oxford city talkback panel · measurement evaluation learning: using evidence to shape better...

OXFORD TALKBACK SURVEY – AUTUMN 2012 M·E·L RESEARCH

Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services

Oxford City Talkback Panel

Autumn 2012

DRAFT FINDINGS REPORT



Contents Page

Summary of main findings

1) Project details and acknowledgements ............................................................ 1

2) Introduction........................................................................................................... 2

Background....................................................................................................................... 2

Response........................................................................................................................... 2

Statistical reliability and reporting conventions ........................................................... 2

3) Findings................................................................................................................. 3

Community Safety............................................................................................................ 3

Empty Dwellings............................................................................................................. 16

Appendix A: Sample composition............................................................................A1



1) Summary of main findings

This section presents key findings from the autumn 2012 Talkback survey. The survey focuses on

community safety and empty dwellings. More detailed analysis of the results is provided in the subsequent

sections.

Community Safety

Compared to 2011, the results suggest that ‘fear of crime’ - as measured by the proportion of respondents

who state that they are fairly or very worried about issues - has fallen marginally across almost all types of

crime and anti-social behaviour. However, it should be noted that the decreases are generally within the

margin of error. Concern about speeding and parking problems has increased marginally.

Asked how concerned they were about a series of crime and anti-social behaviour related issues, panel

members were most concerned about domestic burglary; 47% were worried about this issue and 12%

were very worried. The results indicate that domestic burglary is a key concern for younger people (aged

17-34), people with disabilities, those not in employment and people living in Cowley.

The types of anti-social behaviour most commonly identified as being a problem were speeding vehicles /

dangerous driving (51% fairly / very big problem); cars being parked inconveniently, dangerously or

illegally (47%); and rubbish or litter lying around (37%). It is notable that concern about speeding and

parking related issues has increased marginally year on year and three out of ten respondents (29%)

thought this issue had got worse over the past 12 months. Speeding vehicles / dangerous driving is a

particular concern among the 35-54 age-group, people with disabilities, those not in employment and

people living in South East.

Relatively few respondents (18%) thought that alcohol related antisocial behaviour in Oxford City Centre

was a problem during the day, but well over half (55%) thought this was a problem at night; the

comparable figures in 2011 and 2010 were 58% and 63%. Some 16% of panel members thought that

alcohol related antisocial behaviour at night had increased over the previous 12 months; the comparable

figures in 2011 and 2010 were 20% and 28% respectively. The results suggest a gradual decline in

perceptions that alcohol related antisocial behaviour at night is a worsening problem.

Just under half of respondents (49%) knew how to contact their neighbourhood policing team, while just

under a quarter (23%) knew how to find out the team’s top three priorities. Significantly more panel

members were aware of the council’s Community Response Team (39%) than the Crime and Nuisance

Action Team 29%).

Half of respondents thought the police were doing a good job of tackling local issues while one in four

thought the council was doing a good job. Approaching half (46%) thought the police were doing well at

working with residents to solve local issues, compared to 32% city for the council. Four out of ten agreed

that the police was good at promoting community safety in their neighbourhood, compared to a quarter for

the council. Approaching a quarter (23%) agreed that the police kept them informed about what is being

done to tackle antisocial behaviour in their area, compared to one in five (18%) for the council.



Overall, 46% of panel members agreed that the police and council were dealing with crime and antisocial

behaviour issues that matter in their area; this represents a marginal year on year decrease compared to

previous results. Respondents from the East area of the city and Cowley were most likely to disagree with

this statement.

Empty Dwellings

Overall, nearly a third of panel members (31%) said they were aware of someone who had difficulty finding

somewhere to live in their area of the city. Respondents from North (41%) and East (40%) areas were

most likely to state that they were aware of someone who had difficulty finding somewhere to live. The

most commonly cited reasons given for people having difficulty finding somewhere to live were a lack of

affordable housing (40%), expensive rented accommodation (23%) and a shortage of council housing

(9%).

One in five panel members (21%) stated that they were aware of an empty dwelling in their area, rising to

quarter of respondents in North East and Central areas. The unsightly nature of empty dwellings (76%),

vandalism (40%) and devaluation of adjoining properties (38%) were perceived to be the biggest issues

associated with empty dwellings. A wide range of other associated problems were also identified.

Overall, 94% of respondents agreed that it is important for the council to ensure empty homes are brought

back into use, and 68% thought this was very important. 84% thought the council should take formal

action where an owner is either unable or unwilling to bring an empty property back into use. Respondents

in Central, Cowley and East were most likely to think it is important to bring empty homes back into use

and most likely to agree the council should take formal action.


Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page 1

2) Project details and acknowledgements

M·E·L Research 8 Holt Court Aston Science Park Birmingham B7 4AX

Tel: 0121 604 4664 Fax: 0121 604 6776 Email: [email protected] Web: www.m-e-l.co.uk

Title Oxford City Talkback Survey Report

Client Oxford City Council

Project number 11065 Autumn 2012

Client contact Hamera Plume, Sadie Paige

Author Rob Hack

Contract Manager Rob Hack



3) Introduction

Background

This is the seventh Oxford City Council Talkback Survey carried out with the assistance of M·E·L

Research. The survey focuses on:

Community Safety

Empty Dwellings

Oxford City designed and provided the autumn 2012 survey questionnaire. M·E·L Research were

responsible for mailing out, receiving responses via freepost, processing completed questionnaires and

data analysis. An online version of the survey was also programmed, hosted by M·E·L Research.

Fieldwork was conducted between 27th September and 19th October.

Response

The questionnaire was sent by post and email to a total of 808 panel members. The survey received a

response rate of 45% (362 completed questionnaires). A breakdown of the achieved sample is provided

at Appendix A. In some cases the base size reported on will be smaller than the total sample. This is due

to lower response rates for some questions than others.

Statistical reliability and reporting conventions

With a total number of households in Oxford of over 50,000, the top line results contained in this report

are accurate to ± 5% at the 95% confidence level1; Results for sub-groups will be less accurate.

Where possible results to the questions on community safety have been compared to previous survey

results from December 2010 and November 2011.

1 This means we can be 95% certain that the results are ± 5% of the calculated response, so the ‘true’ response could be 5% above or below the figures reported i.e. a 50% agreement rate could in reality lie within the range of 45% to 55%.



4) Findings

Community Safety

Oxford Safer Communities Partnership (OSCP) asked a series of questions concerning panel members’ views on crime, anti-social behaviour and how well the council and police respond to these issues. This follows up on similar questions asked in December 2010 and November 2011.

All respondents were asked how worried they were about a series of crime and anti-social behaviour

related issues. Figure 1 shows responses to this question, illustrating that respondents were most

worried about domestic burglary; 47% stated that they were worried about this issue and 12% were very

worried. Notably, respondents were also particularly worried about being insulted or pestered while in a

public place (31%) and being mugged (30%).

Overall, respondents were least concerned about being insulted because of their skin colour, ethnic

origin, religion or sexual orientation (9%); this rises to 27% among ‘non-White’ respondents although

caution should be taken with this result due to a small sample size for this sub-group.

Figure 1 How worried are you about each of the following?

Q1 (Percent)

35% 8%12% 45%

22% 16%8% 53%

17% 24% 4%5% 51%

23% 20% 3%4% 49%

19% 18%8% 54%

24% 20%7% 49%

7% 53% 3%2% 35%

Very worried Fairly worried Not very worried Not at all worried Don’t know

Domestic burglary

Being mugged

Having your car stolen

Having things stolen from car

Being assaulted by strangers

Being insulted or pestered while in a public space

Being insulted because of your skin colour, ethnic origin, religion

or sexual orientation

9% are worried, rising to 27% among ‘non-White’ respondents



Figure 1.1 compares results for Question 1 with the previous surveys carried out in 2011 and 2010. As

this illustrates, the proportion of respondents stating that they were fairly or very worried about each of

the crime and anti-social behaviour related issues fell slightly; the decreases were generally within the

margin of error and these results should therefore be regarded as indicative only.

Figure 1.1 Very / fairly worried about crime/anti-social behaviour types: 2010, 2011 & 2012

Q1 (Percent)

17%

27%

33%

34%

35%

34%

49%

9%

27%

33%

31%

34%

34%

51%

9%

22%

27%

28%

31%

31%

47%

Being assaulted because of your skin colour,ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation

Having your car stolen

Having things stolen from your car

Being assaulted by strangers

Being insulted or pestered while in a publicplace

Being mugged

Domestic burglary

201220112010



Table 1 shows results for the top ranked anti-social behaviour / crime issue cross-tabulated by age,

gender, disability, work status and area. Despite a low base for the 17-34 age-group, the results suggest

that younger people (60%) were considerably more likely than older age-groups to be worried about

domestic burglary (this is supported by findings from previous surveys). Domestic burglary also tended to

be a greater concern for people with disabilities (58%), those not in employment (55%), and particularly

those living in Cowley (65% compared to 55% in 2011).

Table 1 Very / fairly worried about domestic burglary by demographics Q1 (Percent)

Very / fairly worried about

domestic burglary

Base

Overall 47% 356

17 – 34 years 60% 25

35 – 54 years 40% 114

55+ years 50% 202

Male 46% 148

Female 48% 202

Disabled 58% 36

Non-disabled 45% 312

White 46% 318

Non-White 50% 30

Employed 40% 118

Not employed 55% 165

Central 50% 38

North 39% 69

East 38% 39

North East 51% 90

South East 43% 70

Cowley 65% 43



As Figure 2 shows, the three types of anti-social behaviour most commonly identified by respondents as

being a fairly / very big problem in their area were: speeding vehicles or motorbikes / dangerous driving

(51%); cars parked inconveniently, dangerously or illegally (47%); and rubbish or litter lying around

(37%). Figure 2.1 overleaf compares results for the same question to those from 2011 and 2010; it is

notable that concern with speeding vehicles or motorbikes / dangerous driving and cars being parked

inconveniently, dangerously or illegally have both increased marginally year on year.

Figure 2 Which types of antisocial behaviour are a problem in your area? Q2 (Percent)

15% 38%4% 43%

16% 31%4% 49%

24% 15%13% 48%

17% 27%5% 50%

11% 38% 3%6% 42%

4% 63% 3%29%

5% 42% 22%30%

35% 14%16% 35%

18% 30% 3%5% 44%

15% 25% 16%10% 35%

5% 45% 7%42%

18% 29% 21%31%

5% 14% 47% 3%31%

63% 23%2% 12%

Noisy neighbours / loud parties

Young people hanging around on the streets

Rubbish or litter lying around

Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage

Fly tipping

Abandoned or burned out cars

People being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation

Speeding vehicles or motorbikes / dangerous driving

People being drunk or rowdy in public

People using / dealing drugs

Conflicts or disputes between neighbours

Cars parked inconveniently, dangerously or illegally

Fireworks being setoff that are not part of an organised display

People using or carrying airguns or replica guns

Very big problem Fairly big problem Not a very big problem Not a problem at all Don’t know



Figure 2.1 Ratings of antisocial behaviour types as a very / fairly big problem: 2010, 2011 & 2012

Q2 (Percent)

5%

8%

6%

12%

18%

18%

18%

18%

24%

28%

29%

36%

39%

43%

3%

3%

4%

5%

20%

20%

18%

20%

25%

24%

21%

40%

44%

47%

3%

3%

5%

7%

17%

18%

19%

20%

22%

22%

24%

37%

47%

51%

Conflicts or disputes between neighbours

People using or carrying airguns or replica guns

Abandoned or burned out cars

People being attacked or harassed because of theirskin colour, ethnic origin, religion or sexual

orientation

Fly tipping

Fireworks being setoff that are not part of anorganised display

Noisy neighbours or loud parties

Young people hanging around on streets

Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage toproperty or vehicles

People being drunk or rowdy in public

People using / dealing drugs

Rubbish or litter lying around

Cars parked inconveniently, dangerously or illegally

Speeding vehicles or motorbikes / dangerous driving

201220112010



Table 2 shows the top ranked type of anti-social behaviour (speeding vehicles or motorbikes /

dangerous driving) cross-tabulated by age, gender, disability, work status and area. As the table shows,

this issue was regarded as a particular problem by the 35 – 54 age-group (58%); people with disabilities

(56%); those not in employment (55%); and those living in South East (68%).

Table 2 Speeding vehicles or motorbikes / dangerous driving are a very / fairly big problem by demographics Q2 (Percent)

Speeding vehicles or

motorbikes / dangerous driving are a very / fairly big

problem

Base

Overall 51% 359

17 – 34 years 28% 25

35 – 54 years 58% 116

55+ years 49% 203

Male 57% 148

Female 47% 211

Disabled 56% 36


White 51% 319

Non-White 50% 32

Employed 49% 212


Central 24% 38 North 46% 69 East 45% 40 North East 56% 89 South East 68% 72 Cowley 52% 44

All respondents were asked whether they thought a series of different types of anti-social behaviour has

got better, worse or stayed the same over the last 12 months.

Figure 3 overleaf shows responses to this question illustrating that respondents were most likely to think

that noisy neighbours / loud parties (15%) and abandoned or burned out cars (15%) have got better.

Respondents were most likely to think that speeding vehicles or motorbikes / dangerous driving (29%)

and cars being parked inconveniently, dangerously or illegally (29%) have got worse.



Figure 3 Have the following types of antisocial behaviour got better, worse or stayed the same?

Q3 (Percent)

Noisy neighbours / loud parties (71%)

Young people hanging around on the streets (73%)

Rubbish or litter lying around (67%)

Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage (69%)

Fly tipping (65%)

Abandoned or burned out cars (62%)

People being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation

(53%)

Speeding vehicles or motorbikes / dangerous driving (58%)

People being drunk or rowdy in public (71%)

People using / dealing drugs (55%)

Conflicts or disputes between neighbours (67%)

Cars parked inconveniently, dangerously or illegally (57%)

Fireworks being setoff that are not part of an organised display (64%)

People using or carrying airguns or replica guns (64%)

Got worse Stayed the same Got better (D/K)

15%

12%

13%

12%

8%

15%

7%

6%

8%

4%

7%

8%

9%

6%

7%

8%

17%

8%

8%

1%

2%

29%

9%

10%

3%

29%

8%

1%

7%

7%

3%

11%

18%

22%

39%

6%

12%

31%

23%

6%

19%

47%

(non-White = 19%) (non-White = 3%)



As Figure 4 illustrates, relatively few people thought that alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in Oxford

City Centre was a problem during the day, although this does appear to be increasing slightly as a

problem year on year. It is notable that a majority of residents (55% compared to 58% in 2011) regard

alcohol-related antisocial behaviour at night as being a problem; 15% regard this as being a very big

problem.

Figure 4 How much of a problem is alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in Oxford City Centre?

Q4 (Percent)

During the day…

At night…

All respondents were asked whether they thought alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in Oxford City

Centre increased, decreased or stayed the same over the last 12 months. Figure 5 overleaf shows

responses to this question. As this illustrates:

Most (53%) thought that alcohol-related antisocial behaviour during the day had stayed the same,

while nearly a third (31%) did not know; the remainder of respondents were fairly evenly balanced

between those who thought it had increased (9%) and those who thought it had decreased.

Just over a third of respondents (36%) thought that alcohol-related antisocial behaviour at night had

stayed the same, while 45% did not know. Of the remainder, 16% thought it had increased and just

3% thought it had decreased. However, it is notable that the proportion of residents stating that

alcohol-related antisocial behaviour at night has increased appears to be gradually falling over time

(28% in 2010, 20% in 2011 and 16% in 2012).

3% 17% 13%15% 51%

15% 2% 28%40% 16%

Very big problem Fairly big problem Not a very big problem Not a problem at all Don’t know

55% (compared to 58% in 2011 and 63% in 2010)




6%

9%

31%

53%

Increased

Stayed the same

Decreased

Don’t know

16%

45%

36%

3%

Increased

Stayed the same

Decreased

Don’t know

Figure 5 Has alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in Oxford City Centre increased, decreased or stayed the same?

Q5 (Percent)

During the day…

At night…

As Figure 6 below shows, just under half of panel members were aware of how to contact their

Neighbourhood Policing team. This was lowest among the 17-34 age-group (32%) and those living in

the North East area (42%). People of retirement age (57%) and those living in Central area (61%) were

considerably more likely to know how to contact their Neighbourhood Policing team.

Figure 6 Do you know how to contact your Neighbourhood Policing team?

Q6 (Percent)

49%51%

YesNo

Do you know how to contact

your neighbourhood policing team?

(compared to 7% in 2011 and 7% in 2010)




Yes: 17 – 34 years = 32% 65+ years = 57% North East = 42% Central = 61%



As Figure 7 illustrates, under a quarter panel members (23%) knew how to find out about their

neighbourhood’s top 3 priorities.

Figure 7 Do you know how to find out about your neighbourhood’s top 3 priorities?

Q7 (Percent)

23%

77%

YesNo

Do you know how to find our about

your neighbourhood’s top 3 priorities?

As Figure 8 shows, significantly more panel members were aware of the Community Response Team

(39%) than the Crime and Nuisance Action Team (29%).

Figure 8 Are you aware of the following council services to tackle antisocial behaviour?

Q8 (Percent)

39%

61%

YesNo

Community Response Team

29%

71%

YesNo

Crime and Nuisance Action Team (CANAcT)

Yes: North East = 18% North = 30%



As Figure 9 shows, half of respondents thought that the police were doing a good job of tackling local

issues while four out of ten (39%) thought the city council was doing a good job. Both results represent a

slight year on year increase compared to previous years.

Approaching half (46%) thought that the police were doing well at working with residents to solve local

issues, while nearly a third (32%) thought the city council were doing well. Both results represent a slight

increase compared to the results from 2011.

Four out of ten (41%) thought the police were good at promoting community safety in their neighbourhood,

while a quarter thought the council was good at promoting community safety in their neighbourhood.

Approaching a quarter (23%) agreed that the police keep them informed about what is being done to

tackle antisocial behaviour in my neighbourhood. The comparable figure for the city council was 18%. Figure 9 Please tick either ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘don’t’ know when considering the following statements?

Q9 (Percent)

They are doing a good job of tackling local issues…

50%

10%

40%

YesNoDon't know

Police

They are doing well at working with residents to solve local issues…

46%

10%

44%

YesNoDon't know

Police

continued…

39%

20%

41%

YesNoDon't know

City Council

32%

20%

48%

YesNoDon't know

City Council

Yes: 2011 = 45% 2010 = 49%

Yes: 2011 = 34% 2010 = 33%

Yes: 2011 = 40% 2010 = 44%

Yes: 2011 = 30% 2010 = 31%



They are good at promoting community safety in my neighbourhood…

41%

18%

41%

YesNoDon't know

Police

They keep me informed about what is being done to tackle antisocial behaviour in my neighbourhood…

23%

53%

24%

YesNoDon't know

Police

All respondents were asked the extent to which they agreed that the Police and Oxford City Council are

dealing with antisocial behaviour and crime issues that matter in their area.

Figure 10 overleaf shows responses to this question cross-tabulated by area, illustrating that those living

in the East area of the city (20% disagree) followed by those living in Cowley (16% disagree) are most

likely to disagree with this statement. Repondents from North and North East areas are less likely know

whether the Police and Oxford City Council are dealing with antisocial behaviour and crime issues that

matter in their area. Overall, 46% agree that the police and council are dealing with antisocial behaviour

and crime issues that matter in their area, a marginal decrease on the comparable result from 2011.

25%

22%

53%

YesNoDon't know

City Council

18%

49%

33%

YesNoDon't know

City Council

Yes: 2011 = 42% 2010 = 43%

Yes: 2011 = 25% 2010 = 25%

Yes: 2011 = 22% 2010 = 25%

Yes: 2011 = 18% 2010 = 20%



Figure 10 Agree or disagree that the Police and Oxford City Council is dealing with antisocial behaviour and crime issues that matter in your area?

Q10 (Percent)

15%

11%

22%

10%

18%

15%

7%

11%

8%

6%

18%

9%

12%

16%

27%

16%

20%

35%

29%

22%

41%

39%

57%

52%

28%

35%

36%

27%

7%

3%

8%

8%

14%

9%

5%

Total

Central

North

East

North East

South East

Cowley

Don’t know Strongly disagree Tend to disagree Neither Tend to agree Strongly agree

Caution: low base sizes for ‘Central’, ‘East’ and ‘Cowley’




Empty Dwellings

Oxford City Council’s Housing team asked questions about empty and dilapidated homes within Oxford City. The results will inform a review of the Council’s Empty Properties Strategy.

All respondents were asked whether they were aware of anyone who has difficulty finding somewhere to

live in their area of the city. Figure 11 shows responses to this question. As this illustrates, respondents

from North (41%) and East (40%) areas were most likely to state that they were aware of someone who

had difficulty finding somewhere to live. Those in the South East (20%) were least likely. Overall, nearly a

third of panel members (31%) said they were aware of someone who had difficulty finding somewhere

to live.

Figure 11 Are you aware of anyone who has difficulty finding somewhere to live in your area of the City? Q1 (Percent)

31%

32%

41%

40%

28%

20%

29%

68%

69%

60%

72%

80%

59%

71%

Total

Central

North

East

North East

South East

Cowley

Yes No


68%



Those respondents who stated that they were aware of someone who had difficulty finding somewhere

to live were asked the reasons why. As Figure 12 illustrates, panel members most commonly cited a

lack of affordable housing (40%), expensive rented accommodation (23%) and a shortage of council

housing (9%) as being key reasons. Other commonly mentioned reasons included a lack of suitable

homes (7%) and too much student housing (5%).

Figure 12 If yes can you give the reason why?

Q1 (Percent)

7%

1%

1%

3%

3%

5%

7%

9%

23%

40%

Other

Landlords not accepting HB claimants

Change of circumstances

Homelessness

Asylum seekers / immigrants

Too much student housing

Lack of suitable homes

Shortage of Council housing

Expensive rented accomodation

Lack of affordable housing



All respondents were asked whether there was an empty dwelling in their area. Overall, one in five

respondents (21%) answered yes to this question. As Figure 13 shows, those in North East and Central

areas (both 26%) were most likely to answer yes to this question. The results suggest that the North area

(16% yes) and Cowley (16% yes) have less of a problem with empty dwellings.

Figure 13 Is there an empty dwelling in your area? Q2 (Percent)

21%

26%

16%

23%

26%

21%

18%

43%

32%

45%

53%

40%

46%

39%

42%

36%

25%

34%

32%

39%

43%

Total

Central

North

East

North East

South East

Cowley

Yes No Don't know


Those respondents who stated that there was an empty dwelling in their area were asked what the

impact on their neighbourhood had been. Figure 14 overleaf shows responses to this question. Some

caution should be taken with these results due to low bases sizes. Nevertheless, the results do suggest

that the unsightly nature of empty dwellings (76%), vandalism (40%) and devaluation of adjoining

properties (38%) are perceived to be the biggest issues. A broad range of associated problems are

highlighted by the ‘other’ responses, including overgrown gardens, boarded up windows and litter.

42%



Figure 14 What, if anything, has been the impact on your neighbourhood as a result of the empty dwelling?

Q3 (Percent)

76%

40%

12%

11%

38%

15%

34%

70%

64%

43%

5%

19%

45%

32%

20%

54%

22%Unsightly

Target for vandalism

Squatted in

Pest infestation

Structural damage toadjoining property

Devalued adjoiningproperty

Yes No Don't know

Caution: low base sizes

Other (25 responses)

Overgrown garden Boarded up windows

Litter Anxiety Damp

Disjointed community Disrepair

Drug dealing Old cars

Theft

22%



All respondents were asked how important they thought it was that the City Council should ensure empty

homes within the City are brought back into use. Overall, as Figure 15 shows, 94% of panel members

thought it was important, and within this 68% thought it was very important. Notably, 100% of

respondents in Central area, and 98% in Cowley and East, thought it was important to ensure empty

homes within the City are brought back into use.

Figure 15 How important do you think it is that Oxford City Council should ensure empty homes within the City are brought back into use?

Q4 (Percent)

6%

4% 4%

26%

34%

30%

28%

23%

17%

30%

68%

66%

59%

70%

67%

78%

68%

Total

Central

North

East

North East

South East

Cowley

Not sure Not at all important Not important Important Very important




Table 3 below shows responses to the same question cross-tabulated by age, gender, disability, work

status and area. As this shows, all population segments agreed that bringing empty homes back into use

should be a priority for the council.

Table 3 Very important / important that Oxford City Council should ensure empty homes within the City are brought back into use by demographics Q4 (Percent) Very important / important

that the council should ensure empty homes are

brought back into use

Base

Total 94% 360

17 – 34 years 92% 24

35 – 54 years 92% 116

55+ years 95% 204

Male 94% 147

Female 93% 212

Disabled 89% 37


White 94% 319

Non-White 91% 32

Employed 94% 211


Similarly, as Figure 16 overleaf shows, a large majority of respondents agreed that the council should

take formal action where an owner is either unable or unwilling to bring an empty property back into use.

Those in East (93%) and Central (89%) areas were most likely to agree that the council should take

formal action in such circumstances. Those in the North area (78% yes) were least likely to agree.

Table 4 shows responses to the same question cross-tabulated by age, gender, disability, work status

and area. As this shows, those in the 55+ age-group and people with disabilities (both 86%) were

marginally more likely than other groups think the council should take formal action where an owner is

either unable or unwilling to bring an empty property back into use.



Figure 16 Do you think the Council should take formal action where an owner is either unable or unwilling to bring an empty property back into use?

Q5 (Percent)

84%

89%

78%

93%

81%

86%

8%

9%

8%

4%

14%

7%

83%

7%

13%

3%

15%

9%

8%

Total

Central

North

East

North East

South East

Cowley

Yes No Don't know

Table 4 agreeing that the Council should take formal action where an owner is either unable or unwilling to bring an empty property back into use by demographics Q4 (Percent)

Council should take formal action where owner is

unable or unwilling to bring empty property back into

use

Base

Total 84% 359 17 – 34 years 63% 24 35 – 54 years 83% 116 55+ years 86% 204 Male 82% 147 Female 85% 212 Disabled 86% 37 Non-disabled 83% 313 White 86% 319 Non-White 63% 32 Employed 85% 211 Not employed 81% 142


Measurement Evaluation Learning: Using evidence to shape better services Page A1

Appendix A: Sample composition

Responses (unweighted)

17-24 years 7

25-34 years 18

35-44 years 56

45-54 years 61

55-64 years 99

65+ years 106

Male 149

Female 213

Disabled 37

Not disabled 316

White 322

Non-white 32

Employed full time 127

Part time 38

Self employed 27

Student 9

Retired 127

Permanently sick/disabled 12

Looking after the home 11

Other/Unemployed and available for work 9

Own your house 268

Rent from the council / housing association 45

Rent from private landlord 18

Living rent free 3

Living in communal establishment 0

Prefer not to say/Other 0

Central 38

North 69

East 40

North East 91

South East 73

Cowley 44

oxford city talkback panel · measurement evaluation learning: using evidence to shape better...

Documents