Agenda item

Witnesses:

Abigail Linyard-Tough, Research & Evaluation Officer

Hannah Pattinson, Strategic Lead – Resident Insight

Rich Stockley, Head of Research

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. The Strategic Lead introduced the slideshow presentation. It was agreed that this slideshow would be emailed to Members after the meeting.

Will Forster Warner arrived at 12:14pm.

2. The Head of Research explained that the residents’ survey was answered by a demographically representative sample of residents, which gave more accurate results than self-selective residents’ surveys, as were used by some other councils. It was conducted by an external company, Swift Research.

3. The Research and Evaluation Officer informed Members that the residents’ survey was conducted through telephone interviews, which was deemed cost-effective and relatively anonymous, and in partnership with Surrey Police.

4. The residents’ survey had been operating for 12 years in Surrey, meaning there was a large well of long-term data to draw on.

5. Each month, the survey was conducted with 550 residents. This data was then compiled quarterly.

6. Residents’ surveys were conducted in varying ways by Local Authorities (LAs) across the country as well as by the Local Government Association (LGA). The LGA questions and guidance had been used in designing the Surrey County Council survey, and national data gathered by the LGA could be used as a comparator.

7. The Task Group felt it would be useful to see a breakdown between different districts and boroughs perhaps not frequently but on the basis of sharing an overview. In the same vein, data on comparison with other LAs would also be useful, as would a country-wide perspective based on the LGA survey for the country as a whole.

8. On discussion relating to the veracity of the survey and the reliability of the data it generated, the Task Group was interested in understanding how bias was taken into account in the survey. The Head of Research said that there was always bias, and the survey was designed taking this into account. Given that it was not possible to eliminate bias completely, the Head of Research said that in interpreting the results, a standard deviation method (95% accuracy with 2% either way) could be applied to show how probable it was that the survey was accurate.

9. A Member noted that some people would not want to answer a call from a number they did not recognise, which led to some inevitable self-selection depending on which residents would choose to answer the call. The Head of Research acknowledged that this could cause bias, and said that he would send Members more information on this.

10. A Member said that it would be useful to see the results of the residents’ survey broken down by Districts and Boroughs. The Head of Research informed Members that it would broadly be possible to obtain figures on a District and Borough level and even on a division level, perhaps not on a monthly basis but on an annual basis instead. However, another Member was not convinced that divisional research would be of value.

11. A Member asked whether the interview included clarification for residents on the differences between what the County Council was responsible for and what District and Borough Councils were responsible for. The Research & Evaluation Officer remarked that she could distribute to Members the script that was used for the interview to help answer this question.

12. Substantive discussion on this point ensued, with an emphasis on the Task Group bearing in mind potential and actual residents’ confusion about what the County Council was responsible for and what District and Borough councils were responsible for. Members present suggested that it would be worth following this up with Swift Research and the Head of Research added that he would have a look at the script. The Research and Evaluation Officer said that the residents’ survey was specifically focussed on services the County Council provided and that as these were quite specific this did provide a degree of separation between County Council services and Districts and Boroughs.

13. Whilst it was more a communication and marketing challenge rather than an aspect of customer experience as such, it was emphasised by the Task Group that the County Council should and could do much more to communicate its responsibilities to residents.

14. The Strategic Lead detailed varying levels of satisfaction across different services, and noted that efforts should be made to understand significant discrepancies between satisfaction levels across different services. The Strategic Lead felt it would be of benefit to focus on a different specific theme per quarter to enable more targeted data to be collected, and the Members present were supportive of this.

15. The Strategic Lead presented a slide outlining the strategic objective of the journey they were undertaking with resident insight, indicating that the ultimate objective was to get a rich and rounded view of the customer, and that Members should also be part of this.

16. The Task Group was interested in understanding the nature, if any, of dialogue with frontline services like Children’s services, Adult Social Care and Public Health. The ensuing discussion then emphasised that the County Council needed to know why Surrey residents felt as they did on any given issue. The question was asked as to whether Members would benefit from receiving more information from the team managed by the Head of Research and that they should let the team know about what they needed.

17. The Head of Research indicated that researching what residents knew about what the County Council did could be useful, and that Members should let him what would be useful.

18. The point of using the most effective methods to communicate with residents was again emphasised, as this was the only way in which residents would ultimately understand what the County Council did as opposed to Districts and Boroughs.

19. A Member indicated that it would be useful to know what sort of residents’ surveys the Districts and Boroughs in Surrey did.

20. A Member said that the residents’ survey indicators RS 01 and RS 02 (‘satisfaction with the way the council runs things’ and ‘satisfaction that the council offers good value for money’ respectively) were useful. Asking about the key questions the LGA recommended asking, the Head of Research said that the Council did use a lot of the questions that came from the LGA. He pointed out that while lots of questions asked whether or not residents were satisfied, they did not explain why residents were satisfied or not. It was necessary to understand the details of customers’ journeys to obtain rich data.

21. A Member said that on top of the two RS indicators, another important question was how much residents felt they could influence decision-making.

22. A Member requested that information on figures and methods at LAs statistically comparable to Surrey, like Hertfordshire, be obtained as this could be useful for benchmarking. The Head of Research responded that while direct comparisons might not be possible, some information on statistical neighbours could be provided to Members.

23. In relation to what might be done with data collected by the survey, a Member suggested that knowing what had been or would be done about issues was as important as knowing about the issues themselves. This could be publicised. Also, knowing data on a division level would be helpful as the data would be more specific and relevant to a particular Councillor. The Head of Research indicated that this was helpful because it helped the insight team understand what Members needed to know.

24. Referencing the Moving Closer to Residents Task Group, a Member suggested that it would be useful to find out what residents thought before and after the transformation and compare. This could be factored into the work of both Task Groups.

25. A Member suggested that the residents’ survey team work with individual departments to deep dive into services, perhaps related to the Strategic Lead’s suggestion of a thematic focus on the residents’ survey each quarter, so a survey focused on a service area – and potentially also benchmark this before and/or after a transformation.

26. In discussing understanding customer experiences in Districts and Boroughs, Officers agreed to send the Task Group survey data by District and Borough. One of the benefits of doing this could be that, if there was a notable difference between them, Local and Joint Committees could review their local data once a year.

27. A Member remarked that some other councils did detailed consultation with residents on the budget, while Surrey County Council did not. This could be useful in providing more qualitative data. The Head of Research informed Members about budget-setting workshops with residents held by Surrey County Council in 2018, which were helpful in allowing the council to understand how residents felt once they were better informed about the council’s responsibilities and limitations. It was agreed that it would be useful for a report on this consultation to be shared with Members.

28. The Head of Research emphasised the importance of qualitative feedback – the residents’ survey as it was currently did not give full, qualitative feedback. In response, a Member suggested that the survey team could offer information to Districts and Boroughs and consult with them. The Head of Research indicated that Surrey County Council used to pay for a tool to share info with Districts and Boroughs, but it was rarely used by Districts and Boroughs, so the Council saved money by withdrawing this tool. However, the Head of Research said that reviving this approach would be valuable, but that all Districts and Boroughs would need to be on board, not just one or two.

Actions/further information to be provided:

1. For the Strategic Lead to provide the slideshow used in this meeting;
2. For the Head of Research to provide information on the bias that telephone interviews may entail;
3. For the Head of Research to provide the results of the residents’ survey broken down by Districts and Boroughs;
4. For the Research & Evaluation Officer to provide the script used for the telephone interviews;
5. For the Head of Research to provide some information on statistical neighbours to Surrey;
6. For the Head of Research to share the report on the budget consultations held in 2018.