Bradford District Residents' Perceptions Survey 2011

Bradford District 

Residents’ 

Perceptions 

Survey 2011 

Summary Report 

Research Study Conducted for 

Bradford Council and the Bradford 

District Partnership 

Client 

logo

Bradford District Residents’ Perceptions Survey 2011 

CONTENTS 

Executive Summary 4 

Introduction 11 

Background & objectives 11 

Methodology 11 

Report layout 12 

Interpretation of the data 12 

Acknowledgements 13 

1. Quality of Life 14 

1.1 People’s attitudes to their local area 14 

1.2 Improving quality of life: identifying priorities 16 

1.3 Strength of belonging 19 

2. Respect & Consideration 23 

2.1 Respect & consideration in the local area 23 

2.2 Parents taking responsibility 24 

2.3 Community cohesion 25 

2.4 Respect & consideration from public service providers 27 

2.4 Support for older people 28 

3. Community Safety 30 

3.1 Perceptions of safety 30 

3.2 Prevalence of antisocial behaviour 32 

3.3 Antisocial behaviour score 34 

3.4 Dealing with antisocial behaviour 36 

3.5 Seeking the public’s views 39 

4. Transport & Travel 41 

4.1 Travel to work & school 41 

4.2 Car use 42 

5. Local Public Services 44 

5.1 Satisfaction with services – Bradford Council 44 

5.2 Satisfaction with services – the local NHS 45 

5.3 Satisfaction with services – fire & police 46 

5.4 Satisfaction with services – transport 47 

6. Information & Communications 48 

6.1 Level of information 48 

6.2 Preferred sources of information 50 

6.3 Internet use 52 

2


7. Getting Involved 53 

7.1 Community influence 53 

7.2 Community involvement 55 

7.3 Volunteering 56 

8. Health & Well-being 57 

8.1 General health 57 

8.2 Dental health 58 

8.3 Support from public service providers in promoting healthy living 60 

8.4 Satisfaction among carers with support from public service providers 60 

9. Housing & the Home 62 

9.1 Satisfaction with overall condition of property 62 

9.2 Number of bedrooms in property 63 

10. Environment & Climate Change 64 

10.1 Concern about climate change 64 

10.2 Attitudes towards climate change 65 

10.3 Actions to deal with climate change 66 

11. Engagement in the Arts 67 

12. Financial Exclusion 69 

12.1 Awareness & use of credit unions 69 

12.2 Personal finance 72 

13. Qualifications & Skills 73 

Appendices 75 

Appendix 1: Guide to Statistical Reliability 76 

Appendix 2: Guide to Socio-Economic Classifications 78 

Appendix 3: Sample Profile 79 

Appendix 4: Map of Bradford 82 

Appendix 5: Comparisons with Place Survey 82 

Appendix 6: Topline Findings 83 

3


Executive Summary 

This executive summary presents the key findings from the 2011 Bradford District Residents’ 

Perceptions Survey, a representative study of Bradford District residents aged 16+, conducted 

between February and July 2011. The research was undertaken face-to-face, in-home, by ICM 

on behalf of the Bradford District Partnership (BDP), and is the second of its kind following the 

baseline survey conducted last year. 

The scale of the survey and the fact that it is based on a representative, rather than a selfselecting, 

sample (as in the case of the postal administered Place Survey) means the findings 

are robust and highly accurate (at the overall level, data is correct to within plus or minus 1.2 

percentage points). It also permits extensive analysis at subgroup level and as such affords the 

BDP an in-depth analysis of its residents’ views. Above all, the current research allows 

comparisons with data from the 2010 survey, monitoring any change in residents’ views over the 

last 12 months. A finding between 2010 and 2011 needs to be at least plus or minus two 

percentage points in order to be a statistically significant difference. 

[Appendix Five shows results for key indicators from the 2008 Place Survey and the 2010 and 

2011 Residents’ Perceptions surveys. Please note that reliable comparisons between these two 

sets of research are not possible because of the different methodologies used (postal and inhome 

face-to-face respectively).] 

A. Overview 

The country’s economic prospects remain mired in uncertainty for the foreseeable future, with 

the coalition government’s fiscal policies only just beginning to impact public service delivery, 

employment prospects still unsure for many, household budgets stretched and local government 

revenues under pressure. Consequently, the residents’ views expressed in the latest Residents’ 

Perceptions Survey need to be placed firmly within this context. In particular, this survey affords 

Bradford District Partners the opportunity to take stock of residents’ current priorities and to 

identify particularly vulnerable groups at this time. 

Against such an uncertain backdrop, it is encouraging that views of the local area as a place to 

live are extremely positive, both in terms of overall satisfaction and sense of belonging. Indeed, 

the proportion very satisfied and strongly agreeing in each case has increased significantly. 

When compared to the rest of the country, the District’s residents have far higher levels of 

attachment to their immediate neighbourhood, and on the whole, there is a sense that local 

residents show each other respect and consideration and get on well together. It is also 

promising to note that many more people now say that people from different backgrounds get on 

well together. Although we cannot say for sure, this may be a consequence of the ‘feel good’ 

factor surrounding the recent Royal Wedding which took place during the fieldwork period. 

What is particularly important, however, is that certain key groups are less likely to have this 

sense of belonging compared to others: 

Attitudes become less favourable, the younger the age group; 

Black and mixed race groups are least likely to say they have a strong sense of 

belonging compared to other ethnic groups; 

4


 

 

 

There are no notable differences between the different religious groups, but there has 

been a shift of +10 percentage points among people of ‘other’ faiths, from ‘having a 

strong sense of belonging’ to ‘not’; 

Work status and home ownership both impact on residents’ sense of attachment; those 

not in employment (excluding retired) and in rented accommodation can feel less 

connected; 

There is a strong correlation with satisfaction with the local area: those who speak highly 

of their local area are more than twice as likely to feel a strong sense of belonging 

compared to those who are dissatisfied. 

Consequently, while the overall positive shift is encouraging, this will be an important indicator to 

continue to track. 

As we would expect, the extent to which people feel secure in their local area is a key measure 

of how satisfied they are with the area overall. On the whole, when it comes to crime and safety, 

Bradford performs well and there have been improvements since last year – almost everyone 

feels safe during the day, and the majority do after dark (indeed, it is ahead of the country as a 

whole on this measure). However, likelihood to feel safe declines considerably among a number 

of groups including older people, members of socio-economic group DE and some ethnic 

groups. Accordingly, Bradford East and Bradford West – the former with a high concentration of 

DEs, and the latter with a high concentration of Asian residents – therefore have the greatest 

challenge here. 

An important finding is that the extent to which people feel empowered to influence decisions in 

their local area has declined recently; just over a third now believe they can do so and, although 

the majority do not wish to get more involved in local decision making, those who are dissatisfied 

with the local area or with the Council are significantly more likely to want to. This suggests that 

those who are disaffected have not disengaged from their local community but rather have firm 

views about what can be done to improve things. 

Reflecting this to some extent are people’s views on tackling crime and anti-social behaviour. 

Although on balance opinion is positive about the work of local service providers in dealing with 

such problems, there is a notable lack of awareness among some groups about the success of 

these efforts, and just two in five people feel residents are consulted by the relevant agencies. 

The sense of disengagement among a substantial minority is also reflected in the extent to 

which some groups do not feel informed about the services and benefits from local public 

service providers (although more people feel ‘very well’ informed than this time last year). This is 

especially the case among young people aged 16-24, carers, socio-economic DEs and those 

who rent their home. Furthermore there are other indications throughout the report that suggest 

there is less emphasis on encouraging people to adopt positive behaviours. For instance, 

residents are more likely to say they ‘don’t know’ about the support available to encourage 

healthier lifestyles, more likely to say they ‘don’t know’ about their role and actions available to 

them to affect climate change, and less likely to walk to work or school. This may of course 

reflect the Partnerships current spending priorities or simply reflect residents’ perceptions of 

‘public sector cuts’. 

In short, the outlook from this survey is positive. Even with the current challenges, the vast 

majority of residents are positive on key indicators of general satisfaction, ratings of public 

services and about their homes, financial situation, health and well being. Other local authorities 

are seeing a drop in their scores across the board. Furthermore, while there have been both 

positive and negative shifts in opinion since 2010, most of them have been favourable for the 

5


BDP. Where declines are significant, our sense is that these could have been more dramatic. 

There is clearly work to do, however; particularly in continuing to invest in disengaged 

communities and working with disenfranchised population groups to address social inequalities, 

and involve them in ways that work for them (civic participation as described in the survey may 

not be that). 

B. Key findings 

Quality of life 

The vast majority (86%) of Bradford District residents are satisfied with their local area as a 

place to live. While this score is unchanged from last year, promisingly the proportion very 

satisfied has increased five percentage points. 

Residents’ top priorities for improvement - both mentioned by a one in five of residents - are 

clean streets (22%), activities for teenagers (21%), road and pavement repairs (19%) and 

the level of crime (17%). These are similar to priorities identified in 2010, although fewer 

people now mention the top two (both down five percentage points) and notably more 

mention health services (9%, up five percentage points). 

People’s sense of attachment to the local area is strong. Reflecting the satisfaction indicator, 

the vast majority (85%) feel they belong in their immediate neighbourhood. While this is 

down two percentage points it is still higher than the national metric (78%). 1 In addition, the 

proportion identifying very strongly has increased six points (to 46%). 

Respect & consideration 

Most residents are content with the amount of respect and consideration that people show to 

each other in the local area; four fifths (78%) do not think there is a problem with this, though 

the remaining one in five people do. The proportion saying there is a problem has increased 

by two percentage points since 2010 (to 22%). 

Residents are also overwhelmingly positive about the respect and consideration shown by 

local public service providers: the organisations about which respondents were questioned 

are seen as not showing respect by a very small minority. 

Given the ethnic diversity of Bradford District, it is encouraging to note that over four fifths 

(83%) of the population agree that people from different backgrounds get on well together. 

This is particularly encouraging since the proportion of those saying they ‘definitely agree’ 

with the statement has increased nine percentage points since 2010. This places the District 

more in line with the average for England and Wales on this question (86%), and ahead of 

the average for Yorkshire and the Humber (77%). 2 

Community safety 

Almost all (95%) Bradford District residents feel safe in their local area during the day. A fifth 

(18%) do not feel safe outside after dark but residents are significantly more likely than 

people across the country as a whole to feel safe in their local area after dark, a positive 

finding for Bradford District Partnership. Most encouragingly, the percentage feeling very 

safe both during the day (+8) and after dark (+6) has increased statistically since the last 

survey. 

1 Source: DCLG/Home Office Citizenship Survey 2010/2011. 

2 Ibid. 

6


Residents’ concerns about anti-social behaviour were gauged by asking how much of a 

problem they perceive each of seven anti-social behaviours to be. The main concerns are 

rubbish or litter lying around (26% describe it as a very or fairly big problem) and teenagers 

hanging around streets (24%; down four percentage points). It is encouraging to note that 

four of the seven anti-social behaviours are perceived to be less of an issue in Bradford 

District than they are nationally. 3 On the whole, findings this year mirror those from the 

baseline survey. 

 

 

Public opinion about the success of local service providers in tackling crime and anti-social 

behaviour is dominated by a lack of awareness of the actions taken; about one in three 

residents are unable to express an opinion either way. However, on balance opinion is 

positive with around half saying services are successful and just one in six disagreeing. This 

compares favourably with national statistics; half (49%) of Bradford residents agree that the 

police and other local public services overall are successfully dealing with anti-social 

behaviour and crime, in line with opinion at the national level (51%). 4 

When it comes to being consulted about anti-social behaviour and crime in the local area, 

just over two in five (43%) agree that the police and other local services seek people’s views 

on these issues. This represents a decline of three percentage points since 2010, placing the 

District slightly below the average for England and Wales (47%). 5 

Transport & travel 

Seven in ten (69%) of those who commute to work do so by car – unchanged since 2010. 

Slightly more people now tell us they use the bus (up two points to 12 per cent), and fewer 

say they walk to work (down four points to nine per cent). 

Walking is still the most common form of transport for school children travelling to school but 

this has declined significantly from 56 per cent in 2010 to 43 per cent currently. 

Of those who drive, two-thirds (68%) are not interested in finding ways to use their car less 

(down five points since 2010). Nevertheless, one in five car users say improved public 

transport might encourage them to cut back, so there is potential to encourage a modal shift. 

Local public services 

When asked about a range of local services, the vast majority of Bradford District residents 

remain positive about them, and in most cases less than one tenth of the population is 

dissatisfied. What is notable is that for all services there has been a significant positive 

increase in satisfaction, typically of the order of four percentage points since 2010. Across all 

services it is an increase in the proportion of people saying they are ‘very’ satisfied which is 

driving this improvement. 

Bradford Council is regarded positively by a large proportion of its local residents with three 

quarters (74%) now saying they are satisfied with the authority; an increase of three 

percentage points since 2010. The percentage ‘very’ satisfied has doubled (from 15% to 

29%). 

3 Source: British Crime Survey 2010/2011. 

4 Ibid. The wording in that survey is: “It is the responsibility of the police and local council working in partnership to 

deal with anti-social behaviour and crime in your local area. Choosing an answer from this card please say how much 

you agree or disagree that the police and local council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that 

matter in this area.” 

5 Ibid. Note slightly different wording: “It is the responsibility of the police and local council working in partnership to 

deal with anti-social behaviour and crime in your local area. Choosing an answer from this card please say how much 

you agree or disagree that the police and local council seek people's views about the anti-social behaviour and crime 

issues that matter in this area.” 

7


Impressively, nine in ten (90%) of Bradford District residents are satisfied with West 

Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority, and over three quarters (78%) say the same about 

West Yorkshire Police. 

 

 

Attitudes towards local NHS services are also strongly positive, with satisfaction with GPs 

and local hospitals exceeding eighty per cent. NHS dentists are marginally less well 

regarded but still perform strongly (76% satisfied). 

More than 8 out of 10 are similarly positive about rail services (85%) and local bus services 

(83%). 

Information & communications 

The extent to which residents feel informed about local public services varies considerably. 

Voting registration is the service with the highest levels of self-reported awareness (77% 

informed), while two thirds (65%) feel they know about how their council tax is spent. Three 

fifths (59%) feel informed about local public services overall. 

Overall, the extent to which people feel informed is broadly consistent with findings from last 

year. However, in keeping with satisfaction ratings of local public services, there has been a 

statistically significant jump in those describing themselves as very well informed across all 

aspects researched. 

Seven in ten (70%) adults now use the internet at home; a rise of seven percentage points 

since 2010 and closer to the national average (80%). 6 

Getting involved 

In total, over a third (35%) Bradford District residents feel they can influence decisions 

affecting their local area; this has fallen by seven percentage points since 2010. When 

compared with the national average the District figure is marginally lower than across 

England and Wales (38%). 7 

Currently, about one in six people (17%) say they have given unpaid help to a group, club or 

organisation in the past 12 months, up six percentage points. Those more likely to have 

volunteered are carers (30%), socio-economic grades ABC1 (22%), part-time workers (19%) 

and those with a religious affiliation (19%). 

Regular participation is also low, with just eight percent of those who do anything, doing it at 

least once a month. While such formal participation is low, this is still an improvement of five 

percentage points from 2010. 

Health & well-being 

Most people in the Bradford District are still positive about their own personal health. 

Approximately four-fifths of residents describe their general health as very good or good, 

marginally higher than the average for England (78% and 76% respectively). 8 Self-reported 

health of teeth is slightly lower than for general health but is still high at 72 per cent - just five 

per cent identify their teeth as in a bad condition. These figures are largely unchanged since 

the previous survey. 

6 Source: ICM Omnibus 13-14 August 2011; a nationally representative telephone survey of 1,000 adults aged 18+ in 

Great Britain. Question wording: “Do you have access to the internet at home, at work or somewhere else” 

7 DCLG/Home Office Citizenship Survey, 2010/2011 

8 Health Survey for England, 2008. 

8


Overall, residents are positive about the extent to which they are encouraged and supported 

to lead a fit and healthy life; over half believe that support is available on how to eat healthily, 

quit smoking, drink alcohol sensibly and to be physically active, but these figures have fallen 

significantly since 2010, with the swing towards those saying ‘don’t know’ rather than 

disagreement per se. 

One in ten (10%) people identify themselves as a carer. Carers variously access support 

from the NHS (82%), Bradford Council (75%) and/or the voluntary sector (64%), and 

satisfaction with the service they receive is broadly positive. However, 15 per cent of all 

carers are dissatisfied with the support they get from the Council and ten per cent are 

dissatisfied with both the other providers. It is nevertheless encouraging that all providers are 

rated more positively in 2011 than in 2010. 

Housing & home 

The overwhelming majority (88%) of people living in Bradford District describe themselves as 

satisfied with the overall condition of their property, including six in ten who are very satisfied 

(58%, a rise of 12 points). However, while just one in twenty (5%) are dissatisfied, this 

proportion is much higher among those who rent. There is also a clear link to location and 

the type of area in which people live. For instance, residents who feel unsafe outside in the 

area after dark are more likely than those who feel safe to speak negatively about their 

property, as are those who do not feel a strong attachment to their neighbourhood. 

Environment & climate change 

Half (51%) of the population in Bradford District are concerned about the impact of climate 

change (including 14 per cent who are ‘very’ concerned). However, concern is considerably 

lower than it is across Great Britain as a whole (70%). 9 

On a positive note, more people agree than disagree that they know what actions they 

should be taking to tackle climate change (58% agree versus 14% disagree) and that they 

have a role as an individual in trying to tackle climate change (58% versus 16%). There is, 

however, an increase in those saying they ‘disagree’ with both these statements compared 

to 2010. 

Engagement in the arts 

As reported in 2010, just one in five (19%) residents in the District have attended creative, 

artistic, theatrical, musical or craft events at least three times in the last 12 months. Slightly 

fewer (14%) say they have spent time taking part in creative, artistic, theatrical, musical or 

craft activities. 

Financial exclusion 

Most people believe they are good at managing their money (72%). That said, a large 

proportion (29%) is worried about getting into debt, and one in seven (15%) is worried about 

the amount of debt they actually have; this last figure has improved by four percentage 

points on 19 per cent in 2010. 

Bradford District residents hold mixed views when it comes to perceptions about their 

eligibility to obtain credit. Just one third (33%) believes they could get a bank loan or 

overdraft if they needed one and almost as many are clear they could not (27%). 

9 Source: ONS ‘Public attitudes towards climate change and the impact of Transport: August 2010. In-home random 

probability survey of 1,000 GB adults aged 16+. 

9


In this context it is notable that use of credit unions is minimal - just three per cent of 

residents have ever used them. This is lower than nationally, where ICM has found in other 

research that around six per cent of the population is a member of a credit union. Moreover, 

predominant among the groups most likely to have heard of credit unions but not used them 

are those less likely to need them. Indeed, awareness of credit unions is lower than last year 

(38%, down eight points). 

Qualification & skills 

Over three in five (63%) residents say they are happy with the qualifications they have, and 

as many are confident that lack of qualifications is not holding them back. In this context 

there is appetite among just one in six people overall for improving their skills and indeed 

paying to improve their skills. 

10


Introduction 

Background & objectives 

This report presents the findings of a research study conducted by the ICM Government & 

Social Research Unit on behalf of the Bradford District Partnership (BDP). This is the second 

such survey commissioned by the BDP, and follows the previous baseline survey undertaken in 

2010. 

The BDP, the local strategic partnership for Bradford District, commissioned these two largescale 

public perception surveys of the adult population, with the aim of using the findings to track 

progress over time and to feed into its decision-making process. The survey data will also be 

used to help the Partnership to monitor and evaluate Bradford’s Big Plan, the District’s 

‘Sustainable Community Strategy’ which sets out how the Partnership will create a good quality 

of life for all residents by “maintaining and improving social, economic, environmental and 

cultural wellbeing”. 10 . 

The methodology selected – face-to-face - provides considered, high quality feedback from 

residents, while the scale of the survey enables robust analysis by demographics and locale, 

and allows us to track changes in local attitudes and behaviours over time. 

This research comprised interviews with 6,819 residents across the thirty wards in the Bradford 

District. It is intended to measure public attitudes and perceptions relating to the delivery of 

services as well as the image of local public service providers. More specifically, the research 

covers the following issues: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attitudes towards the respondent’s local area as a place to live; 

Perceptions of safety in the local area; 

Service provision in Bradford District; 

Image of the Council and other local public service providers; 

Information provision and community engagement; 

Health and wellbeing; 

Housing; 

Environment and climate change; 

Financial exclusion; and 

Qualifications and skills. 

Methodology 

ICM interviewed a total of 6,819 residents (aged 16+) in 570 Output Areas (OAs) across the 

Council area. Please see Appendix 4 for a map of the target area. Interviews were carried out 

face-to-face in respondents’ homes using a random location ‘quota’ method, with fieldwork 

conducted across two phases: 

Wave 1: 12 th February – 6 th March 2011 

Wave 2: 7 th May – 7 th July 2011. 

10 The Big Plan for the Bradford District 2008-2011: Our Sustainable Community Strategy 

11


A representative sample was interviewed with quotas set by gender, age, ethnicity and tenure. 

The sample was also structured to ensure that a minimum of 200 interviews were conducted in 

each of the 30 wards. A full profile of the sample is appended. 

The questionnaire averaged 20 minutes in length. 

At the analysis stage, the data were weighted by age, gender, tenure and ethnicity in each ward 

to match the known population profile of each ward. In addition, the data was weighted to each 

wards’ population share to make it geographically representative of the District overall. 

Information for weighting purposes was derived from the latest ONS population estimates/ 

projections. 

All responses have been analysed by a range of demographic, geographical and attitudinal 

variables: detailed breakdowns have been provided in a separate volume of computer tables. In 

addition, toplines are available for each of the five area committees showing results for each of 

the wards. 

The 2010 baseline survey used exactly the same methodology as the current study. ICM 

interviewed a total of 6,727 residents aged 16+ in two phases, 13 th February – 30 th March 2010 

and 7 th May and 22 nd June 2010. 

Report layout 

In addition to this introduction, the report contains: 

 

 

 

an executive summary outlining the key findings of the survey and their potential 

implications for the BDP; 

more detailed commentary on the main findings; and 

appendices, including guides to statistical reliability and social grade definitions, a profile 

of the sample and a marked-up questionnaire showing topline results (from 2010 and 

2011). 

Interpretation of the data 

It should be remembered that a sample, not the entire population of Bradford District, has been 

interviewed. In consequence, all results are subject to sampling tolerances, which means that 

not all differences are statistically significant. 

As a rule of thumb, to be statistically significant, differences between two Area Committees need 

to be between two and four percentage points 11 (whether or not a difference is significant 

depends not only on the size of the samples, but also the percentages being compared). Please 

see Appendix One for more information on statistical reliability. 

Where percentages do not sum to 100, this may be due to computer rounding, the exclusion of 

‘don’t’ know’ categories or multiple answers. Throughout the volume an asterisk (*) denotes any 

value of less than half a per cent but above zero. 

Throughout the report, national comparisons are used where available to place the District’s 

performance in context. Below is a list of the sources referred to in the text and some guidance 

on how comparisons with each should be treated. 

11 Assuming an average of 1,300 interviews per Area Committee. 

12


CLG/Home Office Citizenship Survey 

A biennial nationally representative face-to-face survey of adults in England and Wales with data 

collected over four quarters. Fieldwork for the 2010-11 survey was carried out quarterly between 

1 st April 2010 and 31 st March 2011, and comprised a total of 10,307 core interviews. It consists 

of a household survey covering a representative core sample of 10,000 adults in England and 

Wales each year. There is also an ethnic minority boost sample of 5,000 and a Muslim boost 

sample of 1,200 each year, to ensure that the views of these groups are robustly represented. 

Comparisons with Bradford District are reliable because of the similarities in methodology. 

British Crime Survey 

The British Crime Survey is an annual face-to-face, nationally representative survey of residents 

in England and Wales, aged 16 and over. In 2009/2010, a total of 44,638 interviews were 

conducted. Comparisons with the District are reliable because of the similarities in methodology. 

ICM Omnibus 

ICM carries out a nationally representative telephone survey of 1,000 adults aged 18+ in Great 

Britain every week. Despite the differences in methodology, references to findings from the 

omnibus are used to provide some national context to the Council’s findings. 

Health Survey for England 

An annual nationally representative face-to-face survey of adults aged 16+ in England which 

monitors trends in the nation’s health. In 2009, 15,000 adults were interviewed. Comparisons are 

reliable because of the similarities in methodology. 

Public Attitudes towards Climate Change and the Impact of Transport 

An in-home random probability survey of 1,000 adults aged 16 and over living in households in 

Great Britain (August 2010). Comparisons are reliable because of the similarities in 

methodology. 

Acknowledgements 

ICM would like to thank Richard Smith, Strategic Consultation Officer, at the City of Bradford 

Metropolitan District Council for his help and support in developing this project. Special thanks 

also go to the 6,819 residents who took part in this survey. 

©ICM Research/208587 

August 2011 

Report prepared by: 

ICM Government & Social Research, 

Berkshire House, 168-173 High Holborn, 

London W1CV 7AA. 

020 7845 8300 

www.icmresearch.com 

13


1. Quality of Life 

1.1 People’s attitudes to their local area 

Satisfaction with the local area is high in Bradford District. Over half (52%) are very satisfied with 

their local area as a place to live and a further third (33%) are fairly satisfied. Only a small 

proportion (7%) are negative on this measure. There has been a notable increase (5 percentage 

points) in the proportion saying they are ‘very’ satisfied since the previous survey in 2010. 

Figure 1 

Satisfaction with local area 

% Very 

dissatisfied 

% Fairly 

dissatisfied 

% Neither/ 

nor 

% Fairly 

satisfied 

% Very 

satisfied 

Total: 

Satisfaction 

2011 

3 4 

7 

33 

52 

86 

2010 

2 4 

6 

40 

47 

87 

Q1. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live 

Base: All expressing an opinion 2011 (6,814); 2010 (6,698) 

The table overleaf shows those subgroups where statistically significant variations exist on this 

question. Findings are generally consistent between 2010 and 2011. 

Consistent with ICM’s findings from other local authority residents’ surveys, socio-economic 

grade has a bearing on how positive residents feel about their local area: satisfaction declines 

across the social spectrum from 92 per cent among ABs to 83 per cent among DEs. 12 In a 

related finding, given the relationship between housing tenure and socio-economic status, it is 

therefore not surprising that owner occupiers are more favourable about their local area than 

those who rent their home from the Council or a housing association (89% and 80% 

respectively). 

12 Please see Appendix 2 for a guide to socio-economic classifications. 

14


Those with a long-term illness/disability are less satisfied than the rest of the population as are 

those who act as a carer, their more negative outlooks possibly reflecting the challenges that 

both groups of people face in their everyday lives. 

Satisfaction with Bradford Council is closely linked to attitudes towards the local area, with those 

who are happy with the authority much more likely than those who are not, to say they are 

satisfied with the local area (93% compared to 63%). At the same time, those who say they feel 

safe in their local area after dark are more positive about it overall than those who feel unsafe 

(91% versus 68%), which is typical of other local authority surveys conducted by ICM. 

Table 1 

Q1. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live 

Base: All expressing an opinion (6,698) [Difference between 2010 and 2011 figures in brackets] 

Total Satisfied 

Total Dissatisfied 

% % 

Total 86 (-1) 7 

Socio-economic grade 

AB 93 (+1) 3 

C1 87 (-3) 5 

C2 85 (-4) 8 

DE 84 (+1) 9 

Disability 

Yes 81 (-1) 12 

No 86 (-2) 6 

Carer 

Yes 84 (+2) 8 

No 86 (-2) 7 

Work status 

Working 86 (-4) 6 

Not working (excl. retired) 84 (n/c) 9 

Retired 88 (+1) 7 

Tenure 

Owner occupier 87 (-2) 6 

Rent from Council/HA 81 (+1) 11 

Satisfaction with the Council 

Satisfied 93 (n/a) 3 

Dissatisfied 63 (-4) 27 

Feel safe at night 

Safe 91 (-3) 3 

Unsafe 68 (+1) 22 

Area Committee 

Bradford East 81 (n/c) 12 

Bradford South 82 (-5) 8 

Bradford West 80 (-3) 8 

Keighley 92 (n/c) 5 

Shipley 95 (+1) 3 

Source: ICM Research 

15


Satisfaction is lowest among residents in Bradford East and Bradford West which may be linked 

to the greater deprivation and social problems in these two areas. Moreover, satisfaction has 

declined by a statistically significant margin in Bradford South and Bradford West (down 5 and 3 

percentage points respectively) although in absolute terms the percentage satisfied in each area 

committee remains high. 

There are also considerable variations by ward. There is almost universal satisfaction with the 

local area in several wards (Net satisfaction +98 in Baildon, Bingley, Worth Valley; +97 Ilkley, 

Wharfedale; +95 Shipley). At the other end of the scale, Net satisfaction is +46 in Eccleshill and 

+50 in Manningham. 

1.2 Improving quality of life: identifying priorities 

In order to determine residents’ priorities for their local area, respondents are asked to identify, 

from a list of options, what they consider to be most in need of improvement. 

As in 2010, the top two responses, mentioned by one in five residents, are clean streets (22% vs 

25% in 2010) and activities for teenagers (21% vs 26%). These two have swapped places at the 

top and both are a little less notable than previously. A fifth (20%) also cite road and pavement 

repairs and the level of crime (19%). Respondents are invited to suggest their own priority for 

improvement so that they are not confined to choosing from the list 13 but a quarter do not identify 

a single priority for improvement (23 per cent say ‘none of these’; 24% in 2010). Those aged 75 

and over are especially likely to give this response (31%), as are residents of Bingley (41%) and 

Craven (38%). 

Figure 2 

Top things most in need of improvement 

Change since 2010 

Clean streets 

Activities for teenagers 

Road and pavement repairs 

The level of crime 

Facilities for young children 

Availability of jobs 

The level of traffic congestion 

Parks and open spaces 

Health services 

Sports and leisure facilities 

Community activities 

Affordable decent housing 

Public transport 

Shopping facilities 

Wage levels and local cost of living 

Cultural facilities 

Parking 

The level of pollution 

None of these 

5 

5 

4 

4 

4 

9 

9 

8 

7 

7 

7 

11 

13 

14 

17 

19 

22 

21 

23 

-3 

-5 

-1 

-1 

+1 

+2 

-1 

n/c 

+5 

n/c 

n/c 

n/c 

+3 

-2 

+1 

- 

+1 

+1 

-1 

Q2. And thinking about this local area, which of these things, if any, do you think most need improving 

All mentions above 4%. Base: All expressing an opinion (6,370) 

13 For response of below 3%, please see data tables 

16


There are a number of distinct subgroup patterns related to this metric. Two in particular stand 

out:, residents’ priorities for improvement vary according to both their age and their socioeconomic 

status, as the tables below and overleaf illustrate. 

Older members of the community – especially those aged over 75 – are much less likely than 

anyone else to cite activities for teenagers as a priority and are similarly less concerned about 

facilities for young children. The availability of jobs is of particular interest to 16–24 year olds 

(probably trying to enter the job market or expecting to do so in the not-too-distant future). The 

priority attached to sports and leisure facilities declines with age; 16–24 year olds are four times 

as likely to mention this as those aged 65–74 (17 per cent and four per cent respectively) and 

this has increased significantly since 2010 when just 12 per cent of young people mentioned it. 

Table 2 

Priorities for Improvement – Age 

Base: All expressing an opinion (6,370) 

Total 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 

% % % % % % % % 

Clean streets 22 20 24 23 22 22 24 22 

Activities for teenagers 21 27 20 24 22 18 15 10 

Road and pavement 

repairs 

19 12 17 17 22 25 21 18 

The level of crime 17 17 19 18 20 15 15 9 

Facilities for young 

children 

14 17 20 17 13 10 8 6 

Availability of jobs 13 22 12 14 13 10 7 4 

The level of traffic 

congestion 

11 5 12 13 12 14 15 9 

Health services 9 10 11 7 10 9 8 4 

Parks and open spaces 9 11 12 11 8 7 5 3 

Sports and leisure 

facilities 

8 17 9 8 8 4 4 1 


Those in socio-economic group DE are more likely than anyone else to identify the level of crime 

and the availability of jobs as priorities. On the other hand, they are least likely to prioritise road 

and pavement repairs and the level of traffic congestion. By contrast, a quarter of ABs cite road 

and pavement repairs and almost one in five mentions traffic congestion while just one in ten is 

concerned about jobs and facilities for children. 

As illustrated in Tables 3 and 4 below, there has been some shifting of priorities since the 

previous survey, and there are particularly notable differences between socio economic groups 

and areas of residence. 

Clean streets is a bigger priority for residents in the Bradford area committees in Keighley and 

Shipley. Similarly, Keighley and Shipley residents are much less concerned about the level of 

crime compared to residents of Bradford East and Bradford West. Those in Bradford West are 

less concerned than people elsewhere about road and pavement repairs but display a relatively 

high level of concern for street cleaning. Residents here are also more generally interested in 

17


health services and sports and leisure facilities. Facilities for children are more of a concern in 

Bradford South than elsewhere. 

Table 3 

Priorities for Improvement – Socio Economic Status 

Base: All expressing an opinion 2011 (6,370) 2010 (6,530) 

Total AB C1 C2 DE 

% % % % % 

Clean streets 2011 22 16 19 23 26 

2010 25 27 27 27 24 

Activities for teenagers 2011 21 21 23 20 20 

2010 26 18 23 26 26 

Road and pavement repairs 2011 19 25 18 19 16 

2010 20 29 21 21 16 

The level of crime 2011 17 13 16 17 20 

2010 18 16 16 20 20 

Facilities for young children 2011 14 10 14 15 14 

2010 13 8 12 13 14 

Availability of jobs 2011 13 10 12 11 15 

2010 11 24 16 11 8 

The level of traffic congestion 2011 11 18 12 12 8 

2010 13 10 9 10 13 

Health services 2011 9 6 9 8 9 

2010 4 7 8 10 10 

Parks and open spaces 2011 9 7 9 9 9 

2010 9 12 8 8 6 

Sports and leisure facilities 2011 8 10 8 9 8 

2010 8 6 7 7 7 


As we might expect views of what needs improving vary according to the area in which they live. 

For findings in an area committee between 2010 and 2011 to be statistically significant the 

difference needs to be four percentage points or greater. On the whole, the picture is consistent 

between the baseline survey and the latest research with the exception of health services which 

are now significantly greater priorities for those in Bradford South and Bradford West. 

18


Table 4 

Priorities for Improvement – Area Committee 

Base: All expressing an opinion (6,370) [Difference between 2010 and 2011 figures in brackets] 

Total 

Bradford 

East 


South 


West 

Keighley 

Shipley 

% % % % % % 

Clean streets 22 (-3) 30 (n/c) 26 (+2) 26 (-9) 15 (-3) 13 (-2) 

Activities for teenagers 21 (-5) 21 (-4) 23 (-7) 17 (-6) 22 (-6) 22 (-1) 

Road and pavement repairs 19 (-1) 20 (-3) 21 (-1) 15 (+1) 17 (-7) 19 (-2) 

The level of crime 17 (-1) 24 (-6) 18 (n/c) 23 (+2) 9 (n/c) 9 (-2) 

Facilities for young children 14 (+1) 14 (-2) 20 (+2) 14 (+4) 13 (-2) 10 (+3) 

Availability of jobs 13 (+2) 13 (+6) 17 (-7) 15 (+4) 11 (+2) 9 (n/c) 

The level of traffic congestion 11 (-2) 13 (+3) 10 (+4) 7 (-7) 11 (-5) 16 (-2) 

Health services 9 (+5) 6 (+2) 14 (+10) 17 (+11) 5 (+1) 2 (n/c) 

Parks and open spaces 9 (n/c) 10 (-2) 12 (+2) 9 (-1) 7 (-3) 6 (-3) 

Sports and leisure facilities 8 (n/c) 7 (-3) 9 (n/c) 12 (+7) 6 (-3) 6 (n/c) 


1.3 Strength of belonging 

When asked how strongly they feel they belong in their immediate neighbourhood, almost half 

(46%) of residents feel this very strongly while two in five (39%) feel fairly strongly. Although 

overall, fewer people say they ‘belong’ (85% versus 87%) compared to 2010, it is notable that 

more people now feel a very strong connection (+6). It is also highly encouraging that Bradford 

still outperforms the national metric for England and Wales by some margin (85 per cent versus 

78 per cent). 14 About one in six (15%) people do not feel they belong to at least some degree. 


19


Figure 3 

Strength of belonging in immediate neighbourhood 




2010 

England 

& Wales* 

Total: 

Strongly 

% 

Total: 

Not strongly 

% 

85 15 

87 13 

78 N/A 

Q3. How strongly do you feel you belong in your immediate neighbourhood 


*England & Wales source: DCLG/Home Office Citizenship Survey, 2010-2011. 

There are few major differences in people’s sense of belonging when considered by sociodemographic 

groups. In almost all groups, at least four in five people feel a sense of belonging 

to their neighbourhood. There are a few points worth noting, however; 

The trend is downwards, with slightly fewer people now saying they feel they ‘belong 

strongly’ compared to the 2010 survey; 

 

Attitudes become less favourable the younger the age group; 

Black and mixed race groups are least likely to say they have a strong sense of 

belonging compared to other ethnic groups; 

 

 

 

There are no notable differences between the different religious groups, but there has 

been a shift of +10 percentage points among people of ‘other’ faiths from ‘having a strong 

sense of belonging’ to ‘not’; 

Work status and home ownership both impact on residents’ sense of attachment to their 

local neighbourhood; those not in employment (excluding retired) and in rented 

accommodation feel less connected; 

There is a strong correlation with satisfaction with the local area: those who speak highly 

of their area are more than twice as likely to feel a strong sense of belonging compared 

to those who are dissatisfied. 

20


Table 5 

Q3. How strongly do you feel you belong to your immediate neighbourhood 


Total: Strongly 

Total: Not Strongly 

% % 

2010 2011 2010 2011 

Total 87 85 13 15 

Age 

16-24 85 81 15 19 

25-34 83 82 17 18 

35-44 87 85 13 15 

45-54 87 84 13 16 

55-64 88 86 12 14 

65-74 90 89 10 11 

75+ 91 92 9 8 

Ethnicity 

White 87 84 13 16 

Mixed 80 75 20 25 

Asian 89 88 11 12 

Black 79 61 21 39 

Chinese/Other 15 68 81 32 19 

Religion 

Christian 88 84 12 16 

Muslim 88 89 12 11 

Other 92 82 8 18 

No religion 84 83 16 17 

Work status 

Working 88 85 12 15 

Not working (excl. retired) 84 80 16 20 

Retired 90 90 10 10 

Tenure 

Owner occupier 89 87 11 13 

Rent from Council/HA 81 80 19 20 

Satisfaction with the local area 

Satisfied 92 90 8 10 

Dissatisfied 43 68 57 32 

Feel safe at night 

Safe 92 90 8 10 

Unsafe 72 69 28 31 


15 Defined as a respondent indentifying their ethnic origin as ‘Chinese’ or ‘Any other background’. 

21


Comparing Net scores for the area committees, attachment to the neighbourhood is lowest in 

Bradford West (+59), Bradford South (+63) and Bradford East (+65) and highest in Shipley (+82) 

and Keighley (+78). This profile most likely reflects the greater social and economic problems in 

the city, and similarly the factors described above. The strength of feeling has moved by a 

statistically significant margin in Bradford East, Bradford South and Bradford West. 

Table 6 

Q3. How strongly do you feel you belong to your immediate neighbourhood 


2010 2011 Difference (+/-) 

Bradford East 79 83 +4 

Bradford South 85 81 -4 

Bradford West 83 79 -4 

Keighley 86 89 +3 

Shipley 89 91 +2 


At ward level, again looking at net scores, residents in Bingley (+96), Wharfdale (+95) and 

Baildon (+93) predominantly feel that they belong, while those in Great Horton (+26), 

Manningham (+44) and City (+46) are least likely to. 

22


2. Respect & Consideration 

This section looks at how people engage with each other in their local area. In particular, it 

explores themes of respect and consideration both in terms of how local residents treat each 

other and how local public service providers treat the public. 

2.1 Respect and consideration in the local area 

It is fair to say that most residents are content with the amount of respect and consideration that 

people show to each other in the local area. About three in five (58%) people believe this is ‘not 

a problem at all’ and another one in five (20%) that it is ‘not a very big’ problem. Although the 

overall statistics are similar to those reported in 2010, what is very encouragingly this year is that 

there has been a shift of +10 percentage points from those saying ‘not a very big’ to ‘not a 

problem at all’. 

There is still however, a considerable minority that does have concerns with 14 per cent saying 

this is a ‘fairly’ big problem and around one in twelve (8%) stating that it is a ‘very’ big problem. 

Figure 4 

Extent to which people treat others with respect & consideration 

A very big problem 

A fairly big 

problem 

Not a very big 

problem 

TOTAL: 

A problem 

2011 22% 

2010 20% 

TOTAL: 

Not a problem 


2010 80% 

Not a problem at 

all 

Q20. In your local area, how much of a problem do you think there is with people not treating each other 

with respect and consideration 

Base: All respondents expressing an opinion 2011 (6,477); 2010 (6,445) 

The extent to which people think there is a ‘very or fairly big problem’ with people not treating 

each other with respect and consideration varies across the community. 

Both Christians and Muslims are a little more concerned than last year (up +5 and +4 

respectively). As seen previously, people who rent their home from the Council or a housing 

23


association are more likely to believe it is a problem than those who own their home or rent 

privately (accordingly, we find that DEs are more likely than ABC1s to agree that there is a 

problem). Three in ten (29%) lesbian, gay or bisexual residents express concern about this 

issue, compared to a fifth (21%) of heterosexual residents, although the small base for the 

former means this difference is not statistically significant. And both those with a long-term 

illness or disability and those who act as carers exhibit higher levels of concern than the rest of 

the population. 

There is a notable gap between those who live in the city itself and those from the neighbouring 

towns of Keighley and Shipley, the latter being significantly less likely to feel that a lack of 

respect and consideration is problematic. It is notable that there has been a slight but significant 

shift in opinion since 2010 in Bradford East, Bradford West and Keighley (+4 say there is a 

problem). In Shipley there has been a decline of four percentage points. 

Table 7 

Q20. In your local area, how much of a problem do you think there is with people not treating 

each other with respect and consideration 

Base: All respondents expressing an opinion (6,451) 

Total Problem 

Total Not a Problem 


Bradford East % 23 27 77 73 

Bradford South % 21 25 79 75 

Bradford West % 24 25 76 75 

Keighley % 14 18 86 82 

Shipley % 17 13 83 87 


2.2 Parents taking responsibility 

On the question of whether parents take enough responsibility for the behaviour of their children, 

the majority (63%) agree that this is the case, although a quarter disagree. This represents a 

statistically significant improvement on last year’s finding. 

As might be expected, agreement is lower among non-parents compared to parents (61% 

versus 66%). 

24


Figure 5 

Parents taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children 

TOTAL: 

Agree % 

2011 2010 

63 

60 

61 

56 

66 

66 

Q18. To what extent do you agree or disagree that in your local area, parents take enough responsibility for the behaviour of 

their children Base 2011: All expressing an opinion (6,376); All with children aged 17 & under (2,532); All without children 

aged 17 & under (3,844). Base 2010: All expressing an opinion (6,376); All with children aged17 & under (2,532); 

All without children aged 17 & under (3,844) 

2.3 Community cohesion 

Bradford District has a diverse population with around a quarter of local residents coming from 

one of the many ethnic minority communities and the Bradford District Partnership is committed 

to supporting positive relationships between people of different backgrounds 16 . It is therefore 

highly encouraging that a large majority (83%) of residents believe that people from different 

backgrounds get on well together. Three in ten (29%) definitely agree, while over half (54%) tend 

to agree that this is the case. This is striking since there has been a significant positive shift of 

+9 percentage points into the ‘definitely agree’ category since the previous survey in 2010. In 

trying to understand why this is the case it may be worth considering whether the Royal 

Wedding, which coincided with fieldwork, created a ‘feel-good’ factor in the community. 

With the improvement witnessed since last year Bradford District is now close to the Citizenship 

Survey agreement score for England and Wales (86%) and more positive overall than the figure 

for Yorkshire and the Humber (77%). 17 

It should not be overlooked, however, that almost a fifth (17%) of the population of the District 

disagrees with this notion, and as such it is clearly important to look at demographic groups and 

communities to understand where community cohesion is less well established. Members of 

socio-economic group AB are significantly more likely than anyone else to feel their local area is 

a place where people from different backgrounds get on well together, while those aged 65 and 

over are more positive than 16–34 year olds. Although agreement appears to vary between 

16 The Big Plan for the Bradford District 2008-2011: Our Sustainable Community Strategy. 

17 In order to facilitate comparisons with national data, the figures presented here are based on all who expressed an 

opinion. Data excludes those who responded ‘Don’t know’, ‘Too few people in local area’ or ‘All the same 

background’. 

25


some ethnic groups and according to sexual orientation, the differences between the results for 

these groups compared to last year are not statistically significant. 

Figure 6 

Community cohesion 

Total: 

Agree 

% 

Total: 

Disagree 

% 




2010 

England & 

Wales* 

Yorkshire 

& the 

Humber* 

83 17 

80 20 

86 n/a 

77 n/a 

Q19. To what extent do you agree or disagree that this local area is a place where people from different 

backgrounds get on well together Base: All expressing an opinion 2011 (5,722); 2010 (5,752) 

* England & Wales source/ Y&H: DCLG/Home Office Citizenship Survey, 2010-2011 

26


Figure 7 

Community cohesion – by subgroups 

% Agree that this local area is a place where people from 

different backgrounds get on well together 

Q19. To what extent do you agree or disagree that this local area is a place where people from different 

backgrounds get on well together 


There have been some notable shifts in opinion since 2010, particularly in Bradford West (+11 

agree), Keighley (+7 agree) and Bradford East (-4 agree), all of which are statistically significant. 

Table 8 

Q19. To what extent do you agree or disagree that your local area is a place where people from 

different backgrounds get on well together 


Total: Agree 

Total: Disagree 


Bradford East % 84 80 16 20 

Bradford South % 84 82 16 18 

Bradford West % 69 80 31 20 

Keighley % 78 85 22 15 

Shipley % 87 90 13 10 


2.4 Respect & consideration from public service providers 

Residents’ views on the extent to which they feel public service providers treat people with 

respect and consideration are broadly in line with the previous survey: three of the indicators are 

consistent with last year while two of them have declined slightly –albeit significantly – by two 

percentage points. 

27


Figure 8 

Respect & consideration from public service providers 

TOTAL: 

All / Most of the 

time % 


70 

2010 

72 

66 

67 

61 

61 

58 

60 

57 

57 

Q21. In the last year would you say that you have been treated with respect and consideration by each 

of the following Base: All respondents 2011 (6,819); 2010 (6,727) 

Across all the services examined, hardly anyone believes local service providers fail to show 

respect. Only a very small minority perceive any of the bodies in question as not showing 

respect and consideration (a high of 4% for Bradford Council). 

When asked about local public services overall, only three per cent say that they have been 

treated with respect rarely or none of the time. Two thirds (66%) say local public services have 

shown respect most or all of the time and a further 10 per cent, some of the time. 

Most people feel able to offer an opinion on NHS Bradford and Airedale and indeed seven in 

ten (70%) feel that this organisation treats people with respect and consideration all or most of 

the time. Around three fifths say the same about each of Bradford Council, West Yorkshire 

Police and West Yorkshire Fire & Rescue. 

At the overall level, we find that the following groups are among the most likely to be positive 

about the respect and consideration they have received: 

Those aged 75+ 

Social class ABs 

 

 

Those who are satisfied with the Council 

People living in Shipley. 

28


2.5 Support for older people 

Approaching half (47%) of residents believe older people in their local area able to get the 

services and support they need to continue to live at home for as long as they want to, up 

slightly on last year. 

Q. In your opinion, are older people in your local area able to get the services and support 

they need to continue to live at home for as long as they want to (This could include help 

or support from public, private or voluntary services or from family, friends and the wider 

community). 

All residents 

All giving an opinion 


% % % % 

Yes 45 47 71 73 

No 18 17 29 27 

Don’t know 37 37 - - 

29


3. Community Safety 

3.1 Perceptions of safety 

As observed in section 1.1, the extent to which people feel safe in their local neighbourhood is 

closely associated with their overall attitude to the area. Furthermore, the level of crime features 

relatively highly in residents’ priorities for improvement (see section 1.2). Understanding 

residents’ attitudes towards crime and safety is therefore fundamental in helping the Bradford 

District Partnership improve residents’ quality of life and, consequently, their overall perceptions 

of the District. Indeed, the Bradford District Partnership rates reducing crime and antisocial 

behaviour and increasing people’s feelings of safety and security as a key priority. 18 

A large majority of people feel safe in their area both during the day (95%) and at night (80%). 

Since the previous survey, people are more likely to say they feel very safe in their local area 

after dark (42% from 36% in 2010) although the overall proportions feeling either ‘safe’ or 

‘unsafe’ has not changed. This still means that one in five of the population feels fairly or very 

unsafe after dark. 

Figure 9 

Perceptions of safety 

After dark 

During the day 

Total: Safe 

% 

Total: Unsafe 

% 

Bradford 2011 80 20 

Bradford 2010 80 20 

England & Wales* 76 21 

Bradford data in this box has been rebased to exclude neither safe nor 

unsafe responses as well as don’t knows to enable comparisons with 

Citizenship Survey data 

Q5. How safe or unsafe do you feel outside in your local area after dark/during the day After dark: All 

expressing an opinion 2011 (6,642/6,049) ; 2010 (6,642/6,498). Base Day: All expressing an opinion 2011 

(6,776); 2010 (6,699) *England & Wales source: DCLG/Home Office Citizenship Survey, 2010-2011 

Total: Safe 

% 

Total: Unsafe 

% 



The figures in the box underneath the left-hand pie-chart show how Bradford District compares 

to England and Wales as a whole. Figures have been rebased to exclude those who said they 

feel ‘neither safe nor unsafe’ in order to allow comparisons with national data. In a positive 

finding for the Partnership it can be seen that Bradford District residents are significantly more 


30


likely than people across the country as a whole to feel safe in their local area after dark (80% 

versus 76%). 19 

Feelings of safety vary according to gender, age, socioeconomic status and ethnicity. There are 

also clear geographical differences within the District and also correlations between feelings of 

safety and satisfaction with the local area and the Council. 

Table 9 

Q5. How safe or unsafe do you feel outside in your local area ... 

Base: All expressing an opinion (6,642 / 6,776) 

Total Safe 

After dark 

During the day 

Change 

Change 

% 2011 since ’10 +/- % 2011 since ’10 +/- 

Total 73 n/c 95 n/c 

Sex 

Age 

Social grade 

Male 80 +1 96 n/c 

Female 66 n/c 94 +1 

16-24 76 -1 96 n/c 

25-34 74 n/c 94 n/c 

35-44 76 -2 95 -1 

45-54 77 +3 95 n/c 

55-64 70 n/c 94 +1 

65-74 67 n/c 94 -1 

75+ 61 +3 92 +1 

AB 82 +3 98 n/c 

C1 77 n/c 97 n/c 

C2 73 -1 95 -1 

DE 66 -2 93 +1 

Ethnicity 

White 74 n/c 95 n/c 

Mixed 74 +2 89 -4 

Asian 68 +1 94 -1 

Black 61 -15 94 +1 

Chinese/Other 72 +15 95 +6 

Satisfaction with the local area 

Satisfied 78 n/c 97 n/c 

Dissatisfied 35 +6 71 -3 

Satisfaction with the Council 

Satisfied 79 n/c 98 +1 

Dissatisfied 53 -1 81 -6 


Bradford East 63 +5 91 -1 

Bradford South 67 -6 94 -2 

Bradford West 68 +1 93 +1 

Keighley 85 +1 98 +2 

Shipley 82 n/c 98 +1 



31


Tables 9 and 10 reveal some important differences between sub groups. Significantly more men 

than women feel safe both during the day and after dark and older residents in the 55+ group 

feel considerably less safe than younger groups. These patterns are in line with the 2010 

research. 

Feeling safe, whether during the day or at night, also increases with improved socio-economic 

status. An analysis of the net scores (safe minus unsafe) highlights such differences; for social 

grade AB ‘net safe after dark’ is +72, but just +42 for those in social grade DE. Reflecting this, 

those who live in Bradford East/South/West area committee boundaries feel least safe, both 

during the day and after dark. 

Net scores also reveal a real and important difference in experience by ethnicity; the ‘net safe 

after dark’ score for Black residents is just +36, significantly lower than among the population 

overall. When it comes to feeling safe during the day however, no such disparity exists. 

Table 10 

Q5. How safe or unsafe do you feel outside in your local area after dark 


Net agree (agree minus disagree) 

Total +55 

AB +72 

C1 +62 

C2 +56 

C2 +42 

White +57 

Mixed +59 

Asian +49 

Black +36 

Chinese/Other +52 


Very few of these indicators have changed significantly since the previous survey in 2010. Most 

striking is the five point jump in the proportion of people in Bradford East feeling safe in the dark 

and the six point fall among those in Bradford South, outlined in Table 9. 

3.2 Prevalence of antisocial behaviour 

Residents’ attitudes towards anti-social behaviour in the local area are captured in Figure 10 

overleaf. The issues most widely perceived to be a problem are: 

1. Teenagers hanging around streets (24% describe it as a very or fairly big problem); 

2. Rubbish or litter lying around (26%); 

3. People using or dealing drugs (21%); and 

4. Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles (17%). 

Just one of the seven indicators researched has changed significantly since the previous survey: 

teenagers hanging around streets, seen as less problematic than last year (down 4 points). 

32


When considering these findings it should be noted that the fieldwork took place before the 

August 2011 riots and looting in London, the West Midlands and parts of northern England which 

may have influenced perceptions about antisocial behaviour. 

Figure 10 

Anti-social behaviour 

% Very/ fairly big 

problem 

% Not a big/ at all 

a problem 

Very/fairly big 

problem 

Change since ‘10 

(+/-) 

Rubbish or litter lying around (6,560) 

26 

74 

-1 

Te enage rs hanging around the streets (6,549) 

24 

76 

-4 

People using or dealing drugs (6,133) 

21 

79 

0 

Vandalism, graffiti / deliberate damage to 

property or vehicles (6,562) 

17 

83 

-1 

People being drunk or rowdy in public places 

(6,387) 

14 

86 

0 

Noisy neighbours or loud parties (6,566) 

14 

86 

+1 

Abandone d or burnt out cars (6,320) 

7 

93 

+1 

Q6. Thinking about this local area, how much of a problem are… Base: All respondents expressing an 

opinion. The base size for each issue in 2011 is provided in the brackets. 

Some clear patterns emerge when we analyse the differences in opinion between subgroups 

regarding types of anti-social behaviour. 

Broadly speaking, ASB is a particular concern for the following groups of people: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Members of socioeconomic grade DE 

Those renting their home from In Communities or a housing association 

People who do not feel a strong attachment to their local area 

Residents who do not feel safe outside in their local area at night 

Those living in Bradford West 

Residents who are dissatisfied with the Council 

Residents who are dissatisfied with their local area. 

Table 11 overleaf shows the concern about anti-social behaviours among those who are 

dissatisfied with their local area. This would strongly suggest that anti-social behaviour is a key 

driver influencing how people rate overall the place where they live. The strong correlation 

between these two measures ties in with the already observed relationship between feelings of 

safety and overall satisfaction with the local area. 

33


Table 11 

Q6. Thinking about this local area, how much of a problem do you think are... 

Base: All respondents (base sizes in brackets) 

% Saying very/fairly big problem 

Total 

Dissatisfied with local 

area 

Teenagers hanging around the streets (6,549) 24 61 

Rubbish or litter lying around (6,560) 26 67 

People using or dealing drugs (6,133) 21 62 

Vandalism (6,562) 17 57 

People being drunk or rowdy in public places (6,387) 14 47 

Noisy neighbours or loud parties (6,566) 14 39 

Abandoned or burnt out cars (6,320) 7 24 


It is also notable that the oldest members of the population (75+) tend to be less concerned by 

these specific issues than younger members of society, despite – as we have seen – being more 

fearful for their safety after dark. This is a characteristic ICM has observed elsewhere. 

3.3 Anti-social behaviour score 

Anti-social behaviour is a high-profile national priority for Government and local areas are 

expected to reduce perceptions of anti-social behaviour year on year. 20 Mirroring an approach 

used nationally in the British Crime Survey, the data here have been used to create an overall 

Anti-social behaviour score. This score aims to offer a comprehensive insight into the whole 

issue of anti-social behaviour and is a useful measure for gauging changes in perceptions over 

time. It is calculated for each respondent and is simply the sum of the respondent’s scores for 

each of the seven aspects combined, where 0 = not a problem at all and 3 = a very big problem. 

So, the larger the score, the more likely it is that that a respondent perceives anti-social 

behaviour to be a problem (21 would be the highest possible score). 

Respondents with a score of 11 or above are considered to have a high level of concern about 

anti-social behaviour. This is used for National Indicator NI 17:“The percentage of residents with 

an ASB score of 11 or more”. 

Ten per cent of Bradford District residents have a high level of concern about anti-social 

behaviour, as defined by NI 17, a slight improvement on 2010 and generally better than the 

average for England and Wales. 

20 http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/localgov/audit/nis/Pages/NI017Perceptionsofanti-socialbehaviour.aspx 

34


Table 12 

Anti-social Behaviour Score 

Base: All respondents aged 16+ 2011 (6,819); 2010 (6,727) 

High perceived level of anti-social behaviour 



2010 12 

England & Wales 21 

2009/2010 14 

2008/2009 17 

2007/2008 16 


As Table 13 overleaf illustrates, concern about anti-social behaviour varies by age, Those in the 

55+ group are less likely than younger groups to express concern; people aged 75+ have the 

lowest general level of concern. 

Similarly, concerns vary across social grades; from 5 per cent among ABs to 15 per cent among 

DEs. Ethnicity is also a factor: one in ten (9%) White residents score 11 or more on the 

indicator, compared to almost double that in other ethnic groups. 

Promisingly, the ASB score has fallen since 2010 in the two area committees displaying the 

highest level of fear of crime: Bradford East and Bradford West. 

21 Source: British Crime Survey 

35


Table 13 

Base: All respondents aged 16+ (6,727/6,819). 

Anti-social Behaviour Score 

High perceived level of anti-social behaviour 

2010 2011 

Total 12 10 

Age 

16-24 14 12 

25-34 17 12 

35-44 11 11 

45-54 12 11 

55-64 11 8 

65-74 10 8 

75+ 5 5 


AB 6 5 

C1 11 6 

C2 11 11 

DE 15 15 

Ethnicity 

White 9 9 

Mixed 33 22 

Asian 22 15 

Black 12 18 

Chinese/Other 20 15 


Bradford East 19 15 

Bradford South 8 10 

Bradford West 21 17 

Keighley 5 5 

Shipley 5 3 


3.4 Dealing with antisocial behaviour 

Bradford District residents’ views on how successfully local public service providers are tackling 

crime and antisocial behaviour are dominated by a lack of awareness about the issue. In this 

respect, the results match the outcome from the 2010 study. While disagreement that each 

provider is tackling these issues is low, agreement is only at its highest at 53 per cent (for West 

Yorkshire Police) and a large proportion of residents feel unable to offer an opinion. That said, it 

is encouraging that the level of agreement surpasses disagreement for each of the indicators 

recorded. 

36


Again, it is useful to look at performance within the national context. Approaching half (49%) of 

the District’s residents agree that the police and other local public services overall are 

successfully dealing with antisocial behaviour and crime (up a significant 3 points since 2010), 

compared to 51 per cent at the national level, although the wording of the question in the British 

Crime Survey is slightly different. 22 

Figure 11 

The success of public service providers in tackling anti-social 

behaviour and crime in the local area 

% Agree % Disagree Neither/Nor/DK 

Agree% 

2010 

West Yorkshire 

Police 

53 

14 

33 

52% 

The police & other 

local public services 

overall 

49 

14 

37 

46% 

Bradford Council 

47 

15 

38 

48% 

Q8. How much would you agree or disagree that each of the following are successfully dealing with antisocial 

behaviour and crime in your local area 

Base: All respondents (6,819) 

However, looking at the public’s views on each of the service providers in turn there are some 

clear patterns, as illustrated in the Table 14 overleaf. 

Those who are satisfied rather than dissatisfied with the local area are much more likely to agree 

that each of the providers is successfully dealing with anti-social behaviour and crime. 

Analysis of responses by Area Committee reveals that residents of Bradford East are less 

positive than anyone else about all of the service providers. 

22 Source: British Crime Survey 2010/2011. The wording in that survey is: “It is the responsibility of the police and 

local council working in partnership to deal with anti-social behaviour and crime in your local area. Choosing an 

answer from this card please say how much you agree or disagree that the police and local council are dealing with 

the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area.” 

37


Table 14 

Q8. How much would you agree or disagree that each of the following are successfully dealing 

with anti-social behaviour and crime in your local area 

Base: All respondents aged 16+ (6,727 / 6,819) 

Police & other 

public services 

overall 


Change 

since ’10 

(+/-) 

TOTAL: Agree 

West Yorkshire 

Police 


Change 

since ’10 

(+/-) 



Council 

Change 

since ’10 

(+/-) 

Total - 2011 49 +3 53 +1 47 +3 

Satisfaction with local area 

Satisfaction with Council 

Satisfied 52 +2 56 n/c 50 +2 

Dissatisfied 24 +9 25 +3 21 +7 

Satisfied 57 +2 61 -1 56 +1 

Dissatisfied 26 +1 28 -3 21 +2 

After dark 

Feel safe 55 +3 59 +1 53 +3 

Feel unsafe 32 +4 35 +1 31 +5 


Bradford East 49 +12 52 +12 49 +13 

Bradford South 47 +3 54 +4 48 +4 

Bradford West 39 -16 44 -17 39 -17 

Keighley 49 -1 50 -3 41 -3 

Shipley 62 +17 65 +18 61 +18 


There appears to have been significant shifts in opinion at the level of Area Committees, and 

these are atypical of what ICM tends to observe in its other work for local authorities. While 

residents are more favourable towards public services in Bradford East, Bradford South and 

Shipley, there has been a notable decline in Bradford West. 

38


3.5 Seeking the public’s views 

When it comes to being consulted about antisocial behaviour and crime in the local area, just 

over two fifths (43%) of residents agree that the police and other local services seek people’s 

views on these issues, and a fifth (20%) disagrees. This represents a decline since the survey in 

2010 and means Bradford District performs slightly less well than the average for England and 

Wales (47% agree). 23 That said, the proportion strongly agreeing has increased three 

percentage points. 

However, a considerable minority is not able to offer an opinion either way. This in itself is telling 

in that it suggests communications activity about the various initiatives and programmes in place 

across the District to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour are not reaching or impacting 

everyone. 

Figure 12 

Extent to which public services seek people’s views about crime 

Strongly agree, 

10% 

Don't know, 

23% Total: 

Agree 

% 

Total: 

Disagree 

% 

2011 43 20 

2010 46 21 

Strongly 

disagree, 12% 

Tend to agree, 

33% 

Tend to 

disagree, 8% 

Neither/nor, 

% 

Q7. It is the responsibility of the police and other local public services to work in partnership to deal with anti-social 

behaviour and crime in your local area. So, how much would you agree or disagree that the police and other local public 

services seek people’s views about these issues in your local area Base: All respondents (6,819) 

The extent to which people disagree with the statement that ‘the police and other local public 

services seek people’s views about these issues in your local area’ ranges from 23 per cent in 

Bradford East to 17 per cent in Bradford South. Again this reflects notable shifts in opinion since 

2010, with Bradford East residents becoming more positive and Bradford West residents less so. 

23 Source: British Crime Survey 2010/2011. Note slightly different wording: “It is the responsibility of the police and 

local council working in partnership to deal with anti-social behaviour and crime in your local area. Choosing an 

answer from this card please say how much you agree or disagree that the police and local council seek people's 

views about the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area.” 

39


Table 15 

Q7. How much would you agree or disagree that the police and other local public services seek 

people’s views about these issues in your local area 

Base: All respondents aged 16+ 2011 (6,819); 2010 (6,727) 

Total: Agree 

Total: Disagree 


Change since 

2010 


Change since 

2010 

Bradford East 39 +10 23 -8 

Bradford South 42 -12 17 -3 

Bradford West 35 -16 22 +4 

Keighley 43 -4 20 -2 

Shipley 47 -2 18 +6 


40


4. Transport & Travel 

4.1 Travel to work & school 

As per last year, car is the preferred mode of transport to work, mentioned by seven in ten (69%) 

commuters, with 4% car sharing or by taxi. About one in ten also use the bus (12%) or walk 

(9%). Men (74%), those in socio-economic grade AB (78%) and those aged 35–64 (76%) are 

most likely to drive. 

While walking remains the most common form of transport for children travelling to school, this 

figure has decreased significantly since 2010 (43% from 56% in 2010). A quarter (25%) are 

taken by car while one in six (16%) takes the bus. 

Table 16 

Q9a) How do you usually travel to work If you use more than one mode of transport, please 

give the one that covers the longest distance. SINGLE CODE 

Base: All who commute to work: 2010 (2,688); 2011 (2,932) 

Q9b) And, if there are school aged children in your household, how do they usually travel to 

school SINGLE CODE 

Base: All with school age children: 2010 (1,515); 2011 (1,905) 

Q9.a 

Work 

Q9.b 

School 


% % % % 

Car/Van (with no other passengers) 69 69 - - 

Bus 10 12 13 16 

Walk 13 9 56 43 

Lift (from someone who then returns 

home) 

4 4 23 25 

Train 3 3 1 1 

Car share 2 3 1 3 

Taxi 1 * * * 

Cycle * * * * 

Other * 1 * * 

Don’t know 0 - 8 13 


41


Table 17 

Q9. How do you usually travel to…: (a) work (b) school 

Base: (a) all who commute to work 2011(2,932); 2010(2,688), 

Base: (b) all with school-aged children 2011 (1,905); 2010 (1,506) 

Travel to work by car/van alone 

Travel to school by car 

% % 


All using a car 69 69 24 25 

Socio-economic status: 

AB 80 78 36 32 

C1 70 70 32 28 

C2 72 71 27 23 

DE 57 62 15 21 


Looking at socio economic differences, there are some notable findings. It is the children of DE 

parents who are least likely to be taken by car; about half (49%) these children walk to school 

compared to two in five (38%) children of AB parents. Nevertheless, it is among the DE group 

where car use has increased since 2010, for both school and work journeys. This contrasts with 

other groups where car use for journeys to school has declined. 

4.2 Car use 

Of those who drive, two thirds (68%) are not interested in finding ways to use their car less, a 

figure higher than would be hoped for but still five points down on the survey last year. However, 

as the Bradford District Partnership seeks to increase use of public transport – one of its 

priorities for prosperity and regeneration in the District – it might be interested to note that one in 

five car users say improved public transport might encourage them to cut back. 

To put these results into national context, recent results from the Office for National Statistic’s 

Opinion’s Survey reveals that over half (54%) of Britons are not willing to take actions to reduce 

their car travel. 24 

Full results and the change since 2010 are outlined in Figure 13 below. 

24 That said, the proportion of adults across Great Britain who were at least ‘fairly concerned’ about climate change 

has fallen from 81% in 2006 to 70% in 2010. 

42


Figure 13 

Encouragements to reduce car use 

TOTAL: IMPROVED PUBLIC TRANSPORT 

Re duce public transport fares/make public transport 

fares less than running a car 

Reduce fares/make fares less than running a car 

Improved frequency 

Improved punctuality and reliability 

More destinations, later buses/trains 

More destinations, later buses/trains 

More information/Timetable information 

Increase in cost of fuel 

Increase in cost of fuel 

Better access and facilities 

Few er car parking s paces 

Improved attitudes of staff 

Improved cleanliness of public transport 

More seats available on public transport 

Increase in car taxes (e.g. MOT, Car Tax, insurance) 

Fewer car parking spaces 

Improve safety on public transport/Safe place to wait 

Improve safety on public transport/Safe place to wait 

More seats available on public transport 

Increase in car taxes 

NOTHING/Do not want to use a car less 

Don’t know 

Do n’t kno w 

7 

6 

6 

6 

5 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

7 

19 

% 

Change since 2010 

+5 

+2 

+1 

+2 

+3 

+3 

+2 

+3 

+3 

+2 

+2 

+2 

+2 

+2 

68 -5 

-1 

Q10. What, if anything, would encourage you to use your car less 

Base: All except those who do not have a car/do not drive (4,350 / 4,421) 

Men, those aged 35-64 years and members of social group AB are the most resistant to the idea 

of using their car less, as they are significantly more likely to say that nothing would encourage 

them to do so. 

43


5. Local Public Services 

Respondents were asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they are with a range of public services 

and their responses are set out in this section. It should be borne in mind that all figures referred 

to in this section are exclusive of ‘don’t know’ and ‘have not used the service’ responses. That is, 

results are based on the responses of all who feel able to offer an opinion. 

5.1 Satisfaction with services – Bradford Council 

Bradford Council is regarded more positively by its local residents compared to last year: three 

quarters (74%) are satisfied with the authority overall, up three percentage points from the 

baseline survey. More importantly, the percentage very satisfied has doubled in the space of 12 

months (from 15% to 29%). A small minority are dissatisfied (13%). 

Figure 14 

Satisfaction with Bradford Council 

TOTAL: 

Satisfaction 

% 


71% 

74% 

71% 

68% 

66% 

75% 

Q4. Please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with each of the following public services in your 

local area Bradford Council overall Base: All service users expressing an opinion (6,403/6,213) 

As Figure 14 above illustrates, views on the Council vary by locale. Eight in ten Shipley (80%) 

residents speak highly of the authority compared to seven in ten (70%) in Bradford South. The 

upwards movement in Shipley and Keighley is statistically significant as is the five point drop in 

satisfaction in Bradford South. 

Looking at individual wards, Bingley has by far the highest level of satisfaction (93%) followed by 

Keighley West (86%). On the other hand, Eccleshill (50%), City and Tong (both 62%) exhibit the 

lowest levels). 

44


Residents who are generally more satisfied include those aged 16-34 (77%) and AB social 

group (80%) Dissatisfaction is greater among those aged 45+ (16%) and the DE social group 

(15%). 

5.2 Satisfaction with services – the local NHS 

Satisfaction with local NHS services is high. In total, over eight in ten patients are positive about 

their GP and about their local hospital (89% and 85% respectively). NHS dentists are seen 

slightly less favourably although still three quarters (76%) are satisfied. All three indicators have 

increased significantly since the 2010 research. 

Figure 15 

Satisfaction with NHS services 

% Satisfied 

% Fairly 

satisfied 

% Neither/ 

nor 

% Fairly 

dissatisfied 

% Very 

dissatisfied 

TOTAL: 

Satisfaction 

2010 

% 


% 

89 

84 

85 

82 

76 

72 


local area Base: All service users expressing an opinion. The base size for each organisation/service 

is provided in the brackets. 

Looking at these three services together, satisfaction with the NHS in the Bradford District is 

highest among those aged 55 and over, and residents of Keighley and Shipley. At ward level, 

residents of Baildon, Bingley, Keighley West and Shipley are among the most positive on all 

three services. 

Given that those who have a long-term illness or disability, or have caring responsibilities, will 

tend to have more contact with health services than the average resident, it is positive to note 

that both these groups are more likely than the rest of the population to be satisfied with their GP 

(62% and 60% respectively). There is not, however, a similarly positive relationship with the local 

hospital, which was in evidence in 2010. 

45


5.3 Satisfaction with services – Fire & Police 

Ninety per cent of Bradford District residents are satisfied with the West Yorkshire Fire and 

Rescue Authority, while over three quarters (78%) are satisfied with West Yorkshire Police. 

These figures reflect an increase in satisfaction for the Fire & Rescue service (+7) and the police 

(+4) since 2010, but in both cases the variation is due to changes in the proportion of those 

saying ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ rather than a relative shift in dissatisfaction. 

Figure 16 

Satisfaction with Fire & Rescue and Police services 

% Satisfied 

% Fairly 

satisfied 

% Neither/ 

nor 

% Fairly 

dissatisfied 

% Very 

dissatisfied 

TOTAL: 

Satisfaction 


% 

2010 

% 

90 

83 

78 

74 




46


5.4 Satisfaction with services – Transport 

Satisfaction with public transport in the Bradford District is higher than this time last year. Over 

four fifths are positive about rail services (85%) and a similar proportion (83%) about local bus 

services. 

Figure 17 

Satisfaction with transport services 

% Satisfied 

% Fairly 

satisfied 

% Neither/ 

nor 

% Fairly 

dissatisfied 

% Very 

dissatisfied 

TOTAL: 

Satisfaction 

% 


85 

81 

83 

79 




47


6. Information & Communications 

6.1 Level of information 

The extent to which residents feel informed about local public services varies considerably. 

Over three quarters (77%) feel informed about how and where to register to vote, the service 

with the highest levels of self-reported awareness by a considerable margin. Two thirds (65%) 

feel they know about how their council tax is spent and over half know how to complain 

about public services (57%) or where to obtain employment and skills information (53%). 

It is notable that awareness of what to do in the event of a large-scale emergency has fallen 

since last year (49% from 56%). However, last year’s fieldwork was undertaken during a period 

of high publicity relating to swine flu which will have influenced that result. 

A consistent trend to emerge is the increase in the proportion of people saying they are ‘very 

well’ informed about each aspect. Please see the marked-up questionnaire in the appendices for 

further details. 

Figure 18 

Level of information about different aspects of the Council’s work 

% Very well informed % Fairly well informed % Not very well informed 

% Not well informed at all % Don't know 

TOTAL: 

Informed % 

2010 


How and where to register to vote 

42 

36 

5 

6 

11 

80 

77 

How your council tax is spent 

26 

38 

11 

12 

13 

65 

65 

What to do in the event of a large-scale emergency 

21 

29 

16 

16 

18 

56 

49 

How to complain about local public services 

25 

32 

15 

14 

14 

55 

57 

Where to obtain information about employment and 

skills 

23 

30 

12 

16 

19 

54 

53 

How well local public services are performing 

22 

34 

16 

14 

14 

51 

55 

What standard of service you should expect from 


23 

33 

15 

15 

15 

51 

55 

Where to obtain information about setting up a 

business 

20 

25 

12 

20 

23 

46 

45 

How you can get involved in local decision-making 

20 

28 

16 

18 

18 

45 

48 

Q11. And how well informed do you feel about each of the following 

Base: All respondents : 2011 (6,819); 2010 (6,727). 

When it comes to public services overall, six in ten (59%) feel informed while half this figure 

(27%) do not think they have enough information. This is a promising finding since residents who 

feel informed about the benefits provided by local services are more likely to be positive about 

the performance of the Council and other bodies, and to hold favourable views on the local area. 

48


Figure 19 

Level of information about public services overall 

Total 

59% 

Very well 

informed 

Fairly well 

informed 

Not very well 

informed 

Not well 

informed at all 

Don’t know 

TOTAL: Informed % 


2010 61% 

TOTAL: Not informed 

% 


2010 28% 

16-24 

25-34 

35-44 

45-54 

55-64 

65-74 

75+ 

AB 

C1 

C2 

DE 

Owner occupier 

Social r ente r 

Private renter 

Bradford East 

Bradford South 

Bradford West 

Keighley 

Shipley 

40% 

59% 

61% 

64% 

69% 

66% 

63% 

73% 

61% 

59% 

54% 

63% 

50% 

52% 

59% 

55% 

59% 

58% 

66% 

Change 

since 2010 

+3 

+1 

+3 

-8 

-1 

Q11. And how well informed do you feel about each of the following – local public services overall 

Base: All respondents 2011 (6,819); 2010 (6,727) 

Young people are least positive on this measure and, although this finding reflects what ICM 

would expect to see based on our research elsewhere, this also represents a decline since 2010 

(40 per cent informed versus 46%). 

Three quarters (73%) of ABs feel informed, falling to just over half (54%) of DEs. The extent to 

which the public feels informed overall is lower than average among carers (48%) suggesting 

that those who really need information on local services do not necessarily feel that they are 

getting it. 

Responses also vary by Area Committee with those who live in Bradford South having the 

lowest levels of self-reported awareness (55%) compared to 66 per cent in Shipley. The two 

percentage point drop at the overall District level in the proportion saying they feel informed is 

largely due to the eight point drop in Keighley: the scores in all three Bradford area committees 

have actually improved since last year. 

49


6.2 Preferred sources of information 

From the suggestions put to them, the most popular way in which residents wish to hear about 

public services is via information and newsletters through the post (41%). There has, however, 

been a significant increase in those wishing to receive information via the Internet (33% from 

27% in 2010), and a concomitant decrease in those wanting information via local/regional 

newspapers (30% from 36%) or the Council’s newsletter, ‘Community Pride’ (16% from 23%). 

Figure 20 

Sources of information 

Change since 2010 (+/-) 

Information and newsletters through the post 

Internet/websites 

Local/regional newspapers 

The Council’s newspaper – “Community Pride” 

A – Z of Council services booklet 

Television 

Friends/Neighbours 

Local radio 

Council/ other offices 

Local libraries 

Contact with Council/service staff 

GP surgery 

Text/SMS 

Advice Centres, including Citizens Advice Bureaux 

Posters 

Newsletters from political parties 

Contact with Councillors 

Advertising on billboards/buses 

Public meetings run by Council/ other organisations 

16 

13 

10 

9 

8 

8 

7 

6 

5 

4 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

33 

30 

41 

+4 

+6 

-6 

-7 

-3 

+2 

- 

-5 

+4 

+1 

+2 

+1 

+2 

+2 

-1 

-1 

+1 

- 

- 

Q12. From which sources on this card, if any, would you like to obtain most of your information about 

public services provided in the Bradford District. 


As Table 18 overleaf indicates, there are important differences between socio-demographic 

subgroups in terms of preferences for receiving information. Traditional forms of communication 

– newsletters and local/regional newspapers – are favoured by older residents, in particular 

those aged 55+. Younger people (16–44 year olds) display a stronger preference for online 

sources. Indeed, the youngest section is much less inclined than people in general to rely upon 

information through the post (33% among 16-24 years compared to 46 of those aged 55-74 

years). 

The Council’s newspaper ‘Community Pride’ has a broad readership, and this is favoured by one 

in five people in the Black community and similarly among 55-64 year olds. 

50


Table 18 

Q12. From which sources of information, if any, would you like to obtain most of your information 

about public services provided in the Bradford District 

Base: All respondents aged 16+ (6,819) 

Internet 

Local/ regional 

newspaper 

Community 

Pride 

% % % 

Total - 2011 33 30 16 

Age 


16-24 46 22 12 

25-34 40 24 15 

35-44 39 33 15 

45-54 39 32 18 

55-64 24 37 21 

65-74 15 34 17 

75+ 6 35 18 

AB 47 34 14 

C1 40 30 15 

C2 32 32 16 

DE 25 27 18 

Ethnicity 

White 33 31 17 

Mixed 32 37 5 

Asian 28 25 13 

Black 31 27 22 

Chinese/Other 28 18 12 


Bradford East 36 31 11 

Bradford South 33 31 16 

Bradford West 28 24 21 

Keighley 31 33 16 

Shipley 40 33 16 


51


6.3 Internet use 

Currently, seven in ten Bradford District residents now use the internet at home; an increase 

from about six in ten in 2010. Of course, there will be those who have access to the internet at 

home but who do not use it, but even so this finding on usage would suggest that home access 

to the internet is at least slightly below the national level: four in five (80%) of the population of 

Great Britain have access to the internet at home. 25 

Internet use in the District varies considerably according to age, income and tenure, just as it 

does across the country. Younger people are most likely to use the internet at home and 

propensity to do so declines with age. Socio-economic status has a clear bearing, with ABs 

having far higher levels of home internet use than DEs, in line with what ICM records nationally. 

Those who own their home are more likely to use the internet there and social renters have the 

lowest levels of usage, illustrating a clear link with income. Perhaps reflecting socio-economic 

status, people with a disability are less likely than other groups to access the internet. 

Given the relatively high proportion of ABs in Shipley and of DEs in Bradford East and Bradford 

West, it is not surprising to find that the former has the highest level of home internet use and 

the latter two the lowest. 

Figure 21 

Use of internet at home 

% Use internet at home 

Q13. Do you use the internet at home 


25 Source: ICM Omnibus 13-14 August 2011; a nationally representative telephone survey of 1,000 adults aged 18+ in 

Great Britain. Question wording: “Do you have access to the internet at home, at work or somewhere else” 

52


7. Getting Involved 

7.1 Community influence 

Just over three a third (35%) of Bradford District residents feel they can influence decisions 

affecting their local area (when don’t know responses are excluded). There has been a notable 

shift since 2010, with the proportion agreeing slipping seven percentage points. The reduced 

Council spend on promotional campaigns may be one explanation behind this shift. 

However, it is useful to look at performance on this measure in the national context. In order to 

compare the Bradford District with findings from the Home Office Citizenship Survey 26 , the box 

on the right of the chart shows the data rebased to exclude ‘don’t know’ responses. Once this 

has been done, we can see that the District now slightly underperforms against the average for 

England and Wales (35% compared to 38%), whereas last year it was slightly above the norm. 

Figure 22 

Community involvement & influence 

Definitely agree 

4% 

8% 

Tend to agree 

38% 28% 

Total 

Agree 

% 

Total 

Disagree 

% 


Tend to disagree 

29% 

27% 


England & 

Wales* 

38 n/a 

Definitely disagree 

29% 

37% 

Bradford data has been rebased to exclude 

“Don’t know” responses to enable 

comparisons with Citizenship Survey data 


Q14. Do you agree or disagree that you can influence decisions affecting your local area 

Base: All expressing an opinion (5,777); 2010 (5,717) 

*England & Wales source: DCLG/Home Office Citizenship Survey, 2010 – 2011. 

The youngest and oldest cohorts are least likely to feel they have influence. It is also notable that 

those who belong to a religion feel significantly more empowered than those who do not. This 

may, at least in part, be because some religious people will attend a regular place of worship or 

be involved in their faith community in some way, and might feel some collective sense of 

influence as a result. 


53


People in work are more likely to feel they are heard than those who are not working. 

Meanwhile, those who rent their home from the Council or a housing association are less likely 

to regard themselves as influential than residents who own their home or rent privately. 

Among the Area Committees, residents of Bradford South are least likely to feel they have a say 

in their local area compared to residents of other areas. 

One of the consistent themes throughout this report has been the uniformity in results between 

2010 and 2011 in each of the five area committees. Even where there has been a statistically 

significant change it has tended to be by only 4 or 5 points. However, the ‘influencing decisions’ 

metric is an outlier in this respect with large variations, evident in Table 19 below. 

Table 19 


Base: All expressing an opinion: 2010 (5,777), 2011 (5,717). 

Total Agree 

2011 Change since 2010 

Total 35 -7 

Age: 

16-24 36 -8 

25-34 41 -1 

35-44 39 -8 

45-54 36 -7 

55-64 34 -9 

65-74 30 -5 

75+ 24 -12 

Religion: 

Christian 39 -9 

Muslim 48 +1 

Other 50 +5 

No religion 25 -5 

Work status: 

Work full-time 42 -4 

Work part-time 40 -3 

Not working 29 -12 

Retired 27 -12 

Tenure: 

Owner occupier 37 -7 

Rent from council 30 -3 

Rent from H/A 33 -3 

Private renter 31 -12 

Area Committee: 

Bradford East 29 +5 

Bradford South 39 -2 

Bradford West 41 -10 

Keighley 35 -20 

Shipley 34 -5 


% 

54


7.2 Community involvement 

The Bradford District Partnership aims to develop the ability of local people to get involved in 

improving their communities, including by supporting informal local networks. 27 When asked to 

indicate which among a list of civic or community activities they are involved with, there was a 

similar active minority (15%): 84 per cent said ‘none of these’. Moreover, a higher proportion 

(88%) said they would not be interested in being contacted about any of the identified roles. 

Figure 23 

Current involvement and interest in civic participation opportunities 

Q16. a) Are you currently involved in any of the following areas b) Would you like to be contacted about 

taking up an opportunity in any of these areas Base: All respondents (6,819) 

Although there are few notable differences by demographic groups, it is striking that Asian and 

Muslim residents are more likely to say they would like to be contacted about getting involved 

with others in the street/neighbourhood, and in meetings that concern the neighbourhood – all 

10% versus the average of 4%. 

At the ward level, interest is shown in greater engagement in Manningham, Bradford Moor, City, 

Great Horton and, to a lesser degree, Queensbury. 

27 The Big Plan for the Bradford District 2008-2011: Our Sustainable Community Strategy 

55


7.3 Volunteering 

Currently, about one in six people (17%) say they have given any unpaid help to a group, club or 

organisation in the past 12 months, up six percentage points since last year. This improvement 

sees the District move closer to the national benchmark. 28 

Regular participation is low, with just eight per cent doing something at least once a month. 

Figure 24 

Amount of time devoted to volunteering in the last 12 months 

GIVEN ANY UNPAID HELP 

% 

17 

11 

At least once a week 

Less than once a week but at least once a 

month 

Less often 

Give unpaid help as individual only, not 

through groups/ clubs/ organisations 

4 

4 

4 

2 

7 

3 

2 

2 

2011% 

2010% 

Not given any unpaid help at all ove r the 

last 12 months 

83 

89 

Q16. Overall, about how often over the last 12 months have you given unpaid help to any group(s), 

club(s) or organisation(s) Please only include work that is unpaid and not for your family. 

Base: All respondents expressing an opinion (6,433/6,484) 

Those more likely to have volunteered are: 

o Carers (30%); 

o Members of socio-economic grades ABC1 (22%); 

o Part-time workers (19%); and 

o Those with a religious affiliation (19%). 

28 In 2010-11, 39% of adults volunteered formally (giving unpaid help through a group, club or organisation) and 55% 

volunteered informally (giving unpaid help as an individual to someone who is not a relative). Source: 2010/11 DCLG 

Citizenship Survey). 

56


8. Health & Well-being 

8.1 General health 

Most people in the Bradford District are positive about their health in keeping with twelve months 

ago. Close to four-fifths of residents describe their general health as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ and 

this is consistent with the findings from 2010 (although the proportion stating ‘very good’ is down 

a significant 3 points). This is marginally above the average for England 29 , although stated health 

and well being ranges from a low of 75 per cent in Bradford East to a high of 82 per cent in 

Shipley. Only about one in fourteen people (7%) speak negatively about their health. 

Figure 25 

General health 

Total Bad: 

7% 

Fair, 15% 

Very bad, 

Bad, 6% 1% 

Very good, 

28% 

% Total ‘Good health’ 

Bradford 2011 78 

Bradford 2010 78 

England* 76 

Good, 50% 

Total Good: 

78% 

Bradford East 75 

Bradford South 76 

Bradford West 75 

Keighley 81 

Shipley 82 

Q23a. How is your health in general Would you say it was… Base: All respondents expressing an 

opinion 2011 (6,806); 2010 (6,727) 

* England Source: Department of Health ‘Health Survey for England’ , 2009. 

As we might expect, this indicator is closely associated with age and income (i.e. socioeconomic 

grade, tenure and work status), as illustrated in Figure 26 overleaf. 

Reporting of poor health increases with age (from 1% among 16-24 year olds to 15% among 

those aged 75 and over). Similarly, health declines with low social status (from 3% among AB 

residents to 11% DE). The link between health and social deprivation is underscored by the 

much higher than average proportions reporting ‘poor health’ among those people who rent their 

home from the Council or a housing association and who are out of work. 

29 Source: Health Survey for England, 2008. 

57


Figure 26 

General health – subgroup differences 

Total 

7 

16-24 

25-34 

35-44 

45-54 

55-64 

65-74 

75+ 

1 

3 

4 

10 

11 

13 

15 

% ‘Bad health’ 

DE 

C2 

C1 

AB 

5 

4 

3 

11 

Working full time 

Working part time 

Not in work (excl. retired) 

Retired 

1 

2 

11 

12 

Owner occupier 

Social renter 

Private renter 

5 

6 

15 

Q23a. How is your health in general Would you say it was… 


8.2 Dental health 

Seven in ten (72%) residents describe the health of their teeth as ‘very or fairly good’ and just six 

per cent as ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’. As with residents’ general health this marks no change from the 

baseline survey in 2010. 

As is the case with a person’s general health, however, there are clear health inequalities across 

the population (see Figure 28). As such, dental health is largely influenced by socio-economic 

status, as well as age. Not surprisingly, dental health is directly correlated with general health; 

among those who say their general health is bad, one third also say their teeth are in poor 

condition. 

58


Figure 27 

Dental health 

Total Bad: 

5% 

Very bad, 

1% 

Bad, 5% 

N/A; Don't 

have teeth, 

5% 

Very good, 

25% 

% Total ‘Good teeth’ 



Fair, 18% 

Bradford East 70 

Bradford South 71 

Bradford West 67 

Keighley 75 

Shipley 77 

Good, 47% 

Total Good: 

72% 

Q23b. Would you say that the health of your teeth is… 

Base: All respondents expressing an opinion 2011 (6,797); 2010 (6,727) 

Figure 28 

Dental health – subgroup differences 

Q23b. Would you say that the health of your teeth is… 


59


8.3 Support from public service providers in promoting healthy living 

One of the Partnership’s health and wellbeing priorities since 2009 has been to support local 

residents by increasing understanding of how to stay healthy, and as part of this the BDP 

provides advice on physical activity, diet, stopping smoking and alcohol. With this in mind 

residents were asked to what extent they think people in the District are encouraged and 

supported to lead a fit and healthy life. 

Overall, opinion is positive with over half believing people are given support and guidance (‘very’ 

or ‘fairly’ well) on how to eat healthily, quit smoking, drink alcohol sensibly and to be physically 

active. A quarter do not feel this is the case, however. It is notable that opinion has declined on 

this measure since 2010, perhaps reflecting recent cut backs in these services, or indeed the 

perception that such support has been cut. 

Figure 29 

The level of support received by residents from public services 

TOTAL: 

Well % 

2010 

64 

63 

61 

58 

Q26. How well do you think people in the Bradford District are encouraged and supported to do each of 

the following Base: All respondents 2011 (6,819); 2010 (6,727) 

8.4 Satisfaction among carers with support from public service providers 

One in ten people in Bradford District describe themselves as carers (defined as someone who 

looks after - in an unpaid capacity - a relative, friend or child who needs support to live at home 

due to a physical or mental disability or illness or due to being elderly or frail). 

Carers variously access support from the NHS (82%), Bradford Council (75%) and/or the 

voluntary sector (64%), and satisfaction with the service they receive is broadly positive. 

However, 15% of all carers are dissatisfied with the support they get from the council and ten per 

cent are dissatisfied with both the other providers. 

60


It is very encouraging that all providers are rated more positively in 2011 than in 2010. 

Figure 30 

Satisfaction with support from public service providers 

TOTAL: 

Satisfied % 

Excluding those who have 

not used the service 


2010 

61 

66 

46 

50 

35 

49 

Q25. Please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the support you get from each of the 

following Base: All carers 2011 (547); 2010 (547) 

61


9. Housing & the Home 

9.1 Satisfaction with overall condition of property 

The overwhelming majority (88%) of people living in Bradford District describe themselves as 

‘very or fairly satisfied’ with the overall condition of their property. While in line with last year 

(89%), encouragingly the proportion very satisfied has jumped 12 percentage points to 58% in 

the last year. 

While just one in twenty (5%) residents are dissatisfied, this proportion is much higher among 

those who rent. 

There is also a clear link to location and the type of area in which people live. For instance, 

residents who feel unsafe outside in the area after dark are more likely than those who feel safe 

to speak negatively about their property (13% dissatisfied versus 3%). Similarly, dissatisfaction 

is higher (15%) among those who do not have a strong attachment to their neighbourhood. 

In addition, satisfaction increases with property size: just two per cent of those in a five bedroom 

property are dissatisfied compared four times as many (8%) of those with two bedrooms. 

Figure 31 

Satisfaction with overall condition of property 

2010 

4 

2 

7 

12 

9 

3 

13 

3 

10 

23 

15 

4 

4 

3 

4 

Q27. How satisfied are you with the overall condition of your property 


62


9.2 Number of bedrooms in property 

The average home in Bradford District has close to three bedrooms (mean 2.9, consistent with 

the figure from 2010), ranging from 2.4 bedrooms for social renters to 3 bedrooms for owner 

occupiers. 

Table 20 

Number of Bedrooms in Property 

Base: All respondents (6,727 / 6,819) 

Mean 

Bed-sit/ 

none 

Number of bedrooms 

1 2 3 4 5+ 

Total - 2011 2.9 % * 5 26 52 13 3 

Total – 2010 2.9 % * 4 29 49 14 3 

Tenure 

Owner occupier 3.0 % * 1 26 52 16 4 

Social renter 2.4 % 1 15 33 44 7 1 

Private renter 2.6 % * 4 41 41 12 2 

Other tenure 2.8 % 0 11 19 32 30 9 

Area committee 

Bradford East 2.8 % * 9 24 52 13 2 

Bradford South 2.7 % 1 6 25 59 9 1 

Bradford West 3.0 % * 3 29 47 15 5 

Keighley 2.9 % * 4 25 55 13 3 

Shipley 2.9 * 5 26 51 16 2 


63


10. Environment & Climate Change 

10.1 Concern about climate change 

Half (51%) of the population in Bradford District are concerned about the impact of climate 

change, including one in seven (14%) who are very concerned. A sizeable proportion (44%) of 

residents is unconcerned about climate change. These figures are consistent with those 

reported in 2010. 

It is notable, however, that levels of concern are considerably lower than the level of concern 

(70%) expressed by people across Great Britain in the latest Office for National Statistics 

Opinions Survey. 30 Given that the Bradford District Partnership wishes to encourage more 

responsible behaviours to affect climate change, this data suggests there is more to do to raise 

awareness and help the population understand the challenges faced and the impact their 

contribution can make 31 . 

Figure 32 

Concern about climate change 

TOTAL: 

Concerned 


2010 51% 

TOTAL: 

Not concerned 


2010 45% 

Q29. How concerned are you about the impact of climate change 


Concern about climate change is closely correlated with gender, age and socio-economic status. 

30 Source: ONS ‘Public attitudes towards climate change and the impact of Transport: August 2010. In-home random 

probability survey of 1,000 GB adults aged 16+. 

31 That said, the proportion of adults across Great Britain who were at least ‘fairly concerned’ about climate change 

has fallen from 81% in 2006 to 70% in 2010. 

64


Women are more worried than men, while concern is highest among the middle age groups 

(ages 35-64). Those in social grade AB are significantly more likely than all other categories to 

express concern about climate change. 

10.2 Attitudes towards climate change 

The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council is part of DEFRA’s National Climate Challenge 

to raise awareness of and change people’s behaviour regarding the environment. Crucial to this 

is ensuring local people have access to information about what causes it and its effects. 

With this in mind it is promising to note that three in five people say they know what actions they 

should be taking to tackle climate change, and the same proportion agrees they have a role as 

an individual in trying to tackle climate change. Just one in seven disagrees with these 

statements, but importantly around a quarter is unable to express an opinion on either of these 

indicators. As noted above, there is clearly more to be done to raise awareness and explain how 

individual and local effort can impact a global issue. 

Figure 33 

Attitudes towards climate change 

TOTAL: 

Agree % 


58 

57 

58 

56 

Q30. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about climate change 


65


10.3 Actions to deal with climate change 

Residents were asked what activities they are currently undertaking in an effort to tackle climate 

change or to improve the energy efficiency of their home. Two thirds recycle (significantly more 

than last year), but under half think of switching off lights when leaving a room, use a “bag for 

life” or turn off electrical goods rather than leave on standby. Just one per cent of people in the 

District have actually installed renewable energy technology such as a wind turbine or solar 

energy – the same proportion as last year. 

When asked what they are likely to be doing in the near future the pattern of response closely 

mirrors existing behaviours; seemingly even relatively easy to do actions such as using a bag for 

life or turning off lights and appliances are not being seen as “worth doing” since there is little 

intention to take these on. 

Table 21 

Q31a. Which of the following activities, if any, are you currently undertaking in an effort to tackle 

climate change or to improve the energy efficiency of your home Just read out the letters. 

Q31b. And which ones, if any, are you likely to undertake in the near future 

Base: All respondents (6,727/6,819) 

A) 

Already 

doing 

B) 

Likely to do in 

the near future 


% 32 % % % 

Recycling/recycling more 57 65 26 31 

Switching off lights when leaving a room 43 41 7 13 

Using a “bag for life” in the supermarket/other shops 41 34 6 12 

Changing existing light bulbs to energy efficient light bulbs 32 33 7 15 

Turning the central heating down 24 30 4 9 

Turning TV/electrical appliances off rather than leaving on 

standby 

33 28 5 11 

Walking more 19 18 5 5 

Composting 12 13 4 8 

Installed/upgraded home insulation 10 11 3 4 

Installed a new A or B energy rated boiler 8 8 2 3 

Eating more seasonal local food 8 7 3 4 

Using the car less often 7 7 1 2 

Using public transport more 7 7 1 2 

Sharing a car ride 4 4 1 1 

Cycling more 4 4 2 2 

Asking other family members and friends to do some of the 

above 

5 3 1 3 

Implementing any small energy saving changes in my workplace 

or elsewhere 

3 2 * 1 

Installing renewable technology (e.g. wind turbine, solar energy) 2 1 1 3 

Don’t know/Can’t remember/None of these 22 15 52 43 


32 Please see computer tables for responses of below 1%. 

66


11. Engagement in the Arts 

A fifth (19%) of residents in Bradford District have attended any creative, artistic, theatrical, 

musical or craft events at least three times in the last 12 months. Just one in eight people (13%) 

have actually spent time doing any creative, artistic, theatrical, musical or craft activities. One in 

ten residents has engaged in both events and activities. Participation is very much in line with 

that reported in 2010. 

Figure 34 

Engagement in the arts 

% Attended any cr eative/ artistic/ theatrical/ musical/ craft 

events at least 3 times in last 12 months 

Yes 

13 

19 

(n/c) 

(-1) 

% Spent time doing any creative/ artistic/ theatrical/ 

musical/ craft activities at least 3 times in last 12 months 

% Done both 

10 

(-1) 

No 

80 

86 

90 

(-1) 

(n/c) 

(+1) 

Don't know 

Can't remember 

* 

1 

0 

(n/c) 

(n/c) 

(n/c) 

Q32. Have you attended any creative, artistic, theatrical, musical or craft events at least 3 times in the last 

12 months Q33. And have you spent time actually doing any creative, artistic, theatrical, musical or craft 

activities at least 3 times in the last 12 months Base: All respondents (6,819) 

The degree to which a person attends an art event or participates in a cultural activity is strongly 

determined by their income, where they live and their stated health and well being. As the table 

overleaf shows, members of socio-economic group AB, those living in Keighley and Shipley area 

committees and people who rate their health as good are more likely than the population on 

average to be engaged in the arts. On the other hand, age plays little part. 

67


Table 22 

Base: All respondents (6,727 / 6,819) 

Engagement in the Arts - Subgroups 

Done both 

Attended events 

Undertaken 

activities 

% % % 

Total - 2011 10 19 14 

Total – 2010 11 19 14 


AB 19 38 21 

C1 12 23 15 

C2 9 16 12 

DE 4 9 7 

Area committee 

Bradford East 6 12 10 

Bradford South 9 15 12 

Bradford West 10 15 11 

Keighley 12 24 16 

Shipley 12 28 15 

General health 

Very good/Good 11 21 14 

Fair 5 12 8 

Very bad/bad 5 9 7 


68


12. Financial Exclusion 

12.1 Personal finance 

Bradford MDC ranks as the 32 nd most deprived local authority area in England (out of a total of 

354) and the District remains a low pay area, with reliance on benefits especially high in 

deprived areas. 33 Consequently one of the key objectives of the Bradford Perceptions Survey is 

to explore the extent to which local residents feel comfortable looking after their money, to 

understand attitudes towards debt and to measure perceptions around the availability of credit. 

This information will prove vital for public service providers in the District to support residents, 

especially the most vulnerable members of the community, during difficult economic times. 

Most people in the District believe they are successful in looking after their personal finances: 

over seven in ten (74%) residents describe themselves as good at managing their money and 

financial affairs. Residents also hold mixed views when it comes to their perceived eligibility to 

obtain credit. A third say they could get a bank loan or overdraft if they needed one, but a 

quarter (27%) do not believe they could, with the remainder (40%) unsure. 

However, it is evident that many households are concerned about debt and their ability to pay 

bills. For example, one in five (21%) residents report having difficulty finding the money to pay 

for heating and hot water and three in ten (29%) are worried about getting into debt. One in six is 

concerned about the amount of debt they actually have, although this figure has fallen slightly 

since 2010 (15% from 19%). 

Figure 35 

Personal finance 

TOTAL: 

Agree % 


74 

2010 

72 

33 

37 

29 

30 

21 

22 

15 

19 

Q35. To what extent would you agree or disagree with each of the following statements 



69


Of course, these findings are at the overall District level and the scale of the survey – over 6,500 

interviews – affords the ability to undertake in-depth and meaningful subgroup analysis. It is well 

established that certain sections of society – generally disadvantaged and/or low income groups 

- tend to be more financially excluded than the population in general and the findings from the 

Bradford Public Perceptions survey bear this out. The table below outlines those who are most 

and least likely to agree with each statement. Taken together, this information will enable the 

BDP to target those who are in real need of help and support. 

Table 23 

I am good at managing my 

money and financial affairs 

Personal finance – subgroup analysis 

% HIGHEST level of agreement % LOWEST level of agreement 

AB (89%) 

Age 16-24 (56%) 

Shipley (85%) & Keighley (83%) Private renters (61%) * 

Retired (88%) 

Not working (excl. retired) (61%) 

Age 65+ (88%) 

DE (65%) 

Working full time (76%) 

If I needed to, I could get a 

bank loan or overdraft 

I am worried about getting into 

debt 

I have difficulty finding the 

money to pay for my heating 

and hot water 

AB (51%) 

Working (49%) 

Keighley (43%) 

C1 (43%) 

Age 35-54 (43%) 

Mixed ethnicity (43%) 

Private renters (39%) 

Social renters (36%) 

Black (36%) 

DE (35%) 

Part time workers (34%) 

Age 16-34 (34%) 

Private renter (37%) 

DE (31%) 

Bradford East (30%) 



General health is ‘bad’ (16%) 

Disability (16%) 

Age 55+ (17%) 


DE (18%) 

Black/ (23%) 

AB (19) 

Aged 55+ (18%) 

Retired (16%) 

Keighley (21%) 

AB (10%) 

C1s (13%) 

Age 75+ (13%) 

Keighley & Shipley (15%) 

I am worried about the amount 

of debt I have 

Private renters (29%) 


Bradford West (20%) 

Not working (excl. retired) (21%) 

LGB (21%) 

Retired (5%) 

Shipley (9%) 

Statements are coloured coded to indicate where findings are positive (green) and negative (red). 

70


This analysis clearly demonstrates that, on the whole, private renters and to a lesser extent 

social renters, people belonging to the lowest socio economic grades, and those out of work (but 

not retired) display the greatest concerns about their financial situation. Although residents of 

more affluent Keighley and Shipley answer most positively on all five measures, it is notable that 

no Area Committee stands out consistently because of significantly greater concerns. This 

implies that while traditionally there may have been some areas where deprivation and 

disadvantage were more apparent, in the current economic situation financial concerns are more 

widespread. 

Ethnicity also seems to be a feature of this analysis, with people of mixed race, and ’other’ 

backgrounds displaying higher than average concerns on a number of measures. It is 

particularly notable that these groups are less likely to believe they could get a bank loan if 

needed, compared to other groups. 

The 2010 Residents’ Survey report highlighted a correlation between general health and 

financial management. This does not feature in this analysis, which is not to suggest that there is 

no link, since health inequalities are well documented. This year, however, other demographics 

are more notable with the impact of health seemingly mediated by these. 

12.2 Awareness & use of credit unions 

Less than four in ten residents say they have heard of credit unions, and this is fewer than in 

2010 (38% versus 46%). Furthermore, just 3 per cent has actually used one. As noted in the 

2010 report, it was thought that the 2007-08 financial crisis and the ongoing economic situation 

making it difficult for people to access credit from high street banks and building societies, would 

boost the use of credit unions by people finding it a useful additional financial resource. This 

does not seem to have been borne out (thus far) by the data. 

While awareness is broadly consistent, it is notable that people who are more likely to have 

heard of credit unions, but never used them are (we assume) those less in need; in other words, 

those currently in work or retired, the AB social group and those aged 45-74. White people are 

also more likely to know of credit unions than people in other ethnic groups. This last point is 

particularly interesting since some of these groups are more likely to express concerns about 

their financial stability than others (see section 12.1 above). 

71


Figure 36 

Awareness & use of credit unions 

TOTAL: Have heard of % 



16-24 25 

25-34 37 

35-44 38 

45-54 47 

55-64 47 

65-74 46 

75+ 32 

AB 50 

C1 35 

C2 36 

DE 36 

Q34. Which of the following statements about credit unions in the Bradford District best describes you 


72


13. Qualifications & Skills 

Against a challenging post recession environment symbolised by slow economic growth, 

tightening household finances and creeping unemployment, the 2011 Residents’ Perceptions 

Survey introduced a new set of questions designed to gauge the extent to which residents 

require additional learning opportunities. 

Over three in five (63%) residents say they are happy with the qualifications they have, and as 

many are confident that lack of qualifications is not holding them back. In this context there is 

appetite among just one in six people overall for improving their skills and indeed paying to 

improve their skills. 

Figure 37 

Qualifications & skills 

% Definitely agree % Tend to agree 

% Tend to disagree % Definitely disagree 

TOTAL: 

Agree % 

I am happy with the 

qualifications I have 

35 

28 

7 

4 

63 

I need to improve my 

skills over the next 12 

months 

6 

12 

11 

44 

12 

I am willing to pay to 

improve my skills 

5 

12 

11 

41 

54 

A lack of qualifications 

is holding me back 

3 

9 

14 

46 

53 

Q17. These questions are about your education, qualification and skills. To what extent do you agree or 

disagree with each of these statements Base: All respondents (6,819) 

As we might expect, there are differences among some sub groups. Notably, just half those in 

social grade DE, who are not working, have poor health and/or live in Bradford West say they 

are happy with their qualifications. There is a similar proportion of people in Asian, Black and 

Muslim communities who say this. What is interesting is that while these people are less happy 

with their qualifications than the average, they are generally no more likely to disagree with the 

statement – rather they don’t express an opinion either way or say don’t know. This could reflect 

what is generally recognised as a degree of embarrassment when discussing the issue of 

qualifications. 

There is a similar demographic profile among those who are more likely to agree that a lack of 

qualifications is holding them back. In addition, it is notable that more young people aged 16-24 

73


feel lack of qualifications is holding them back (20%), but this declines steadily by age. 

Reflecting this, twice as many young people are keen to improve their skills in the next 12 

months compared to the average (36% versus 17%), although it might be disappointing to note 

that one in three (35%) disagree and almost as many (28%) are unsure. The 16-34 age group 

are most likely to be willing to pay to improve their skills (28% of those aged 16-24 and 24% 

aged 25-34), although on balance more are not (38% and 46% respectively). 

74


APPENDICES 

75


Appendix 1: Guide to Statistical Reliability 

The respondents to the questionnaire are only samples of the total “population”, so we cannot be 

certain that the figures obtained are exactly those we would have received if everybody in the 

Bradford District had been interviewed (the “true” values). We can, however, predict the variation 

between the sample results and the “true” values from knowledge of the size of the samples on 

which the results are based and the number of times that a particular answer is given. The 

confidence with which we can make this prediction is usually chosen to be 95% - that is, the 

chances are 95 in 100 that the “true” value will fall within a specified range. The table below 

illustrates the predicted ranges for different sample sizes and percentage results at the “95% 

confidence interval”. 

Size of sample on which 

survey result is based 

Approximate sampling tolerances applicable to 

percentages at or near these levels 

10% or 90% 

+ 

30% or 70% 

+ 

50% 

+ 

100 interviews 6 9 10 

200 interviews (i.e. a ward) 4 6 7 






1,000 interviews 3 3 3 

1,300 interviews (i.e. an Area Committee) 2 2 3 



6,819 interviews (i.e. total sample size) 1 1 1 

For example, with a sample of 6,819 where 30% give a particular answer, the chances are 19 in 

20 that the “true” value (which would have been obtained if the whole population had been 

interviewed) will fall within the range of plus or minus 1 percentage point (+/-1%) from the 

sample result. 

When results are compared between separate groups within a sample, different results may be 

obtained. The difference may be “real”, or it may occur by chance (because not everyone in the 

population has been interviewed). To test if the difference is a real one - i.e. if it is “statistically 

significant”, we again have to know the size of the samples, the percentage giving a certain 

answer and the degree of confidence chosen. If we assume the “95% confidence interval”, the 

differences between the two sample results must be greater than the values given in the table 

overleaf: 

76


Size of samples compared 

Differences required for percentage levels 

significance at or near these 

10% or 90% 

+ 

30% or 70% 

+ 

50% 

+ 

100 and 100 8.4 12.8 13.9 

200 and 200 (i.e. comparing 2 wards) 5.9 *9.0 9.8 

400 and 400 4.2 6.4 6.9 

600 and 600 3.4 5.2 5.7 

1,300 and 1,300 (i.e. comparing 2 Area 

Committees) 

2.3 **3.5 3.8 

6,819 and 200 (i.e. comparing 2011 total and a 

ward) 

4.2 6.5 7.0 

6,819 and 1,300 (i.e. comparing 2011 total and 

an Area Committee) 

1.8 2.7 3.0 

6,727 and 6,819 (i.e. comparing 2010 and 2011 

totals) 

1.0 ***1.5 1.7 

* For example, when comparing differences between wards, where around 50% give a particular 

answer, the chances are 19 in 20 that the “true” difference (which would have been obtained if 

the whole population had been interviewed) will fall within the range of plus or minus 10 

percentage points (+/-10). 

** For example, when comparing differences between Area Committees, where around 30% 

give a particular answer, the chances are 19 in 20 that the “true” difference (which would have 

been obtained if the whole population had been interviewed) will fall within the range of plus or 

minus 4 percentage points (+/-4). 

*** When comparing results between 2010 and 2011 at the overall level the difference in most 

cases needs to be at least +/-2. 

77


Appendix 2: Guide to Socio-economic Definitions 

The grades detailed below are the socio-economic definitions as used by the Institute of 

Practitioners in Advertising, and are standard on all surveys carried out by ICM Research. 

Social Grades 

A 

B 

Social Class 

Upper Middle Class 

Middle Class 

C1 Lower Middle Class 

C2 

D 

E 

Skilled Working 

Class 

Working Class 

Those at the lowest 

levels of 

subsistence 

Occupation of Chief Income Earner 

Professionals such as doctors, surgeons, solicitors or dentists; 

chartered people like architects; fully qualified people with a large 

degree of responsibility such as senior editors, senior civil 

servants, town clerks, senior business executives and managers, 

and high ranking grades of the Services. 

People with very responsible jobs such as university lecturers, 

hospital matrons, heads of local government departments, middle 

management in business, qualified scientists, bank managers, 

police inspectors, and upper grades of the Services. 

All others doing non-manual jobs; nurses, technicians, 

pharmacists, salesmen, publicans, people in clerical positions, 

police sergeants/constables, and middle ranks of the Services. 

Skilled manual workers/craftsmen who have served 

apprenticeships; foremen, manual workers with special 

qualifications such as long distance lorry drivers, security officers, 

and lower grades of Services. 

Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, including labourers 

and mates of occupations in the C2 grade and people serving 

apprenticeships; machine minders, farm labourers, bus and 

railway conductors, laboratory assistants, postmen, door-to-door 

and van salesmen. 

Those on lowest levels of subsistence including pensioners, 

casual workers, and others with minimum levels of income 

78


Appendix 3: Sample Profile – 2011 Survey 

Gender: 

Age: 

Socio-economic grade: 

Number of people 

Unweighted 

Unweighted 

% 

Weighted 

% 

Total 6,819 100 100 

Male 3,135 46 49 

Female 3,684 54 51 

16-24 829 12 18 

25-34 1,257 18 18 

35-44 1,180 17 18 

45-54 1043 15 16 

55-64 933 14 13 

65-74 851 12 9 

75+ 726 11 9 

AB 922 14 14 

C1 1,593 24 24 

C2 1,518 23 23 

DE 2,578 39 36 


Bradford East 1,353 20 21 

Bradford South 1,403 21 20 

Bradford West 1,379 20 19 

Keighley 1,342 20 19 

Shipley 1,342 20 19 

Work Status: 

Ethnicity: 

Full time 1,982 29 32 

Part time 680 10 10 

Not working 2,035 30 32 

Retired 1,829 27 21 

White 5,204 76 77 

Mixed 44 1 1 

Asian 1,230 18 19 

Black 70 1 2 


Long-term illness/disability: 980 14 13 

Household composition: 

With children 0-17 2,434 36 39 

Without children 0-17 4,385 64 61 

Tenure: 

Owner occupier 4,654 69 71 

Social renter 1,056 15 16 

Private renter 1,044 15 12 

Other 66 1 1 

79


Appendix 3: Sample Profile – 2010 Survey 

Gender: 

Age: 

Socio-economic grade: 

Number of people 

Unweighted 

Unweighted 

% 

Weighted 

% 

Total 6,727 100 100 

Male 3,095 46 49 

Female 3,632 54 51 

18-24 882 13 17 

25-34 1,089 16 17 

35-44 1,136 17 18 

45-54 966 14 16 

55-64 952 14 13 

65-74 963 14 9 

75+ 666 10 8 

AB 819 12 12 

C1 1,587 24 25 

C2 1,215 18 19 

DE 3,044 45 43 


Bradford East 1,374 20 21 

Bradford South 1,368 20 20 

Bradford West 1,304 19 21 

Keighley 1,372 20 20 

Shipley 1,309 19 19 

Work Status: 

Ethnicity: 

Full time 1,835 27 32 

Part time 673 10 10 

Not working 2,078 31 32 

Retired 1,933 29 23 

White 5,242 78 77 

Mixed 58 1 1 

Asian 1,232 18 16 

Black 67 1 2 


Long-term illness/disability: 848 13 12 

Household composition: 

With children 0-17 2,314 34 39 

Without children 0-17 4,413 66 61 

Refused 

Tenure: 

Owner occupier 4,666 69 71 

Social renter 1,012 15 16 

Private renter 1,001 15 12 

Other 48 1 1 

80


Appendix 4: Map of Bradford 

1. Baildon 16. Keighley East 

2. Bingley 17. Keighley West 

3. Bingley Rural 18. Little Horton 

4. Bolton & Undercliffe 19. Manningham 

5. Bowling & Barkerend 20. Queensbury 

6. Bradford Moor 21. Royds 

7. City 22. Shipley 

8. Clayton & Fairweather Green 23. Thornton & Allerton 

9. Craven 24. Toller 

10. Eccleshill 25. Tong 

11. Great Horton 26. Wharfedale 

12. Heaton 27. Wibsey 

13. Idle & Thackley 28. Windhill & Wrose 

14. Ilkley 29. Worth Valley 

15. Keighley Central 30. Wyke 

81


Appendix 5: Comparisons with Place Survey 

The table below shows results for key indicators from the 2008 Place Survey and the 2010 and 

2011 Residents’ Perceptions surveys. Please note that strict comparisons between the 

Place Survey and the tracking research are not possible because of the different 

methodologies used (postal and in-home face-to-face respectively). 

% of people who believe people from different 

backgrounds get on well together in their local 

area (NI 1) 

% of people who feel that they belong to their 

neighbourhood (NI 2) 

Place Survey 

2008 

BDP Survey 

2010 

BDP Survey 


65% 80% 83% 

58% 87% 85% 

Civic participation in the local area (NI 3) 16% 4% 15% 

% of people who feel they can influence decisions 

in their locality (NI 4) 

28% 42% 35% 

Overall satisfaction with local area (NI 5) 71% 87% 86% 

Participation in regular volunteering (NI 6) 27% 6% 8% 

Perceptions of anti-social behaviour (NI 17) 30% 18% 18% 

Dealing with local concerns about anti-social 

behaviour and crime issues by Council and Police 

(NI 21) 

Perceptions of parents taking responsibility for the 

behaviour of their children in the area (NI 22) 

Perceptions that it’s a problem people in the area 

don’t treat one another with respect and 

consideration (NI 23) 

Understanding of local concerns about anti-social 

behaviour and crime issues by the local Council 

and police (NI 27) 

Awareness of civil protection arrangements in the 

local area (NI 37) 

Perceptions of drunk or rowdy behaviour as a 

problem (NI 41) 

Perceptions of drug use or drug dealing as a 

problem (NI 42) 

Self-reported measure of people’s overall health 

and wellbeing (NI 119) 

Satisfaction of people over 65 with both home and 

neighbourhood (NI 138) 

The extent to which older people receive the 

support they need to live independently (NI 139) 

23% 59% 63% 

29% 60% 63% 

36% 20% 22% 

23% 46% 43% 

13% 56% 49% 

31% 14% 14% 

50% 21% 21% 

76% 78% 78% 

79% - - 

29% 45% 47% 

Fair treatment by local services (NI 140) 69% 80% 84% 

Feel unsafe in neighbourhood after dark 38% 19% 18% 

Overall satisfaction with the Council (BV3) 38% 71% 74% 

Concerned about climate change - 51% 51% 

82


Appendix 6: Marked-up Questionnaire 

83

2011 Bradford District Residents’ Perceptions 

Survey 

Final Topline Results with Metric Scores 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Results are based on interviews with 6,819 residents aged 16+ across the City of Bradford 

District Council area. 

Interviews were carried out face-to-face, in home, across the District in 570 Output 

Areas in two stages. Stage one took place between 12 th February and 6 th March 2011. 

Stage two was conducted between 7 th May and 7 th July 2011. 

A representative sample was interviewed, with quotas set by age, gender, ethnicity and 

tenure. The sample was also stratified by ward to ensure a sufficient number of 

interviews in each of the 30 wards (minimum 200) enabling reliable comparisons by area. 

The data has been weighted by age, gender, tenure, ethnicity and ward. 

To enable comparisons with national indicators the answers to some questions have been 

rebased to exclude don’t know responses. 

Data from the 2010 survey – based on the same methodology - is included where 

available. Results here are based on 6,727 interviews and fieldwork was undertaken 

between 13 th February – 30 th March 2010 (phase one) and 7 th May - 22 nd June 2010 (phase 

two). 

The data is accurate to plus or minus one percentage point (+/-1). Differences at the 

overall level between the 2010 and 2011 need to be at least two percentage points 

(+/-2) to be considered statistically significant. 

Where results do not sum to 100%, this may be due to multiple responses, computer 

rounding or the exclusion of don’t knows/not stated. 

Results are based on all respondents (6,819) unless otherwise stated. 

An asterisk (*) represents a value of less than one half or one percent, but not zero 

Study undertaken by ICM Research on behalf of Bradford Council and Bradford District 

Partnership. 

1

SECTION 1: QUALITY OF LIFE 

Throughout the questionnaire we ask you to think about ‘your local area’. When answering, please 

consider your local area to be the area within 15-20 minutes walking distance from your home. 

 

SHOWCARD 

Q1. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live SINGLE CODE. 

All respondents 

All answering 


Base: (6,727) (6,819) (6,698) (6,814) 

% % % % 

Very satisfied 47 52 47 52 

Fairly satisfied 40 33 40 33 

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 6 7 6 7 

Fairly dissatisfied 4 4 4 4 

Very dissatisfied 2 3 2 3 

Don’t know 6 * 0 - 

Total: Satisfied 87 86 87 86 

Total: Dissatisfied 6 7 6 7 

Net satisfied +80 +79 +81 +79 

2

SHOWCARD 

Q2. And thinking about this local area, which of the things, if any, do you think most need improving 

MULTICODE UP TO FIVE. 


All answering 


Base: (6,727) (6,819) (6,530) (6,370) 

% 1 % % % 

Clean streets 24 21 25 22 

Activities for teenagers 25 20 26 21 

Road and pavement repairs 20 17 20 19 

The level of crime 18 16 18 17 

Facilities for young children 12 13 13 14 

Availability of jobs 11 12 11 13 

The level of traffic congestion 12 11 13 11 

Health services 4 8 4 9 

Parks and open spaces 9 8 9 9 

Sports and leisure facilities 8 8 8 8 

Affordable decent housing 6 6 6 7 

Community activities 7 6 7 7 

Public transport 4 6 4 7 

Shopping facilities 6 5 7 5 

Wage levels and local cost of living 4 5 4 5 

Parking 3 3 3 4 

Cultural facilities (e.g. libraries, museums) 2 3 2 4 

The level of pollution 3 3 3 4 

Policing/Visible presence of police on the 2 3 2 3 

Education provision 2 3 2 3 

Control of speeding/traffic calming measures 2 3 2 3 

Race relations 1 3 1 3 

Control of dogs fouling on pavements 2 2 2 2 

Access to nature 1 2 1 2 

Street lighting 1 2 1 2 

None of these 23 21 24 23 

Don’t know 3 7 - - 

1 Please see computer tables for responses of 1% and below. 

3

SHOWCARD 

Q3. How strongly do you feel you belong to your immediate neighbourhood SINGLE CODE. 


All Answering 


(6,727) (6,819) (6,519) (6,561) 

% % % % 

Very strongly 39 44 40 46 

Fairly strongly 45 37 47 39 

Not very strongly 9 9 10 9 

Not at all strongly 4 6 4 6 


Total: Strongly 84 81 87 85 

Total: Not strongly 13 14 13 15 

Net strongly +71 +67 +74 +69 

SECTION 2: LOCAL PUBLIC SERVICES 

SHOWCARD 

Q4. Please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with each of the following public services in 

your local area READ OUT EACH STATEMENT. ROTATE ORDER. SINGLE CODE EACH 

Base: All respondents 

Very 

satisfied 

Fairly 

satisfied 

Neither 

satisfied 

nor dissatisfied 

Fairly dissatisfied 

Very dissatisfied 

Don’t 

know 

Haven’t 

used the 

service 

Total: 

Satisfied 

Total: 

Dissatisfied 

a) 

b) 

c) 

d) 

e) 

f) 

g) 

h) 

Bradford Council ’10 % 15 53 14 7 6 4 1 67 13 

overall ’11 % 26 41 11 7 5 7 2 68 12 

West Yorkshire ’10 % 19 48 13 6 5 4 6 67 10 

Police ’11 % 27 35 8 5 4 7 14 62 10 

West Yorkshire ’10 % 22 42 11 2 1 4 18 64 2 

Fire & Rescue 

Authority ’11 % 30 27 5 1 * 7 29 58 1 

Your GP (Family ’10 % 39 42 8 4 3 2 2 81 7 

doctor) ’11 % 49 35 5 3 2 4 2 84 5 

Your local ’10 % 32 45 10 4 2 3 5 77 6 

hospital ’11 % 41 35 8 4 2 5 6 76 6 

Your local NHS ’10 % 25 37 11 4 9 3 11 61 13 

dentist ’11 % 32 31 7 4 9 5 11 63 13 

Your local bus ’10 % 21 44 10 4 3 2 15 65 7 

services ’11 % 31 33 6 4 3 5 17 64 7 

Your local rail ’10 % 19 39 10 2 2 5 24 58 3 

services ’11 % 29 29 7 2 1 6 26 58 3 

4

SHOWCARD 

Q4. Please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with each of the following public services in 

your local area READ OUT EACH STATEMENT. ROTATE ORDER. SINGLE CODE EACH 

Base: All using the service and answering each question 

Base 

Very 

satisfied 

Fairly 

satisfied 

Neither 

satisfied 


Fairly 

dissatisfied 

Very 

dissatisfied 

Total: 

Satisfied 

Total: 

Dissatisfied 

a) 

b) 

c) 

d) 

Bradford Council (6,403) ’10 % 15 56 15 8 6 71 14 

overall (6,213) ’11 % 29 45 12 7 6 74 13 

West Yorkshire (6,049) ’10 % 21 54 14 6 5 74 11 

Police (5,429) ’11 % 34 44 10 7 5 78 12 

West Yorkshire Fire (5,239) ’10 % 28 54 14 2 1 83 3 

& Rescue Authority (4,358) ’11 % 47 43 8 1 1 90 2 

Your GP (Family (6,486) ’10 % 40 44 9 4 3 84 7 

doctor) (6,411) ’11 % 52 37 5 3 2 89 5 

e) Your local hospital 

f) 

g) 

h) 

(6,242) ’10 % 34 48 11 4 3 82 7 

(6,112) ’11 % 46 39 8 4 3 85 7 

Your local NHS (5,764) ’10 % 29 43 13 5 10 72 16 

dentist (5,669) ’11 % 39 38 8 5 10 76 15 

Your local bus (5,539) ’10 % 26 54 12 5 4 79 8 

services (5,281) ’11 % 40 42 8 5 4 83 9 

Your local rail (4,823) ’10 % 26 55 14 3 2 81 5 

services (4,636) ’11 % 42 43 10 3 2 85 5 

SECTION 3: COMMUNITY SAFETY 

We’d now like to ask you a few questions about crime and community safety in your local area. 

SHOWCARD 

Q5. a) How safe or unsafe do you feel outside in your local area after dark SINGLE CODE. 


All answering 


Base: (6,727) (6,819) (6,659) (4,848) 

% % % % 

Very safe 36 41 36 42 

Fairly safe 36 30 37 31 

Neither safe nor unsafe 9 9 9 9 

Fairly unsafe 9 7 9 8 

Very unsafe 9 10 9 11 


Total: Safe 72 71 73 73 

Total: Unsafe 18 18 19 18 

Net safe +53 +53 +54 +55 

5

Q5. b) How safe or unsafe do you feel when outside in your local area during the day SINGLE CODE 


All answering 


Base: (6,727) (6,819) (6,699) (6,776) 

% % % % 

Very safe 69 77 69 77 

Fairly safe 26 17 26 17 

Neither safe nor unsafe 3 3 3 3 

Fairly unsafe 2 2 2 2 

Very unsafe 1 1 1 1 

Don’t know * 1 - - 

Total: Safe 94 94 95 95 

Total: Unsafe 2 2 2 2 

Net safe +92 +92 +92 +92 

SHOWCARD 

Q6. Thinking about this local area, how much of a problem do you think are… 

READ OUT EACH. ROTATE ORDER. SINGLE CODE EACH 


A very big 

problem 

A fairly big 

problem 

Not a 

very big 

problem 

Not a 

problem 

at all 

Don't 

know/ no 

opinion 

Total: 

A big 

problem 

Total: 

Not a big 

problem 

a) 

Noisy neighbours or loud 2010 % 4 8 15 72 1 12 87 

parties 2011 % 6 7 10 73 4 13 83 

b) Teenagers hanging around 2010 % 10 18 19 52 1 28 71 

the streets 2011 % 10 13 16 57 4 23 73 

c) Rubbish or litter lying 2010 % 10 16 19 54 1 26 73 

around 2011 % 11 14 17 54 4 25 71 

d) 

Vandalism, graffiti and 

other deliberate damage to 

2010 % 7 11 16 66 1 17 82 

property or vehicles 2011 % 7 10 13 67 4 17 79 

e) People using or dealing 2010 % 8 12 10 64 6 20 74 

drugs 2011 % 9 10 9 63 10 19 71 

f) People being drunk or 2010 % 5 9 15 70 2 14 84 

rowdy in public places 2011 % 6 7 10 70 6 13 80 

g) Abandoned or burnt out 2010 % 1 4 10 82 2 6 92 

cars 2011 % 3 4 6 80 7 6 86 

6

Q6. Thinking about this local area, how much of a problem do you think are… 

READ OUT EACH. ROTATE ORDER. SINGLE CODE EACH 

Base: All answering each question 

a) 

b) 

c) 

d) 

e) 

f) 

g) 

Base 

A very big 

problem 

A fairly big 

problem 

Not a very 

big problem 

Not a 

problem at 

all 

Total: 

A big 

problem 

Total: 

Not a big 

problem 

Noisy neighbours or (6,667) 2010 % 4 8 15 73 13 87 

loud parties (6,566) 2011 % 6 8 10 76 14 86 

Teenagers hanging (6,667) 2010 % 10 18 19 53 28 72 

around the streets (6,549) 2011 % 10 14 17 59 24 76 

Rubbish or litter lying (6,669) 2010 % 10 17 19 54 27 73 

around (6,560) 2011 % 12 15 17 56 26 74 

Vandalism, graffiti and 

other deliberate 

damage to property or 

vehicles 

(6,657) 2010 % 7 11 16 66 18 82 

(6,562) 2011 % 8 10 13 69 17 83 

People using or (6,327) 2010 % 9 12 11 68 21 79 

dealing drugs (6,133) 2011 % 10 11 9 70 21 79 

People being drunk or (6,594) 2010 % 5 9 15 71 14 86 

rowdy in public places (6,387) 2011 % 7 8 11 75 14 86 

Abandoned or burnt (6,668) 2010 % 1 4 10 84 6 94 

out cars (6,320) 2011 % 3 4 7 87 7 93 

SHOWCARD 

Q7. It is the responsibility of the police and other local public services to work in partnership to deal 

with anti-social behaviour and crime in your local area. So, how much would you agree or 

disagree that the police and other local public services seek people’s views about these issues in 

your local area SINGLE CODE. 


All answering 


Base: (6,727) (6,819) (5,642) (5,252) 

% % % % 

Strongly agree 7 10 9 13 

Tend to agree 38 33 46 43 

Neither agree nor disagree 17 14 20 18 

Tend to disagree 10 8 12 10 

Strongly disagree 11 12 13 16 

Don’t know 16 23 - - 

Total: Agree 46 43 55 56 

Total: Disagree 21 20 25 26 

Net agree +25 +23 +30 +30 

7

SHOWCARD 

Q8. How much would you agree or disagree that each of the following are successfully dealing with 

anti-social behaviour and crime in your local area READ OUT EACH STATEMENT. 

SINGLE CODE EACH 


Strongly 

agree 

Tend to 

agree 

Neither 

agree 

nor 

disagree 

Tend to 

disagree 

Strongly 

disagree 

Don’t 

know 

Total: 

Agree 

Total: 

Disagree 

2010 % 6 38 18 9 7 22 44 16 

a) Bradford Council 

2011 % 16 32 14 7 9 23 47 15 

West Yorkshire 2010 % 8 44 17 8 6 17 52 14 

b) 

Police 2011 % 17 36 12 6 8 21 53 14 

c) 

The police and other 2010 % 5 41 19 7 5 22 46 12 


overall 2011 % 14 35 15 6 7 23 49 14 

Q8. How much would you agree or disagree that each of the following are successfully dealing with 

anti-social behaviour and crime in your local area READ OUT EACH STATEMENT. 

SINGLE CODE EACH 


Base 

Strongly 

agree 

Tend to 

agree 

Neither 

agree nor 

disagree 

Tend to 

disagree 

Strongly 

disagree 

Total: 

Agree 

Total: 

Disagree 


b) 

(5,280) 2010 % 7 49 23 12 9 56 21 

(5,225) 2011 % 21 41 18 9 11 62 20 

West Yorkshire (5,579) 2010 % 9 53 20 10 7 63 17 

Police (5,389) 2011 % 21 45 16 8 10 67 18 

c) 

The police and other (5,237) 2010 % 7 53 25 9 7 59 16 


overall (5,278) 2011 % 18 45 19 8 10 63 18 

8

SECTION 4: TRANSPORT 

Q9. a) How do you usually travel to work If you use more than one mode of transport, please 

give the one that covers the longest distance. SINGLE CODE 

Base: All who commute to work: 2010 (2,688); 2011 (2,932) 

b) And, if there are school aged children in your household, how do they usually travel to 

school SINGLE CODE 

Base: All with school age children: 2010 (1,515); 2011 (1,905) 

Q9.a 

Work 

Q9.b 

School 


Car/Van (with no other passengers) 

% % % % 

69 69 - - 

Bus 10 12 13 16 

Walk 13 9 56 43 

Lift (from someone who then returns home) 4 4 23 25 

Train 3 3 1 1 

Car share 2 3 1 3 

Taxi 1 * * * 

Cycle * * * * 

Other * 1 * * 

Don’t know 0 - 8 13 

Q10. What, if anything, would encourage you to use your car less UNPROMPTED. MULTICODE 


% 2 % 

Improved public transport: 10 12 

Reduce public transport fares/make public transport fares less than 

running a car 

4 4 

Improved frequency 3 4 

Improved punctuality and reliability 2 4 

More destinations, later buses/trains 2 4 

More information/Timetable information 1 3 

Better access and facilities 1 3 

Improved cleanliness of public transport 1 2 

Improved attitudes of staff 1 2 

Improve safety on public transport/Safe place to wait * 2 

More seats available on public transport * 2 

Increase in cost of fuel 1 3 

Fewer car parking spaces 1 3 

Increase in car taxes (e.g. MOT, Car Tax, insurance) * 2 

Other 3 1 

Nothing/Do not want to use a car less 49 44 

Don’t know 5 4 

Do not have a car/Do not drive 33 35 

2 Please see computer tables for answers below half of one per cent but greater than zero. 

9

SECTION 5: INFORMATION 

SHOWCARD 

Q11. And how well informed do you feel about each of the following READ OUT EACH STATEMENT. 

ROTATE ORDER. SINGLE CODE EACH. 


Very well 

informed 

Fairly well 

informed 

Not very 

well 

informed 

Not well 

informed 

at all 

Don’t 

know 

Total: 

Informed 

Total: Not 

informed 

a) 

How and where to register to 

2010 % 37 43 7 5 8 80 12 

vote 2011 % 42 36 5 6 11 77 11 

b) How your council tax is spent 

c) 

2010 % 17 48 15 11 9 65 27 

2011 % 26 38 11 12 13 65 23 

How you can get involved in 2010 % 11 34 20 19 15 45 40 

local decision-making 2011 % 20 28 16 18 18 48 34 

d) 

e) 

f) 

g) 

h) 

i) 

Where to obtain information 2010 % 16 37 16 14 17 54 29 

about employment and skills 2011 % 23 30 12 16 19 53 28 

Where to obtain information 2010 % 12 34 15 18 21 46 33 

about setting up a business 2011 % 20 25 12 20 23 45 32 

What standard of service you 2010 % 12 39 20 16 14 51 35 

should expect from local 

public services 2011 % 23 33 15 15 15 55 30 

How well local public 2010 % 12 40 20 17 12 51 36 

services are performing 2011 % 22 34 16 14 14 55 30 

How to complain about local 2010 % 15 39 18 15 12 55 33 

public services 2011 % 25 32 15 14 14 57 29 

What to do in the event of a 2010 % 14 43 16 15 13 56 31 

large-scale emergency e.g. 

flooding, human pandemic flu 2011 % 21 29 16 16 18 49 32 

j) Local public services overall 

2010 % 12 49 17 11 11 61 28 

2011 % 22 37 15 11 14 59 27 

10

Q11. And how well informed do you feel about each of the following 

READ OUT EACH STATEMENT. ROTATE ORDER. SINGLE CODE EACH. 


Base 

Very well 

informed 

Fairly well 

informed 

Not very 

well 

informed 

Not well 

informed at 

all 

Total: 

Informed 

Total: Not 

informed 

a) 

How and where to register to 

(6,174) 2010 % 40 47 7 5 87 13 

vote (6,052) 2011 % 47 40 6 7 87 13 

b) How your council tax is spent 

c) 

(6,130) 2010 % 19 52 17 13 71 29 

(5,944) 2011 % 30 44 13 13 74 26 

How you can get involved in (5,701) 2010 % 13 40 24 23 53 47 

local decision-making (5,599) 2011 % 24 34 19 22 58 42 

d) 

e) 

f) 

g) 

h) 

i) 

Where to obtain information (5,586) 2010 % 20 45 19 17 65 35 

about employment and skills (5,529) 2011 % 29 36 15 20 65 35 

Where to obtain information (5,323) 2010 % 16 43 19 22 58 42 

about setting up a business (5,278) 2011 % 26 32 16 26 58 42 

What standard of service you (5,814) 2010 % 13 46 23 18 59 41 

should expect from local 

public services (5,795) 2011 % 27 38 18 17 65 35 

How well local public (5,891) 2010 % 13 45 22 19 59 41 

services are performing (5,935) 2011 % 25 39 18 17 65 35 

How to complain about local (5,912) 2010 % 17 45 21 17 62 38 

public services (5,846) 2011 % 29 37 17 16 66 34 

What to do in the event of a (5,879) 2010 % 15 49 18 17 65 35 

large-scale emergency e.g. 

flooding, human pandemic flu (5,567) 2011 % 25 35 20 20 60 40 

j) Local public services overall 

(5,998) 2010 % 13 55 19 12 69 31 

(5,853) 2011 % 26 43 18 13 69 31 

11

SHOWCARD 

Q12. From which sources on this card, if any, would you like to obtain most of your information 

about public services provided in the Bradford District Just read out the letter or letters 

that apply. MULTICODE 


% 3 % 

Information and newsletters through the post 37 41 

Internet/websites 27 33 

Local/regional newspapers 36 30 

The Council’s newspaper – “Community Pride” 23 16 

A – Z of Council services booklet 16 13 

Television 8 10 

Friends/Neighbours 9 9 

Local radio 13 8 

Council/ other offices 4 8 

Local libraries 6 7 

Contact with Council/service staff 4 6 

GP surgery 4 5 

Advice Centres, including Citizens Advice Bureaux 2 4 

Posters 5 4 

By Text/SMS 2 4 

Public meetings run by Council/ other organisations 3 3 

Contact with elected Councillors 2 3 

Newsletters from political parties 4 3 

Advertising on billboards/buses 3 3 

Tenants/Residents Associations 2 2 

Social Networks (online) 1 2 

Telephone 1 1 

None of these 5 2 


Q13. Do you use the internet at home PROBE. SINGLE CODE 


% % 

Total: Yes 63 70 

Yes, through a dial-up connection 2 1 

Yes, through a broadband connection 57 66 

Yes, through a mobile phone 6 3 

No 36 30 

Don’t know * 1 

3 Please see computer tables for answers below half of one per cent but greater than zero. 

12

SECTION 6: LOCAL DECISION MAKING 

SHOWCARD 


SINGLE CODE. 


All answering 


Base: (6,727) (6,819) (5,777) (5,717) 

% % % % 

Definitely agree 4 7 4 8 



Definitely disagree 25 31 29 37 

Don’t know 14 16 - - 



Net agree -13 -24 -15 -29 

Q15. We are interested to know about the unpaid help people give. Overall, about how often over the 

last 12 months have you given unpaid help to any group(s), club(s) or organisation(s) Please 

only include work that is unpaid and not for your family. SINGLE CODE 


All answering 


% % % % 

Total: Given any unpaid help 11 16 11 17 

At least once a week 4 4 4 4 

Less than once a week but at least once a 

month 

2 4 2 4 

Less often 3 7 3 7 

I give unpaid help as an individual only and 

not through groups(s) club(s) or 2 2 2 2 

organisation(s) 

I have not given any unpaid help at all over 

the last 12 months 

85 79 89 83 


 

Q16. 

SHOWCARD 

a) Are you currently involved in any of the following areas Just read out the letters that 

apply MULTICODE 

b) Would you like to be contacted about taking up an opportunity in any of these areas 

Please note that if you say ‘yes’ to any area then your contact details will be shared with 

Bradford Council. All your other answers will remain confidential. MULTICODE 

a) Currently 

Involved 

b) Would like 

to be contacted 

% % 

Involved with others in your street or neighbourhood (e.g. a 

neighbourhood watch, organising a street party) 

4 4 

As a regular volunteer (e.g., visiting a housebound older 

person on a regular unpaid basis) 

4 2 

As an active member of a community group 4 2 

Involved in fundraising activities for charity 4 2 

Involved in meetings that concern your neighbourhood 2 4 

Undertaking a civic role (e.g. school governor, magistrate) 2 2 

None 84 88 


13

SECTION 7: QUALIFICATIONS & SKILLS 

SHOWCARD 

Q17. The next few questions are about your education, qualification and skills. For each of the 

following statements please tell me whether you agree or disagree SINGLE CODE FOR EACH 

STATEMENT. 

a) 

b) 

c) 

d) 

I am happy with the 

qualifications I have 

A lack of qualifications is 

holding me back 

I need to improve my 

skills over the next 12 

months 

I am willing to pay to 

improve my skills 

Strongly 

agree 

Tend to 

agree 

Neither 

agree 

nor 

disagree 

Tend to 

disagree 

Strongly 

disagree 

Don’t 

know 

Total: 

Agree 

Total: 

Disagree 

% 35 28 18 7 4 7 63 11 

% 3 9 20 14 46 7 12 61 

% 6 12 21 11 44 7 17 54 

% 5 12 23 11 41 9 16 52 

SECTION 8: RESPECT & CONSIDERATION 

SHOWCARD 

Q18. To what extent do you agree or disagree that in your local area, parents take enough 

responsibility for the behaviour of their children SINGLE CODE. 


All answering 


Base: (6,727) (6,819) (6,367) (6,376) 

% % % % 



Neither agree nor disagree 13 11 14 12 






Net agree +33 +35 +34 +38 

14

SHOWCARD 

Q19. To what extent do you agree or disagree that your local area is a place where people from 

different backgrounds get on well together SINGLE CODE. 


All answering 


Base: (6,727) (6,819) (5,752) (5,722) 

% % % % 






Too few people in local area 1 2 - - 

All the same background 7 7 - - 

Agree 68 70 80 83 

Disagree 17 14 20 17 

Net agree +51 +56 +60 +66 

SHOWCARD 

Q20. In your local area, how much of a problem do you think there is with people not treating each 

other with respect and consideration SINGLE CODE. 


All answering 


Base: (6,727) (6,819) (6,445) (6,477) 

% % % % 

A very big problem 6 7 7 8 

A fairly big problem 13 13 13 14 

Not a very big problem 31 19 33 20 

Not a problem at all 46 55 48 58 

Don’t know/ No opinion 4 5 - - 

A big problem 19 21 20 22 

Not a big problem 77 74 80 78 

Net -58 -54 -60 -57 

SHOWCARD 


of the following READ OUT EACH STATEMENT. ROTATE ORDER. SINGLE CODE EACH. 


All of 

the time 

15 

Most of 

the time 

Some of 

the time 

Rarely 

Never 

Don’t know/ 

No opinion 


2010 % 23 38 14 3 2 20 

2011 % 31 30 11 3 1 23 

b) West Yorkshire Police 

2010 % 23 37 14 3 1 23 

2011 % 29 29 10 2 1 29 

c) NHS Bradford & Airedale 

2010 % 32 40 12 2 1 13 

2011 % 38 32 8 2 1 20 

d) 

West Yorkshire Fire & 2010 % 23 35 11 1 1 30 

Rescue 2011 % 30 27 5 1 * 37 

e) 

Your local public services 2010 % 24 43 14 2 1 16 

overall 2011 % 32 34 10 2 * 22


of the following READ OUT EACH STATEMENT. ROTATE ORDER. SINGLE CODE EACH. 


Base: 

All of 

the time 

Most of 

the time 

Some of 

the time 

Rarely 

Never 


(5,352) 2010 % 29 48 18 4 2 

(5,225) 2011 % 41 39 14 4 2 

b) West Yorkshire Police 

(5,199) 2010 % 30 47 18 3 2 

(4,857) 2011 % 41 41 14 3 1 

c) NHS Bradford & Airedale 

(5,866) 2010 % 37 46 14 2 1 

(5,485) 2011 % 47 40 10 2 1 

d) 

West Yorkshire Fire & (4,683) 2010 % 33 50 15 1 1 

Rescue (4,29) 2011 % 47 42 8 1 1 

e) 

Your local public services (5,645) 2010 % 29 51 17 2 1 

overall (5,305) 2011 % 41 43 13 2 1 

Q22. In your opinion, are older people in your local area able to get the services and support they 

need to continue to live at home for as long as they want to (This could include help or 

support from public, private or voluntary services or from family, friends and the wider 

community). SINGLE CODE. 


% % 

Yes 45 47 

No 18 17 


SECTION 9: HEALTH & WELL-BEING 

I am now going to ask you a few questions about your health and general well being. 

Q23. a) How is your health in general Would you say it was… READ OUT. SINGLE CODE 

b) Would you say that the health of your teeth is… READ OUT. SINGLE CODE 

a) General health B) Teeth 


% % % % 

Very good 31 28 27 25 

Good 47 49 45 47 

Fair 17 15 18 18 

Bad 4 6 4 5 

Very bad 1 1 1 1 

Not applicable/Do not have teeth * 0 * 5 

Total: Good 78 78 72 72 

Total: Bad 5 7 5 6 

Net good +74 +71 +67 +66 

16

Q24. Do you look after a relative, friend or child who needs support to live at home due to a physical 

or mental disability or illness or due to being elderly or frail (in an unpaid capacity) 

SINGLE CODE 


% % 

Yes 8 10 

No 92 90 

SHOWCARD 

Q25. Please tell me how satisfied or dissatisfied you are with the support you get from each of the 

following READ OUT EACH STATEMENT. ROTATE ORDER. SINGLE CODE EACH 

a) 

b) 

Base: All carers: 2010 (547), 2011 (729) 

Bradford Council 

The NHS 

Very 

satisfied 

Fairly 

satisfied 

Neither 

satisfied 


Fairly 

dissatisfied 

Very dissatisfied 

Don’t 

know 

Haven’t 

used the 

service 

Total: 

Satisfied 

Total: 

Dissatisfied 

2010 % 15 18 11 5 12 5 35 33 17 

2011 % 23 18 7 5 9 13 25 40 15 

2010 % 26 22 10 4 7 4 26 49 11 

2011 % 32 21 6 4 5 14 18 53 9 

c) The voluntary 2010 % 10 14 9 3 7 6 51 24 10 

sector 2011 % 13 17 10 4 6 14 36 30 10 

SHOWCARD 

Q26. How well do you think that people in the Bradford District are encouraged and supported to 

do each of the following READ OUT EACH STATEMENT. ROTATE ORDER. SINGLE CODE 

EACH 

Very 

well 

Quite 

well 

Not very 

well 

Not 

at all 

Don’t 

know 

Total: 

Well 

Total: 

Not well 

a) 

To be physically 2010 % 12 50 11 9 18 63 20 

active 2011 % 19 39 10 8 24 57 19 

b) To eat healthily 

2010 % 13 48 12 9 17 61 22 

2011 % 19 35 13 9 24 54 22 

c) To quit smoking 

2010 % 16 47 10 8 19 64 18 

2011 % 24 35 9 8 24 59 17 

d) 

To drink alcohol 2010 % 12 46 12 9 21 58 21 

sensibly 2011 % 19 33 11 10 26 52 22 

17

SECTION 10: HOUSING 

SHOWCARD 

Q27. How satisfied are you with the overall condition of your property SINGLE CODE. 


% % 

Very satisfied 46 58 

Fairly satisfied 44 30 

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 6 7 

Fairly dissatisfied 3 4 

Very dissatisfied 2 2 

Don’t know * * 

Total: Satisfied 89 88 

Total: Dissatisfied 4 5 

Net satisfied +85 +83 

Q28. How many bedrooms does your property have SINGLE CODE. 


% % 

None/bed-sit * * 

1 bedroom 4 5 

2 bedrooms 29 26 



5+ bedrooms 3 3 

Can’t remember * * 

SECTION 11: ENVIRONMENT & CLIMATE CHANGE 

SHOWCARD 

Q29. How concerned are you about the impact of climate change SINGLE CODE. 


% % 

Very concerned 11 14 

Fairly concerned 40 36 

Not very concerned 26 19 

Not at all concerned 19 25 


Total: Concerned 51 51 

Total: Not concerned 45 44 

Net concerned +6 +7 

18

SHOWCARD 

Q30. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about climate change 

READ OUT EACH STATEMENT. SINGLE CODE EACH 

a) 

b) 

I have a role as an 

individual in 

trying to tackle 

climate change 

I know what 

actions I should be 

taking to tackle 

climate change 

Strongly 

agree 

Tend to 

agree 

Neither 

agree 

nor 

disagree 

Tend to 

disagree 

Strongly 

disagree 

Don’t 

know 

Total: 

Agree 

Total: 

Disagree 

2010 % 13 43 24 7 6 8 56 13 

2011 % 18 40 17 9 7 9 58 16 

2010 % 14 43 25 5 5 8 57 10 

2011 % 17 41 19 8 6 8 58 14 

SHOWCARD 

Q31. a) Which of the following activities, if any, are you currently undertaking in an effort to tackle 

climate change or to improve the energy efficiency of your home Just read out the letters. 

MULTICODE 

b) And which ones, if any, are you likely to undertake in the near future MULTICODE 

A) 

Already 

doing 

B) 

Likely to do in 

the near future 


% 4 % % 5 % 

Recycling/recycling more 57 65 26 31 

Switching off lights when leaving a room 43 41 7 13 

Using a “bag for life” in the supermarket/other shops 41 34 6 12 

Changing existing light bulbs to energy efficient light bulbs 32 33 7 15 

Turning the central heating down 24 30 4 9 

Turning TV/electrical appliances off rather than leaving on standby 33 28 5 11 

Walking more 19 18 5 5 

Composting 12 13 4 8 

Installed/upgraded home insulation 10 11 3 4 

Installed a new A or B energy rated boiler 8 8 2 3 

Eating more seasonal local food 8 7 3 4 

Using the car less often 7 7 1 2 

Using public transport more 7 7 1 2 

Sharing a car ride 4 4 1 1 

Cycling more 4 4 2 2 

Asking other family members and friends to do some of the above 5 3 1 3 

Implementing any small energy saving changes in my workplace or 3 2 * 1 

elsewhere 

Installing renewable technology (e.g. wind turbine, solar energy) 2 1 1 3 

Don’t know/Can’t remember/None of these 22 15 52 43 

4 Please see computer tables for responses of below 1%. 

5 Ibid. 

19

SECTION 12: ENGAGEMENT IN THE ARTS 

Q32. Have you attended any creative, artistic, theatrical, musical or craft events at least 3 times in the 

last 12 months SINGLE CODE 

Q33. And have you spent time actually doing any creative, artistic, theatrical, musical or craft activities 

at least 3 times in the last 12 months SINGLE CODE 

Q32. Attended Q33. Spent time doing 


% % % % 

No 81 80 86 86 

Yes 19 19 14 13 

Don’t know/Can’t remember * 1 1 2 

SECTION 13: FINANCIAL EXCLUSION 

Q34. Which of the following statements about Credit Unions in the Bradford District best describes 

you READ OUT. SINGLE CODE. 


% % 

Total: Have heard of one of them 46 38 

I have heard of them and have used one 2 3 

I have heard of them but have never used one 44 35 

I have never heard of them 54 61 

Don’t know * * 

SHOWCARD 

Q35. How much would you agree or disagree with each of the following statements 

READ OUT EACH STATEMENT. ROTATE ORDER. SINGLE CODE EACH 

a) 

Strongly 

agree 

Tend to 

agree 

Neither / 

Nor 

Tend to 

disagree 

Strongly 

disagree 

Don’t 

know 

Total: 

Agree 

Total: 

Disagree 

I am good at 2010 % 30 42 15 7 3 3 72 9 

managing my money 

and financial affairs 2011 % 39 35 11 6 2 7 74 8 

b) I have difficulty 

finding the money to 

2010 % 6 16 20 27 24 6 22 51 

pay for my heating 

and hot water 2011 % 4 16 17 17 36 9 21 53 

c) I am worried about 

the amount of debt I 

2010 % 5 14 17 24 37 4 19 61 

have 2011 % 5 10 18 14 36 7 15 60 

d) I am worried about 2010 % 7 22 17 20 29 4 30 49 

getting into debt 2011 % 8 20 18 10 36 7 29 47 

e) 

If I needed to, I could 2010 % 15 23 22 14 14 13 37 28 

get a bank loan or 

overdraft 2011 % 15 18 22 6 21 18 33 27 

f) I know where to get 

free debt advice in 

2010% - - - - - - - - 

the Bradford District 2011% 9 16 23 8 28 16 26 36 

20

SECTION 14: FURTHER RESEARCH 

Q36. We value your views, and may wish to contact you again to discuss your views in more detail. 

Are you happy for us to do that The personal details you have provided here would be held 

by Bradford Council and processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. They 

would only be used by the council and/or its partners in order to contact you. IF YES, CODE 

BELOW AND RECORD RESPONDENT’S DETAILS CAREFULLY AND OBTAIN SIGNATURE IN 

BOX BELOW. 


% % 

Yes 7 5 

No 93 95 

SECTION 15: CLASSIFICATIONS 

Gender 

Age 

% 

Men 49 

Women 51 

% 

16-24 18 

25-34 18 

35-44 18 

45-54 16 

55-64 13 

65-74 9 

75+ 9 

No of children aged 17 or under in household 

% 

Any 30 

None 61 

1 child 17 

2 children 13 

3 children 6 

4 children 2 

5 children 1 

6 children * 

7 children * 

8 children * 

Mean 0.74 

No of adults in household 

% 

None - 

1 adult 28 

2 adults 54 

3 adults 12 

4 adults 4 

5 adults 1 

6 adults 1 

7 adults * 

8 adults * 

Mean 2 

D4. Socio-economic grade 

% 

AB 13 

C1 24 

C2 23 

D 16 

E 20 

Refused 3 

Household relationships 

% 

Living alone 22 

Living with partner 54 

Living with child 38 

Living with parent 13 

Living with grandparent 1 

Living with grandchild 1 

Living with sibling 7 

Living with other relative 2 

Living with other unrelated 2 

21

D5. Which of these activities best describes 

what you are doing at present 

% 

Employee in full-time job (30 hours plus 32 

per week) 

Employee in part-time job (under 30 hours 10 

per week) 

Self employed full or part-time 4 

On a government supported training * 

programme (e.g. Modern Apprenticeship/ 

Training for Work) 

Full-time education at school, college or 6 

university 

Unemployed and available for work 9 

Permanently sick/disabled 4 

Wholly retired from work 21 

Looking after the home 12 

Doing something else 1 

Carer * 

Refused * 

D6. In which of these ways does your 

household occupy your current 

accommodation 

% 

Owned outright 37 

Buying on a mortgage 34 

Rent from the Council/’In Communities’ 11 

Rent from a Housing Association/Trust 5 

Rented from a private landlord 12 

Shared ownership * 

Tied to job * 

Other * 

SHOWCARD 

D7. Do you have any long-standing illness, 

disability or infirmity (long-standing means 

anything that has troubled you over a period of 

time or that is likely to affect you over a period 

of time). IF YES. Which of the following best 

describes your disability Just read out the 

letter 

% 

No 82 

Yes: 17 

Physical disability 12 

Learning disability * 

Mental health issue 2 

Sight loss 1 

Blind * 

Hearing loss 1 

Deaf * 

Other substantial and long term condition 1 

Refused 1 

2 

D8. Does this illness or disability limit your 

activities in any way 

Base: All who have a disability (1,127) 

% 

Yes 81 

No 19 

SHOWCARD 

D9. Which of the following do you consider 

yourself to be Just read out the letter. 

READ OUT. SINGLE CODE 

% 

Heterosexual/Straight 94 

Gay or Lesbian 1 

Bisexual * 

Don’t know/refused 5 

SHOWCARD 

D10. Which of the following best describes your 

religious belief / faith SINGLE CODE 

% 

Buddhist * 

Christian 44 

Hindu 1 

Jewish * 

Muslim 17 

Sikh * 

Other religion 1 

No religion 35 

Refused 1 

SHOWCARD 

D11. To which of the groups on this card do you 

consider you belong to Just read out the letter 

that applies. SINGLE CODE. 

% 

WHITE 77 

British 76 

Irish * 

Any other white background * 

MIXED 1 

White and Black Caribbean 1 

White and Black African * 

White and Asian * 

Any other mixed background * 

ASIAN OR ASIAN BRITISH 19 

Indian 3 

Pakistani 14 

Bangladeshi 2 

Any other Asian background * 

BLACK OR BLACK BRITISH 2 

Caribbean 1 

African * 

Any other black background * 

CHINESE OR OTHER ETHNIC 

GROUP 

1 

Chinese 1 

Any other background 1 

Refused * 

22

Bradford District 

Residents’ 

Perceptions 

Survey 2011 

ICM Government & Social Research 

Berkshire House 

168-173 High Holborn 

London 

WC1V 7AA 

www.icmresearch.com 

Client 

logo

Bradford District Residents' Perceptions Survey 2011

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?