Searching for the impact of involvement Bobby Duffy 16 th July 2007

2 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 5 th 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 Support for involvement increases

3 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 But past reviews point to weakness of evidence…

4 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 NDC survey data can help

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

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

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

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

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

10 Regression on satisfaction with area as a place to live shows there are more important factors 32% of variance explained by the model Satisfaction with area as a place to live Source: NDC Survey 2006 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%) Base: 15,792 NDC residents aged 16+

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

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

13 Looking at change in individuals’ feelings of influence No QDo you feel you can influence decisions that affect your area? 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… Never felt able to influence QDo you feel you can influence decisions that affect your area? 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 Did not feel able in 2002, do feel able in 2006 Always felt able to influence Did feel able in 2002, do not in 2006 Never 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 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? Initial conclusions

Searching for the impact of involvement Bobby Duffy 16 th July 2007