Search User Survey 2016 - Summary of Questionnaire Responses

Search User Survey 2016 - Summary of Questionnaire Responses

Introduction

This report is divided into seven sections which, between them, summarise the results of a user survey carried out by Search between 12th June and 23rd September 2016. A total of 88 people,all using - or intending to use - at least one Search service, completed all or some of a 20-part questionnaire. The return rate (88 out of 411 users) was 21%. Responses were entered by hand – either by therespondent or a staff member or volunteer.

The questionnaire aimed to provide a snapshot of the following:

• which services/activitiesrespondents are using
• expectations of services and activities
• views on services/activities, and on the benefits derived
• ideas for improvements toservices/activities
• what respondents would do in the absence of Search

Section 1 of this report outlines the approach used to summarise and present the results of the survey. The basic profile information about respondents collected from the survey is shown inSection 2. In Section 3, information about respondents’ current use of Search is summarised, while Section 4 looks at what respondents had to say about the benefits they experience from using Search, and what might make it even better for them. In Section 5, the improvements and additions suggested by respondents are explored, whileSection 6looks at what respondents said they would do in the absence of Search. Lastly, Section 7raises some pointers that Search may wish to consider in light of the survey results.

Section 1: About this report

1.1Tables have been used throughout the report to afford quick access to summarised responses to questions. In some cases, responses have been sorted into categories: these are arbitrary and Search may want to consider alternative ways of grouping results. The tables include percentage figures: these have been rounded up or down (greater/lesser than .5 respectively) to create whole numbers.

1.2Appendices list full, verbatim responses to questions, and these are referenced in the relevant sections of the report. Each appendix has a question number and wording as its heading in order to aid referencing.

1.3Service users were not asked to identify themselves by name: for the purposes of this report, each questionnaire has been numbered from 1 through to 88. The responses for each questionnaire number are from the same person throughout. With the exception of questions 3 and 8, and 20a) and 20b), this report has not cross-referenced responses to different questions from the same person. The numbering system means that this is possible, however, and Search may wish to do this where it identifies links (for example, question 6 – whether people are linked in to other services, with question 11 – what people would do if Search was not available).

Section 2: User-profile information

2.1Questionnaires were partly or fully completed by a total of 88 individuals. All were asked for the following:

• date of birth
• gender
• ethnic origin
• disability
• postcode
• whether living alone, with partner and/or in sheltered accommodation

2.2Age: rather than reproducing the wide variations in birth year of the 84 respondents who answered this question, 4 age ranges have been used. The oldest respondents (2 people) were born in 1928, making them both 88 years old; the youngest, at 49, was born in 1967. The largest concentration of birth dates was during the 1940’s, with 33 respondents born during that decade. This age distribution reflects that identified within the 2016 Annual Review, whereby the majority of Search users are aged between 65 and 79 years old. The results are shown in Table 2.0.

Table 2.0: Age breakdown of respondents

2.3Gender: only three respondents did not answer this question. Out of the remaining eighty-five, 13 (15%) were male and 72 (85%) were female. The figure for male respondents is slightly lower than the overall 18% of male service users quoted in the Annual Review: equally, female respondents were over-represented when compared with Search’s overall figure of 82%.

2.4Ethnicity: of all respondents, nine out of eighty-eight did not answer while the vast majority – at 90% - were White-British. Of the remaining 10% (9 individuals), all identified themselves as Chinese. This figure of 10% is likely to be comparatively high for use of a predominantly white organisation by people from the Chinese community. At the same time, the absence of responses from other BME communities - for an organisation operating in the West End of Newcastle - is marked. This is not to say that Search isn’t used by individuals from those groups – merely that other minority ethnic groups weren’t represented amongst questionnaire respondents.

2.5Disability and illness: respondents were asked whether they had an illness or disability. Out of 88 respondents, 16 answered that they did not. Of the 72 answering in the affirmative, they were then asked to tick which applied from 14 specified options and a further 2 ‘other’ options. Options are included in Table 2.1, along with the number of respondents who selected each (people could tick all that applied).

It is immediately obvious from these figures that the top 3 conditions affecting most of the respondents are problems with blood pressure (49% of respondents), arthritis (44% of respondents), and circulation (28%). It may be useful for Search to identify what, if any, correlation exists between the percentages in this table and those for the elderly population as a whole. Additionally, it is up to Search to decide internally whether any of these percentage figures are high enough for it to consider specific service development/delivery in response.

Table 2.1: Illness and disability by number of respondents who ticked each

It can be seen from table 2.1 that many of the 72 respondents identified themselves as experiencing more than one illness and/or disability. Only 18 identified a single illness/disability, which means that well over half have 2 or more conditions to cope with. Table 2.2showsthe number of illnesses by number and percentage of respondents experiencing each.

The questionnaire doesn’t enable any analysis of the extent and ways in which those conditions impact of the rest of the respondents’ lives – this may be something Search chooses to consider at a future time, given we know that the impact of an illness or disability is rarely limited to its symptoms. For example, it is known that high blood pressure is a risk factor for a range of conditions including strokes and heart disease. It is increasingly acknowledged too, that long-term illness or disability - such as arthritis – can, and usually does, impact negatively on mental health.

Table 2.2

2.6Living circumstances: as could be expected from Search’s location, the majority of respondents reside in the inner and outer west parts of the city, though people also come from as far away as Gateshead and Consett. One respondent included a postcode which – according to the website The Postcode Area[1] - is no longer in use, while 3 didn’t include any postcode details. One person gave only the first 3 characters (NE2), which encompasses an area including parts of Jesmond, Sandyford, and Wingrove. Table 2.3 shows the spread of respondents across different wards.

Benwell/Scotswood, Elswick, Blakelaw and parts of Fenham, Wingrove, Ouseburn and West Denton, are within the top 10% most deprived neighbourhoods [2] (figures from 2015) in England. It is not farfetched, therefore, to assume that approximately 79% of respondents live within areas of socio-economic deprivation. The links between socio-economic disadvantage and poor health outcomes are well documented: the postcode data underlines that Search is working with people not only vulnerable as a result of age but an even more complex interplay of factors. To the same extent, the significance to service users of being able to access Search and its benefits is likely to be far greater than might otherwise be the case if all users were from less disadvantaged areas.

The other aspects of living circumstances asked about were whether respondents lived alone and/or whether in sheltered accommodation. With regard to the former, just over half (48 people, or 55%) live with at least one other person; the remaining 40 respondents lived alone. Only 7 respondents identified themselves as living in sheltered accommodation.

Table 2.3: Number of respondents by ward

Section 3: Services and activities used by respondents

3.1This part of the report looks at which Search services respondents have used in the last 12 months (section 3.2);what other Search services are used (section 3.3); where respondents found out about Search (section 3.4);whether they are using other services alongside those they utilise at Search (section 3.5); and how long they have been in contact with Search (section 3.6).

3.2Search services used: as can be seen from the copy of the questionnaire in Appendix A, twoquestions addressed this issue. The first asked which Search services have been used in the last 12 months, with respondents given a ‘drop-down menu’ of 4 service areas to choose from. Those areas are: ‘Activities’, ‘Chain reaction’, ‘Advice and Information’, and ‘Volunteering’. Out of the 88 respondents, 38 did not answer this question. A possible reason for such an otherwise unusual low response may be the layout – the question wasn’t numbered and there was no spacing between the questionnaire titles and this, effectively the first question. Of those who did respond, the results are as shown in Table 3.0

Table 3.0: services used over the last 12 months

3.3Question 4a and 4b addressed whether respondents had used other Search services and, if yes, which ones. Unfortunately, the ‘yes/no’ part of this question did not include an instruction as to how respondents should indicate their answer (‘Put a circle round the correct option’, for example). As a consequence, it is possible that the count for yes and no responses is inaccurate: while one person may put a line through their selection (as the equivalent of a tick), another may do so in order to discount that option. The numbers reflect, therefore, a best guess rather than being definitive.

Forty respondents said they had not used other Search services, and 4 people didn’t answer. Of the remaining 44 respondents, a range of other services and activities were listed and these can be seen inAppendix B. Because of the potential lack of clarity and low response rate identified here and in 3.2, it is possible that there is some blurring between responses elicited here and those shown in table 3.0 – particularly in relation to the category of activities and what people might understand that to mean. So, for example, some of the 38 individuals who did not answer question 1 did say they had used other Search services. Also, 2 respondents named the AGM in 4b – this is unlikely to be regarded by Search as a service.

Search may want to examine the responses within Appendix Bin order to ensure that all the things listed are, or have been, provided by them as opposed to other organisations: such distinctions are less clear for service users than for providers. Furthermore, the person compiling this report does not have in-depth knowledge of Search’s provision and may have misinterpreted in some instances where handwriting was unclear (see, for example questionnaires 23 and 57). Aside from any errors, it is apparent from Appendix B that most information would fall within the category of activities, with only 1 person specifying ‘volunteering’, between 6-7 mentioning Advice/Information, and 3 referring to use of Chain Reaction.

3.4Where respondents found out about Search: as one might expect, there was a wide range of responses to this question with 20 different sources being identified. Of those, the most common were word of mouth, seeing the shop front, and referrals from the statutory sector. While Appendix C includes the full list of sources, Table 3.1arranges them into categories and showsthe number of respondents who identified a source within that category.

3.5External services: the question asked was ‘Do you use other similar services?’ If answering in the affirmative, respondents were asked to specify what. A note of caution: the question assumes a common understanding of what is meant by ‘similar services’: furthermore, the question’s wording implies a response in the present tense, whereas some answers may refer to past use.

Appendix D includes a verbatim list of other services identified in response to this question. In some cases, there is repetition of a service/venue: this is because one respondent wrote St James Church while 2 others specified St James Church Heritage & Environment Group – it is unclear whether the former refers to the latter or to some other activity happening within the church.

Table 3.1: where respondents found out about Search

Similarly, one person wrote ‘The gym at Adelaide Terrace’, while another simply wrote ‘gym’: again, these may be one and the same, or the latter may refer to a gym elsewhere. With one response, it was impossible for this writer to decipher the whole of one word.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of answers to this question was the number of people who are not apparently using any other outside service (though, as already stated, caution should be applied since there may be contact but not in a way the respondent regarded as ‘similar’). Of all responses, there were 23 ‘yes’ ones (two people did not specify what), but 62 who answered in the negative. Thus, Search is potentiallythe only provider working with 70% of the questionnaire respondents. If this reflects the overall picture across the organisation, Search can feel justly proud that it is reaching so many otherwise isolated individuals. Furthermore, such statistics can only underline the importance of Search to the older population it serves, particularly given the importance to mental and physical health of being connected and engaged with other people.

3.6How long respondents have been using Search: six people did not answer this question. Of the remaining 82, one person had been attending since 1986 and the others from a period between 1996 and 2016. Figure 1shows the spread of years respondents identified, along with the number who joined in any one of those years. As can be seen, the years 2014 and 2016 show the largest percentages of members joining: in 2014, Search was joined by 20% of respondents; in 2016, 17% had joined, up until completion of the survey. It may be worthwhile for Search to consider any particular factors at play in those 2 years, and whether lessons for attracting new users can be inferred from such.

Fig. 1: Graph summarising length of contact by number of respondents

Section 4: Benefits of Search

4.1The sheer bulk of material from the questions asking about the benefits of using Search necessitates some summarising and grouping of results. The full, verbatim information given by respondents is, however, included within the relevant appendices. The parts of the questionnaire summarised in this section are those relating to original expectations (section 4.2), the single main benefit from using Search (section 4.3), and which additional benefits respondents gained (section 4.4). A further, similar, area explored by the questionnaire was to ask respondents what was the best thing about Search: responses to this are addressed in section 4.5. Finally, in section 4.6, brief attention is given to how respondents answered two questions inviting general comment about Search.

4.2Expectations of Search: the table in Appendix E shows all responses to both Question 3 of the survey – ‘What did you hope to get out of [Search]?’ and Question 8 – ‘What is the main benefit you get from using Search?’ Those full results are here (Table 4.0) sorted into distinct areas as a more succinct way of summarising what benefits respondents identified. Only 3 peopledid not answer this question: the remaining 85 gave varying degrees of detail, and many gave more than one single expectation. It should be borne in mind that these results will be influenced, to a varying degree, by the experience of respondents subsequent to their arrival at Search.

It is clear from a reading of the detailed list in Appendix E that certain words recur: ‘friendship’, ‘meeting [new] people’, ‘company’, and ‘socialising’ can all arguably refer to what will be termed ‘Connecting with others’. Likewise, ‘advice’, ‘information’, ‘benefit and housing’ and ‘help’ are taken to refer to a category named ‘Helpsupport’. Both of these are included in Table 4.0. When reading the results, please note that the same people might have identified more than one hope from more than one category so each result is out of a total of 85 responses. This applies to both the number of respondents and percentage figure for each category.

Another area that has been categorised is that of ‘Activities’: the statistics in table 4.0 reflect not just use by respondents of that particular word but also specific activities mentioned (flower-arranging, walking, computing, karaoke and so on). The one obvious exception is trips/days out: there is a separate category for this, entitled ‘Outings’, because it was a recurring issue in its own right. Similar but separated out from activities is the category of ‘Learning’: this includes non-specific references such as ‘learn new skills’, ‘new knowledge’, ‘learning opportunities’.