To consider the results from recent user satisfaction surveys and determine what further investigation or other action to take in response.

The Committee was invited to consider the results from recent user satisfaction surveys and determine what further investigation or other action to take in response.

The Head of Policy and Performance presented the report.  He drew attention to the wealth of information that was available to help the Council understand more about the public’s views and how it might respond through the Corporate Plan and individual Service Plans.  He noted that the public’s views would be an increasingly important part of future inspection regimes.

Focusing on the annual user satisfaction survey, which was currently one of the few consistent, statistically valid, sources of information, he suggested a number of ways in which the Committee might wish to use the survey in its work.  He noted that there was a time lag between the data being collected and its validation by the Audit Commission and that it would be helpful to move to a position where reaction to specific policy initiatives could be identified allowing a response to be made in the Annual Operating Plan.

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·          The Committee discussed a number of the results, noting some apparent anomalies and contradictions and how deeper analysis could produce some interesting and unexpected findings. 

·          The Chief Executive emphasised an underlying theme that public satisfaction with how the Council ran things overall was below that shown by the public for authorities performing at a similar level.  There had been a surge of public enthusiasm and support when the Council was formed after Local Government Reorganisation in 1998.  Since 2000 this had declined and the gap between satisfaction with the Council and that shown in comparator authorities had remained static.  It was important to understand why this was the case if the Council was to move from being categorised as an authority that was improving adequately to one that was improving well.  Part of the issue was to explain matters to the public to ensure that they had a clearer understanding of the factors affecting the way the Council operated.

·          It was noted that, nationally, satisfaction with how authorities ran things overall had declined and was lower than satisfaction ratings for individual services.

·          The Head of Policy and Performance suggested that it might be useful for the other scrutiny committees to receive a report on the range of satisfaction data available and to assess whether the information was sufficient and what was being done in response to it.  When considering the Directorate Service Plans the Scrutiny Committees might also want to assess how these were being informed by the views of the public and what actions were proposed to improve satisfaction.

·          It was asked when the results of the 2006 user satisfaction survey would be available.  In reply it was stated that the Audit Commission was validating the data.  It should be known in March when it intended to publish the information.  Indications were that nationally the downward trend in overall satisfaction with Councils was continuing whilst satisfaction with individual services continued to improve in a number of areas.

RESOLVED: 

(a)               that the findings of the 2006 user satisfaction survey be reported to the Committee when validated by the Audit Commission;

(b)               reports be made to individual service Committees on the user satisfaction data available inviting them to consider whether the information is sufficient and action in response to it;

            and

(c)               when considering the Directorate Service Plans the Scrutiny Committees consider how these are being informed by the views of the public and what actions are proposed to improve satisfaction.