Life Satisfaction Trust and Services

7/25/2019 Life Satisfaction Trust and Services

1/67

Bobby Duffy

MORI Social Research Institute

Contact: 020 7347 3000

[email protected]

SocialResearchInstitute

Life satisfaction, trust and services -the importance of place


2/67

Introduction

Where people live influences views

Obvious but underplayed?

Eg national targets/judgements taking no account of local

conditions

Look at

ratings of services

satisfaction with area

life satisfaction

trust in others


3/67

But it is not all good news

Frontiers of performance

how much is aboutwhere you live?


4/67

Satisfaction with Individual Councils

Modelling satisfaction - why varies and what can expect

individual authorities to achieve

One of the strongest is levels of deprivation in the area

(IMD)

More powerful than communications, or service delivery

But also ethnic diversity


5/67

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Satisfaction with council versus deprivation score

Net satisfaction with Council (+%)

Deprivation Score (IMD 2000)Base: All

Brent

Harlow

Oldham

Birmingham

Vale of White Horse

Gateshead

Correlation -0.65

Mancheste

Sunderland

Camden


6/67

Satisfaction with Council (BVPI)

Extent of ethnic diversity

R2

= 0.3995

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

Ethnic diversity as important as deprivation


7/67

Satisfaction with Housing - BVPI data

R2 = 0.5786

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

and more important in views of housing

2001 Ethnic Diversity


8/67

MORI Frontiers Analysis

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 20 40 60 80

Deprivation and Ethnicity

%SatisfiedwithCounci Likely frontier of satisfaction

AverageWeak


9/67


Views of landlord -

deprivation and diversityseen in regional

variations?


10/67

66%

77%

73%

72%

71%

69%

68%

64%

56%

63%

71%

All

Base: c10,000 RSL tenants survey 2000

North East

East Midlands

North West

Merseyside

West Midlands

South West

Yorks & Humberside

South East

Eastern

Greater London

Satisfaction with landlord RSL tenants

+% net satisfaction with landlord


11/67

Drivers of attitudes to landlord

On-going study for Housing Corporation backs up role ofdeprivation and ethnic diversity

Range of factors influence satisfaction beyond control oflandlord

age household composition

length of residence

level of deprivation level of ethnic diversity

dwelling type

region


12/67

But it is not all good newsSimilar patterns on

satisfaction with areaup to a point


13/67

30

50

70

90

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Satisfaction with area versus IMD

Net satisfaction with area (+%)

Deprivation Score (IMD 2000)

SandwellRushmoor

Tendring

Gateshead

Correlation -0.77Mid Suff

Suff Coastal

SurreyHeath

Mancheste

Source: MORI database of local authority surveys


14/67

63%

74%

70%

63%

59%

59%

57%

56%

50%

53%

60%

All

North East

East Midlands

North West

Merseyside

West Midlands

South West

Yorks & Humberside

South East

Eastern

Greater London

Satisfaction with area RSL tenants

+% net satisfaction with area

Base: c10,000 RSL tenants survey 2000


15/67

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

Satisfaction with area versus deprivationscore New Deal for Community areas

Net satisfaction with area (+%)


Knowsley

Liverpool

ManchesterSheffield

Fulham Hull Islington

Brighton Tower Hamlets

Luton

NottinghamDoncasterSouthwark

Hartlepool

Sandwell

Coventry

S ti f ti ith i f lit f lif


16/67

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

Satisfaction with views of quality of life versusdeprivation score New Deal for Community areas

Net satisfaction with quality of life (+%)


HullBrightonRochdale

Derby

SouthwarkBrent

Aston

Manchester

LutonLambeth

Fulham

South-

ampton


17/67

But it is not all good newsHappiness and trust

study for Cabinet Office


18/67


Were getting richer


19/67

but not happier

80

100

120

140

160

180

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997

GDP Per capita

(1973 =100)

Life satisfaction

(1973 =100)


20/67

and were losing ground

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

19

73

19

75

19

77

19

79

19

81

19

83

19

85

19

87

19

89

19

91

19

93

19

95

19

97

19

99

20

01

%

Denmark

UK

Belgium

% very satisfied with their lives


21/67

But it is not all good newsHow much can we

explain or predict?


22/67

Understanding life satisfaction and trust in others

Data from British Household Panel Survey

c15,000 interviews

c250 variables on demographics, income/savings/debt,health, activities, views of housing and area, values

added area factors deprivation, ethnic diversity,

urbanity


23/67

7 8

7 6

7 4

7 2

7 0

Life satisfaction by tenure no real difference

Base: All respondents

Own outright

Buying on mortgage

Rent from local council

Rent from HA/Trust

Rent privately

Life satisfaction score out of ten


24/67

Understanding life satisfaction and trust in others

More sophisticated techniques

Using multiple regression

what factors most related to trust and happiness,

independent of effects of other factors


25/67

But on ly 20% of variat ion in li fe sat isfact ion

exp lained by modelimportance of genes and early years

Life

satisfaction

-11% Want to move home

-15%

Limiting long-term

illness

-7% Single non-retired

household

-6%

Aged 35-44

-7%

Number of GP visits

6%

Talk to neighbours

5%

Agree that ordinarypeople share in wealth

21%Finances comfortable

10%Retired

5%

Do sport

Positive drivers Negative drivers

Can we predict life satisfaction?

-6%

Cannot afford visitors to

home


26/67

Segmenting on life satisfaction

Not only technique

Also using CHAID

Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detector

simple hierarchical segmentation

breaks down into extreme groups


27/67

Whole populationAverage satn score = 7.5

No limiting long-termillness

Limiting long-termillness

Do not wantto move

Want tomove

Affordholiday

Not affordholiday

Not affordannualholiday

Affordannualholiday

Want tomove

Do notwant to

moveRetired Not

retiredRetired Not retired

More trusting Less trusting

The most and least happy people in the country


28/67

Do not want

to move

Whole population

Average satn score = 7.5

No limiting long-term

illness

Limiting long-term

illness

Retired

No problemswith arms/legs

Finances

comfortable

Live in less

diverse areas

Not afford

holiday

want

to move

Most satisfied group2% of population

Average satisfaction score of 9

Least satisfied group

2% of the population

Average satisfaction score of 5.5

The most and least happy people in the country


29/67

The happiest people


30/67

But it is not all good newsTrust too

a key measure ofsocial capital?


31/67

2

3

4

5

6

959 98 997

% who think most people can be trusted

World Values Survey quoted in lectures by

Richard Layard 2002/3 Happiness: has social science a clue?

We are losing trust in each other


32/67

But it is not all good newsSome differences by

tenure

T i h b


33/67

4 1

3 9

3 7

2 6

2 1

Trust in others by tenure


Own outright

Buying on mortgage

Rent from local council

Rent from HA/Trust

Rent privately

Trust in others score out of ten

T t i th iddl l l ?


34/67

15% of variation in trust in others explained by model

Trust in

others

-10% Aged 25-34

-10% Aged 16-24

-7% Limiting long-termillness

-6%

Rent from council

-7%

Vandalism/crime aproblem in area

11%Have first degree

9%

Involved in localgroups

8%

Have higher degree

6%

Finances comfortable

10%Go to theatre

9%Believe there is onelaw for rich and one

for poor

6%

Voted in last election

Positive drivers Negative drivers

Trust in others a middle class luxury?

Th t d l t t ti l i th t


35/67

Do not want to

move

Whole population

Average trust score = 4

Have first degree Do not have first degree

Involved in

local groups

Rent from

council

Not retired

More diverse

areas

Vandalism/Crime problem

in area

Most trusting group2% of population

Average trust score of 7

Least trusting group2% of the population

Average trust score of 1

The most and least trusting people in the country


36/67


Again area matters


37/67


But people see lots ofreasons for decline in

community spirit

Why people think were losing community spirit


38/67

40

35

20

17

13

11

Why people think were losing community spirit


People work lon ger hours, sohave less time for each other

People spend more timewatching TV/on in ternet

People move homemore often

and dont know others in areaMore newcomersto country,including asylum seekers

People more likely to takeadvantagethan help selves

People f in anc ial ly bett er o ffsodont need each other

23% of C2DEs

Impact of ethnic diversity in areas


39/67

Impact of ethnic diversity in areas

Need to be careful on role of diversity difficult to

disentangle from factors associatedwith ethnic diversity

urbanity, mobility deprivation and inequality

And more general and complex changes to way living

But lower trust in more deprived areas ties in withUS/Australian/other work

And in any case shows continuing importance of area


40/67

But it is not all good newsConclusions and

questions

Conclusions and questions


41/67


Where people lives affects their attitudes

And who you serve affects how difficult you job is and how

you are rated key factors

objective quality of service

complexity of needs

cultural factors that affect survey responses

Limited amount we can do about levels of life satisfaction

and trust? but role of early years and higher education seems

clear

Need more and better local area indicators



42/67


Is nature of population/area served taken into account

enough when assessing RSL performance?

How do we take account of area factors when you servedispersed populations? Need for a test study?

What can we do to manage increasing diversity better?What are best ways to give people more meaningful

interaction give people greater local control of services/

areas?

Were used to allocating resources on basis of deprivation

do we need to consider allocating resources on basis of

diversity as well?

SocialR h


43/67

ResearchInstitute

Thank youQuestions, Comments?

Bobby Duffy

MORI Social Research Institute

Contact: 020 7347 3000

[email protected]

Most Need Improving in Local Area - GreatBritain (1)


44/67

43

29

28

27

25

23

22

18

17

16

Britain (1)

% Select

Q Thinking about th is local area, which o f these th ings, i f any , do youthink most need impro ving ? Again, you may ch oo se up to f ive

Low level traffic congestion

Road/pavement repairs

Activities for teenagers

Low level of crime

Public transport

Facilities for young children

Clean streets

Shopping facilities

Job prospects

Health services

Base: 2,031 GB adults aged 15+, 18-22 October 2001

40

36

29

25

27

27

22

16

15

17

Urbanareas

%

Most Need Improving in Local Area - GreatBritain (2)


45/67

16

13

12

11

10

7

7

7

4

4

Britain (2)

Access to nature

% Select

Q Thinking about th is local area, which o f these th ings, i f any , do youthink most need impro ving ? Again, you may ch oo se up to f ive

Sports and leisure facilities

Low level pollution

Community activities

Race relations

Base: 2,031 GB adults aged 15+

Open spaces

Access to culture

Wage levels/Cost of living

Base: 2,031 GB adults aged 15+, 18-22 October 2001

Affordable decent housing

Education provision

14

13

11

7

8

7

9

9

5

5

Urbanareas

%

Whats it Like where the ABs Live? (21% of pop)


46/67

What s it Like where the ABs Live? (21% of pop)

Sport and leisure

facilities

Low pollution

Job prospects

Open spaces

Access to culture

Low traffic

congestion

Community

activities

Race relations

Road maintenence

Facilities for young

children

Access to nature

Wage levels

Clean Streets

Transport

Shopping Health

Activities for teenagers

Crime

Housing

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Education

Need Improving

Important

The Picture where DEs Live (30% of pop)


47/67

The Picture where DEs Live (30% of pop)

Need Improving

Important

Sport andleisure facilities

Low pollution

Job prospects

Open spacesAccess to

culture

Low traffic

congestion

Community

activities

Race relations

Road

maintenance

Facilities for

young children

Access tonature

Wage levels

Clean StreetsTransport

Shopping

Health

Activ ities forteenagers

Crime

Housing

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Education

Less bothered

about transport,traffic than ABs


48/67

But it is not all good newsA key measure of

social capital?


49/67

But it is not all good newsCivic engagement and

local networks strongregional differences

High reciprocity by region


50/67

58%

57%

56%

56%

55%

53%

52%

52%

48%

41%

g p y y g

Source: Social capital module of the General Household Survey 2000

South West

Eastern

West Midlands

South East

East Midlands

North East

Yorkshire & the Humber

North West

London

England

Feel neighbours look out for each other, done/received a favour

High neighbourliness score - by region


51/67

40%

39%

39%

33%

33%

33%

32%

30%

29%

21%

g g y g


South West

Eastern

West Midlands

South East

East Midlands

North East


North West

London

England

Know, speak to, trust neighbours, do/receive favours etc

Feel civically engaged by region


52/67

22%

20%

20%

19%

19%

18%

17%

17%

15%

14%

y g g y g


South West

Eastern

West Midlands

South EastEast Midlands

North East


North West

London

England

Involved in local organisations, feel informed, feel can influence local decisions etc

Successful Community


53/67

y

What makes a community successful?

Nation as a whole

Friends/friendly neighbours(68%)

A stable population (38%)

Good local schools (29%) Focal point (28%)

People having same outlook

(23%)Mix of people (19%)

EMGs

Friends/friendly neighbours (47%)

Mix of people (29%)

People having same cultural

background (24%)

People having same outlook (21%)

People speaking same language

(21%)

Focal point (20%)

common themes amongall ethnic groups


54/67

But it is not all good newsRegions count and the

North East countsdouble

Regional Factors


55/67

g

Consistent regional differences - and over time

North seem to be happiest with services, Eastern/SouthEast least

Across range of services including some services where

actual performance should be fairly consistent

Link to underlying political beliefs?

but still evident when control for voting intention

Link to expectations?

Expectations of NHS by Region


56/67

-8%

18%

-3%

-5%

-6%-6%

-10%

-12%

-12%

-13%

-13%

-14%

All

Base: 3,873 adults aged 18+ 2003: MORI Delivery Index Aggregate Data

North East

West Midlands

Eastern

South East

South West

Scotland

Yorks & Humberside

Greater LondonWales

North West/Merseyside

East Midlands

% thinking it will get better

Expectations of Education by Region


57/67

6%

18%

18%

11%

10%

6%

5%

3%

1%

1%

1%

10%

All


North East

Scotland

East Midlands

North West/MerseysideWales

West Midlands

South West

Yorks & Humberside

South East

Eastern

Greater London


Expectations of Policing by Region


58/67

3%

19%

13%

6%

4%

3%

3%

2%

0%

-1%

-1%

-5%

All


North East

Greater London

Scotland

West MidlandsYorks & Humberside

East Midlands

South West

Wales

Eastern

South East



Expectations of Public Transport by Region


59/67

-12%

11%

4%

-5%

-11%-14%

-15%

-16%

-19%

-20%

-21%

-23%



All

Greater London

Scotland

Wales

North West/MerseysideWest Midlands

Eastern

North East

East MidlandsSouth West

Yorks & Humberside

South East


60/67


Not just party support

Non-Labour voters - expectations of NHS by Region: evenTory/Lib Dem North Easterners are cheerful


61/67

-20%

-2%

-14%

-17%

-17%-19%

-21%

-22%

-25%

-25%

-25%

-25%

y/

All

North East

East Midlands

Greater London

WalesNorth West/Merseyside

South East

West Midlands

Eastern

South West

Scotland

Yorkshire & Humberside


Base: 2,712 Non- Labour voters aged 18+ 2003: MORI Delivery Index Aggregate Data

Same on policing........


62/67

-3%

12%

6%

-1%

-2%-2%

-2%

-2%

-5%

-7%

-11%

-12%

All

North East

Greater London

Yorks & Humberside

East MidlandsSouth West

Scotland

West Midlands


Eastern

South East

Wales


Base: 2,712 Non- Labour voters aged 18+ 2003: MORI Delivery Index Aggregate Data


63/67

But it is not all good newsalso correlates with

patient experience inhealth

Only a weak relationship between rating of Primary CareTrust health services and deprivation


64/67

0 6

0 65

0 7

0 75

0 8

0 85

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Aggregate rating score

Deprivation Score (IMD 2000)Source: MORI

Bradford

Newham

SouthLiverpool

Redbridge

Mid Devon

Correlation -0.32

But strong link with ethnic diversity


65/67

0 6

0 7

0 8

0

Ethnic diversity


Source: MORI

Lambeth

Bradford

Heart of

Birmingham

Newham

Barking and

Dagenham

Preston

Thurrock

Correlation -0.70


66/67

But it is not all good newsViews of health servicesare definitely nothing to

do with your chances of

dying

iews of Primary Care Trust health services versusStandardised Mortality Ratios (SMR)


67/67

0 6

60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130

SMR


Source: MORI

EastSurrey

Bradford

Tower

Hamlets

SE Dorset

Slough

Mid Devon

Newham

Bedford

Medway

Documents

Life Satisfaction Trust and Services