46	-	-
Support for theatres, music, arts and festivals	31	23	26	33	35	32	38	31	30	23	-	-
Community Centres	39	32	37	41	36	44	40	38	40	41	-	-
Heritage sites & Museums	53	31	42	61	60	55	58	59	52	38	-	-
Libraries & Archives	67	48	61	70	75	73	65	73	62	67	-	-
Median Benchmark	54	40	50	58	57	52	58	59	53	44	-	-

Explanation: See table 7

TABLE 9: 1999 Net Satisfaction - All Residents

%	Overall	16/24	25/34	35/54	55/64	65+	AB	C1	C2	DE	White	BME
Countryside Sites including Country Parks	66	61	68	66	68	66	72	67	72	55	-	-
Country Footpaths and bridleways	54	49	62	54	48	53	60	54	60	43	-	-
Support for theatres, music, arts and festivals	13	4	9	10	29	17	15	10	14	11	-	-
Community Centres	38	30	31	32	47	52	39	37	39	35	-	-
Heritage sites & Museums	30	19	21	37	34	31	32	37	30	23	-	-
Libraries & Archives	71	64	74	76	69	66	72	76	74	65	-	-
Median Benchmark	46	40	47	46	48	53	50	46	50	39	-	-

Explanation: See table 7TABLE 10: Net satisfaction - Median Benchmarks [Users]

%	Overall	16/24	25/34	35/54	55/64	65+	AB	C1	C2	DE	White	BME
1999	69	65	73	67	73	83	69	73	71	69	-	-
2002/3	73	64	73	73	73	73	70	71	77	65	-	-
2004/5	77	75	70	74	74	89	79	77	78	72	77	86

Explanation 1: `Net satisfaction' is `very satisfied' and `fairly satisfied' less `very dissatisfied' and `fairly dissatisfied'

Explanation 2 : Net satisfaction figures have been worked out for each of the six R&H services and median average calculated, thus figures in the above table can be used as benchmarks that each service can compare with

Explanation 3 : `Users' refers to those respondents claiming that they or someone in their household uses or benefits from the service

Among users of the services, net satisfaction with R&H services has continued to increase and now stands at 77% overall.

It is particularly gratifying to note the 75% net satisfaction rating given to R&H services by the 16/24 age group, while the 89% net satisfaction from residents age 65+ is astonishing.

Though still high, the 70% rating from those aged 25/34 may give rise to concern Their satisfaction levels have fallen since earlier surveys. This is the age group most likely to have young children and, while it remains conjecture, it is possible that these lower satisfaction scores relate to perceptions of the value of the R&H services for children.

Tables 11 to 13 provide a little more detail of the make-up of the headline figures above. As with "all residents", `Support for theatres, music, arts, and festivals' produces lower satisfaction ratings than other services. Again with the caveat that this is a difficult service to measure, it is disappointing that the overall score has declined so much since the last survey

While as with "all residents" the library & archive service and the countryside service continue to set the satisfaction standards, they have been joined by the museums service.

TABLE 11: 2004/5 Net Satisfaction - Users

%	Overall	16/24	25/34	35/54	55/64	65+	AB	C1	C2	DE	White	BME
Countryside Sites including Country Parks	82	89	76	80	80	92	82	80	86	86	82	80
Country Footpaths and bridleways	70	76	67	68	66	81	68	74	71	68	70	100
Support for theatres, music, arts and festivals	45	27	41	44	46	60	46	43	46	54	45	100
Community Centres	71	67	68	67	68	88	78	67	73	66	71	74
Heritage sites & Museums	83	83	72	84	81	90	85	82	83	75	83	53
Libraries & Archives	84	74	83	84	82	92	80	85	89	88	84	92
Median Benchmark	77	75	70	74	74	89	79	77	78	72	77	86

Caution: small samples

TABLE 12: 2002/3 Net Satisfaction - Users

%	Overall	16/24	25/34	35/54	55/64	65+	AB	C1	C2	DE	White	BME
Countryside Sites including Country Parks	79	77	81	80	80	78	83	78	77	78	-	-
Country Footpaths and bridleways	65	78	67	61	65	67	62	63	76	64	-	-
Support for theatres, music, arts and festivals	54	45	34	57	64	57	59	52	52	46	-	-
Community Centres	66	66	59	66	71	66	67	61	75	60	-	-
Heritage sites & Museums	80	56	78	86	74	80	78	86	83	65	-	-
Libraries & Archives	82	62	80	83	82	89	73	87	81	91	-	-
Median Benchmark	73	64	73	73	73	73	70	71	77	65	-	-

Caution: small samples

TABLE 13: 1999 Net Satisfaction - Users

%	Overall	16/24	25/34	35/54	55/64	65+	AB	C1	C2	DE	White	BME
Countryside Sites including Country Parks	81	74	87	80	74	88	78	81	86	77	-	-
Country Footpaths and bridleways	64	65	70	62	49	78	68	62	67	60	-	-
Support for theatres, music, arts and festivals	42	-3	40	27	90	61	34	36	56	47	-	-
Community Centres	69	65	73	64	71	81	64	74	74	65	-	-
Heritage sites & Museums	68	35	72	69	66	86	69	72	61	73	-	-
Libraries & Archives	84	73	88	86	86	85	80	83	87	86	-	-
Median Benchmark	69	65	73	67	73	83	69	73	71	69	-	-

Caution: small samples

Table 14 looks at demographic variations in satisfaction with R&H services.

TABLE 14: Notional Net Satisfaction of each demographic of Hampshire residents with R&H services

%	2004/5	2002/3	1999
Males	54	51	46
Females	56	53	45
16/24	42	42	38
25/34	49	49	44
35/54	57	55	46
55/64	57	54	48
65+	61	53	48
AB	59	56	48
C1	56	54	47
C2	55	50	48
DE	45	45	39
All (mean average)	55	52	45

Explanation 1: The figures in this table are broad indicators only, and should not be taken as actual measures of satisfaction by residents of Hampshire.

Explanation 2: In the 2004/5 survey a notional 42% of Hampshire 16-24 residents indicated a net satisfaction with R&H services. [`notional' because it is not possible to uncouple the number of users of the different services]. Contrasting this with the mean average, we can see that this group are less satisfied than the norm

Explanation 3: The last row showing `All' is simply the mean average of the notional percentage net satisfaction. [note: As the above table is for indicative purposes only, I have used the mean rather than the median as in previous tables].

Looking at the demographic perspective, three groups maintain a lower satisfaction level than others throughout all three surveys. They are the younger adults (16/24 and 25/34) and the DE socio-economic groups.

Of particular significance is that, while overall residents satisfaction has been rising, satisfaction among the 16/24 and DE groups has risen by less or is static.

TABLE 15: Notional Net Satisfaction of each demographic of Hampshire Users of R&H services

%	2004/5	2002/3	1999
Males	70	70	67
Females	75	71	70
16/24	69	64	52
25/34	68	67	72
35/54	71	72	65
55/64	71	73	73
65+	84	73	80
AB	73	70	66
C1	72	71	68
C2	75	74	72
DE	73	67	68
All (mean average)	73	71	68

Explanation: See table 14

Overall, as residents satisfaction has risen so has user satisfaction. However it is noticeable that 16/24's and DE's level of user satisfaction is not significantly below that of the mean average. There are marginal differences between male and female satisfaction levels, but the most significantly satisfied group of users of R&H services are those aged 65+. "Added Value"

The difference between satisfaction scores for residents and those for users has been alluded to earlier in this report. Though interesting, any direct analysis would be misleading due to variations in the proportion of users among residents. We can overcome this problem by extracting and comparing non-users with users [see Table 17].

There appears to be a `generic' perception of the quality of services. This shows itself in the levels of satisfaction indicated by those who do not claim to use or benefit from the service. This could be seen as a measure of latent `goodwill' towards the service, which leads people to believe the service is good even though they may not use it themselves.

The difference between the satisfaction expressed by users and non users could be seen as the "added value" provided by a service. The `Added Value' in the table below could be seen as the difference between experience and expectation. The following analysis should be read in conjunction with the overall level of satisfaction for the particular service - it can be difficult to add significant levels of satisfaction to a service where the expectations are already high. However, one might hope the reverse would be true for a service with low prior expectations (as in the case of Community Centres). The figures for the arts sector again reinforce the cause for concern.

TABLE 16: `Added Value'

Absolute Percentage Points	2004/5	2002/3	1999
Countryside Sites including Country Parks	26	25	29
Country Footpaths and bridleways	18	19	20
Support for theatres, music, arts and festivals	17	31	32
Community Centres	35	33	29
Heritage sites & Museums	36	35	44
Libraries & Archives	33	34	32
Mean average	27.5	29.5	31.0

With expectation levels rising (see non-users satisfaction levels in Table 17), user satisfaction levels need to seen in the wider context of society in order to be better understood.

Societal pressures mean that expectations, far from falling, are likely to continue to rise and become firmer - i.e. less subject to reliability fluctuations. As this occurs, user satisfaction levels will come under pressure as people become more discriminating about service quality.

So to summarise, taking R&H as a whole, the value added since 1999 has marginally declined. With satisfaction levels having generally increased, this is likely to be due to rising expectations in society today. These rising expectations are likely to continue. They will exert pressure on satisfaction ratings and maintaining the current high levels will present challenges for R&H services.

TABLE 17: Overall Net Satisfaction 1999 - 2004/5

%		Non-users	Users	`Added Value'
Countryside Sites including country Parks	1999	52	81	29
	2002/3	54	79	25
	2004/5	56	82	26
Country Footpaths and bridleways	1999	44	64	20
	2002/3	46	65	19
	2004/5	52	70	18
Support for theatres, music, arts and festivals	1999	10	42	32
	2002/3	23	54	31
	2004/5	28	45	17
Community Centres	1999	29	69	29
	2002/3	33	66	33
	2004/5	36	71	35
Heritage sites& Museums	1999	24	68	44
	2002/3	45	80	35
	2004/5	47	83	36
Libraries & Archives	1999	52	84	32
	2002/3	48	82	34
	2004/5	51	84	33

A further key point to note from the `added value' data above is that residents have a different level of expectation for each of the services, which should lead to different management and marketing strategies being adopted for each service. For example, a service with a high non-user satisfaction level does not need to spend resources increasing the `promise'. Rather, the marketing emphasis can be more confidently built around capitalising on existing goodwill through reinforcement and promoting active use of the service.

Product/Service Delivery Reinforcement Marketing	Reinforcement Marketing
Product/Service Delivery Promise Marketing	Promise Marketing

H

i

g

h

Non-

User

Satisfaction

L

o

w

Low High

Added Value

Not only will different strategies need to be adopted for each service sector, but a more subtle approach is likely to be required for specific target groups within each service.

Note on statistical significance:

A cautionary note: All survey work is subject to statistical error, this survey is no exception.

At the 95% confidence interval, the statistical significance of the findings from the MORI Hampshire Residents Survey is +/- 2.4% at the top level.

When looking at data from sub-sample sets (users within districts for example) the statistical error margins increase. This does not mean they become invalid, it simply means more caution needs to be exercised when attempting to draw inferences from the data.

Trends are useful indicators of validity and can be used to reinforce the statistical information from the survey data

John Parry

Principal Research Consultant

Recreation and Heritage

Hampshire County Council

June 2005