Page 1

KNOWING PEOPLE Report of research on behalf of Powis Community Centre Association to inform future service planning

Professor Karen McArdle (Emerita) FRSA University of Aberdeen | October 2017


Powis Community Centre Association Management Committee Members LIza Topal (Chair) Linda Presslie (Treasurer) Jennifer Munro (Secretary) David Massie (Vice Chair) Fiona Lindsay Marc Munro Geri Duncan Jackie Main Stephen Clark Ann Pirie Victoria Pirie Lynn Winchester Rachel Smith

1


1. Introduction The researcher agreed in early 2017 to conduct research (pro bono) for Powis Community Centre Association. The Principal’s Fund of the University of Aberdeen provided funding for students to implement the research design and Aberdeen City Council funded the production of this report. 1.1 Aim The context for the research was linked to proposed re-development of the Powis Community Centre building and the need to research community needs, desires and wants; to research likely use of the centre; and attitudes to quality of life of the community of Powis. 1.2 Powis Community Powis is a small community in Aberdeen, Scotland, constituted by three main residential streets, with 320 households located near to shops and to the University of Aberdeen. It has a population in the region of 1200 people. It has a large historical building as its community centre and this is managed by a Committee of volunteers known as the Powis Community Centre Association. The Committee is large and meetings are well attended. A sub group of volunteers oversaw the design and implementation of the research including design of the interview questionnaire. 2. Methodology The Powis Community Centre Association’s needs for the research were clearly expressed and suggested the need for a methodology that would embrace both open and closed questions. As literacy and motivation could be an issue in any do-it-yourself questionnaire, an interview method was considered to be appropriate. A fairly long questionnaire was designed with 23 questions (Appendix B). It characteristically took 20 minutes to complete. It was decided that all households in Powis should be included in the research, with one person from each household to answer questions. If others in the household wished to participate they would not be denied the opportunity. Door-knocking to secure a respondent was tried a maximum of three times for any household and times for interview visits were varied between morning, afternoon, evening and weekend slots to maximise participation. Residents were advised by local door notices that students would be calling. Local police were advised of the visits and students interviewed in pairs for security. It was agreed that children would not be included in the research as a separate cohort of respondents. The minimum age was set as 16 years. A mix of demographic data, such as main language used in the household and age was sought as well as desires for activities and availability to use the centre. In addition attitudinal questions were asked to assess views of the community. Of those who were at home or answered the door, only 3 households refused to answer the questions of the interviewers. The questionnaires were coded and data cleansed for use in SPSS computer software but time prevented data entry and data was analysed manually. SPSS may be used for further analysis at a later date.

2


Ethical issues were considered to be relatively limited as these were adult respondents from the general population and the only issues that arose were linked to confidentiality as some respondents were recognisable by guesswork on the part of Association members. Interviewers reported that some potential respondents had been hesitant in opening the door fearing they were from an authority such as debt collectors. Interviewers were careful to reassure these people and indeed all respondents about the purpose and intent of the research. 3. Findings Section 1 – Demographic Data A total of 126 interviews were conducted in 126 households. All households were included in the door knocking exercise. This represents 39% of households of the target area and is considered to be a very good and a representative coverage for a relatively small scale, time constrained study. Please note percentages have been rounded up or down in the rest of this report and, accordingly, may not add up to 100% exactly 58 (46%) respondents were men and 68 (54%) were women. A small balance in favour of women is what we would expect from a household survey of this nature in this kind of community. All respondents were checked to be residents of Powis. The age of respondents was balanced across age categories. The table below shows the age profile of respondents.

Age

16 – 20 7%

7%

9%

21 – 25

12%

26 – 30 17%

31 - 45 13%

46 – 55 56 – 65 66 – 75

35%

It is clear that the population interviewed were predominantly in the age range 31 – 55 years (56%), middle aged which reflects the balance of the local population according to local knowledge. The ages were balanced for men and women.

3


The unemployment rate is higher than for the city as a whole and employment lower, which accords with local unemployment statistics. Unemployment in Aberdeen is 6.1% compared to the Scottish average of 4.5%. The number of students is higher than for other comparable areas of Aberdeen probably because of the proximity of Powis to the local University. The Association was interested in the number of people living in households. The number of houses with high density living was high with18% of households having 5 or more residents.

Number of residents in the household 10%

6%

2%

1 2

17%

3 4

14%

5

25%

6 7

26%

The number of people resident in the household under the age of 16 was asked. Comparing the two tables it appears that some of the households had multiple adult occupants.

Residents under 16 in household 6%

4% 1% 1% 1%

1 2

14%

48%

3 4 5 6 7

25%

No answer

4


It appears that Powis is very multicultural because, when asked for the first language of the household the following languages were mentioned Polish (14 households), Urdu (6), Bengali (6), Latvian (3), Filipino (2), Ukrainian (2), Spanish (2), Lithuanian (2), Portuguese (2) Punjabi (1), Hindi (1), Arabic (1), Hungarian (1), German (1), Tagalog (1). It is interesting that there are residents for whom English is not the first language, who may not have other households with the same language.

Is English your first language? 3% 34%

YES 63%

NO No answer

The length of stay in Powis was strongly skewed to greater lengths of time. This was linked to the number of people who were pensioners but was also true for the middle aged respondents and comment later in the questionnaire suggested long stays in Powis and close family connections in the area. 85 (67%) residents interviewed had lived there for more than 6 years with 53 (42%) having lived there for 11 + years. Section 2 – Attitudes to Powis Open questions are discussed in more detail in the Discussion section of this report. There were many diverse responses and it is considered desirable that none should be lost so these are included in the next section, with the main findings presented here. Residents were encouraged to give up to 3 answers and all of these were coded so the figures below relate to responses not number of people and accordingly tally to more than 126. When asked the best things about living in Powis, the location of Powis was the most popular response with 84 people (66%) mentioning proximity to University, shops, city centre, work or schools. 51 responses mentioned people, neighbours and relationships. 33 times people mentioned the environment (that it is green). “That it is quiet” was mentioned 30 times. Again 30 times people mentioned sense of community or that it has a community spirit or feels like a village. A range of other answers were given that concerned the community centre (10) and safety (8). The rest of the responses were mentioned by less than 5 people. The worst things about Powis also allowed for 3 answers. By far the highest number of responses fell to anti-social behaviour, neighbours’ behaviour and the behaviour of young people: 42 responses concerned an element of this adult or teen behaviour. Vandalism and lack of safety were mentioned by 2 people. Examples of this kind of behaviour were given and are discussed in the next section.

5


Parking was mentioned as a problem in 26 responses; fly-tipping, dirt and rubbish in 21 responses. “Nothing for the kids / children / teens” was mentioned by 17 people. When asked what the worst thing about Powis was, 20 people replied “Nothing”, meaning that nothing at all was bad. The remaining responses were mentioned by 5 people or fewer and are discussed in the next section. When asked what could be improved in Powis, 36 people made reference to a kids’ play park being needed or improvements to existing facilities for children and 4 additional responses referred to resources for teens to stop anti-social behaviour. 21 people mentioned parking. 16 comments were made about getting rid of rubbish and improvements to refuse collection, cleaning hallways. No answer was given by 25 people and 10 people said that nothing needed improving. Other answers that scored 5 or less are discussed in the next section. How things could be improved was a question that was not understood and remained largely unanswered and should perhaps have been phrased as WHO could do the improvement and leaves a gap for further research. Section 3 – The Community Centre When Respondents were asked whether they had used the centre, 71 (56%) respondents had and 55 (44%) had not. This shows that the Centre has an importance for a large number of residents but there is scope for increasing community involvement. Reasons for using the centre were asked and the following answers given. Once again, sometimes more than one answer was given.

Reasons for using the centre Dancing Work Arts and Crafts Gym Church Have a look Meetings Volunteering Parties Adults courses Voting Kids clubs and activities Café/breakfast 0

5

10

15

20

25

Respondents who answered no to attending the community centre were asked why and the following reasons were given: 6


Reasons given for not using the Centre I am a student, not for me Expensive Don’t like it Anti-social/not good at socialising More for children Anxiety/not feeling safe/disabled Night shift Do not know about it Not interested No Time/too busy 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Asked what respondents would like to see at the Centre produced many responses. Again, all these are discussed in the next section but a few scored more highly than single mentions and these are shown here. 27 people mentioned a gym or aerobics and 22 mentioned Zumba. 27 mentioned things for kids, of which 5 referred to Homework Club. Yoga received 11 mentions. 26 people referred to Arts and Crafts. 12 people mentioned ESOL and 5 wanted to learn languages other than English, such as Spanish. The remaining 50 responses were mentioned by only one person except Job club/ self-esteem/ confidence building (3). When asked what people would actually attend again there were many individual responses. 25 people mentioned gym. 15 people mentioned pool room. 16 people mentioned arts and crafts. 6 people mentioned Zumba and 15 mentioned yoga. ESOL was mentioned by 7 people and Homework club by 9. 7 people mentioned back-to-work and self-esteem/confidence. The lower scoring activities are discussed in the next section. The best time for attending was asked and this was very evenly spread across age, sex and employment status. Again, people were able to give more than one answer.

7


Asked if they would pay to attend 90 people said Yes and 31 said No. The rest chose not to answer. When asked what would be a reasonable cost the following answers were given. Where people provided more than one number, the higher has been coded.

What would be a reasonable cost? Donation People are poor here Should be free Very low price £20 £11 £10 £8 £6 £5 £4 £3 £2 £1 0

5

10

15

20

25

It seems that the majority, 62 people who responded think it should be £5 or less. The next question asked if respondents had any knowledge or skills to share and the researcher was surprised at the number who answered yes (43) and chose to give their names (43). This is approximately a third of those interviewed being willing to help. Names were passed to the researcher and were NOT noted on the questionnaire itself to protect confidentiality. The range of skills and knowledge is discussed in the next section. The final question in this section asked what the most important use for the Community Centre was to elicit attitudes to the centre. 37 people mentioned inclusion and socialising, friendship and bringing the different communities together. 13 also mentioned some aspect of fostering existing communities and discussion of community issues. 30 people mentioned importance for children, including both positive activities and keeping them off the streets. The low scoring items are discussed in the next section.

8


Section 4 – Quality of Life in Powis Residents were asked if they feel a sense of well-being living in Powis.

Do you feel a sense of wellbeing living in Powis? 13%

1%

YES NO 86%

Other

108 (86%) people said Yes. 16 (13%) people said no. Other answers included ambivalent views – not good/not bad, up and down, it’s a mixed feeling both good and bad. The reasons given were very interesting and once again, were very individual and are discussed in detail in the next section to make sure none are lost. 56 (44%) people gave a positive answer relating to friends, neighbours, family and relationships. 22 people mentioned an aspect of safety as being positive, whilst 5 thought Powis unsafe. 13 people mentioned some aspect of belonging and living a long time in Powis. 12 people mentioned a positive aspect of community. 10 people mentioned some aspect of the environment or green space. 5 people referred negatively to the environment mostly mentioning rubbish. 4. Discussion The single strongest finding about Powis is that it is a largely cohesive and strong community. Its residents were much more positive about living in Powis than would be expected from similar studies of mixed environments where there is unemployment and poverty for some residents. It was also an environment in which the majority of residents enjoyed living. The title of this report, ‘Knowing People’ is a typical response given to the best things reported about living in Powis. There were some issues outlined later in this report but the cohesiveness of the community suggests that the community is well placed to tackle these. The positive attitude to sharing knowledge and skills is both surprising and positive with a third of people interviewed willing to provide active support to the community. In other comparable environments, mixed suburbs of cities, residents have been found to be much less likely to be willing to give their names and to volunteer to contribute knowledge and skills. Overall, the Powis community experiences a sense of well-being from living in the area and finds many things to praise about this area of Aberdeen.

9


The most popular best things about Powis have been mentioned in the Findings section but it is worth listing the minority views to build a picture of how the area is perceived. A number of people reported on improvement over the years in reputation and quality of life. The incidence of drug use for example was reported to have decreased by one long term resident. ‘It is calmer, it has changed,’ ‘Better with drugs’. ‘Dangerous area a few years ago.’ Relationships were generally close and accepting, there was no evidence of negative attitudes to the multicultural aspects of the community, on the contrary their diversity was valued and the presence of students was accepted positively. For example, comments were given, such as, ‘sensitive students live here,’ ‘no drug people,’ ‘diversity’, ‘people are friendly and sociable.’ The worst things mentioned about Powis were diverse and some represented less tolerant attitudes. A small number of people thought drugs (2) to still be a problem and others complained about antisocial behaviour of alcoholics; ‘people get drunk and pee in the area.’ Some people were intolerant of the students. ‘Students, less space in houses for us.’ ‘People buy social houses and rent them to students.’ Generally, however, there appeared to be good relations in the different communities. Many of the people who spoke first languages other than English referred to the friendliness of the area, as did students. The Centre was clearly important to more than half of the people interviewed and its presence was considered to be key to understandings of community. It is important in this context, to add, however, that there was evidence of social isolation for a small number of residents and also there were a few key issues that the Community Centre is well placed, with the support of Aberdeen City Council, to address. Social isolation was apparent in comments from the small number of people who did not know the Community Centre existed or thought it was not for them (8). Two people took the opportunity to mention anxiety as the reason they did not use the centre and another 2 mentioned disability and sickness. Another 2 talked about difficulty socialising. As mentioned earlier, there are people whose first language is not English who may not have others in the area who share their language with whom to communicate. This suggests that living in Powis might be isolating for an important small minority of people. ‘I am on medication – off benefit – unemployed. How can I work, survive?’ ‘Seldom see neighbours. No interaction in social networks.’ A strong community will be able to reach out to identify and offer support to such people to participate, if they so desire, in community activities, for example through befriending programmes or neighbourly activities that assist with identifying those who may be socially isolated. A number of key issues were of general concern to the residents of Powis. These included difficulties with parking for residents reflected in a concern about students from the University reportedly parking in the area, and there was a general concern about the quantity of parking for all residents with too many vans being mentioned and bins on the road. Rubbish and littering were also a common problem. 6 people referred to problems with the rubbish collection by the Council suggesting it should be more reliable and more frequent but there were also linked issues with cleanliness of hallways and gardens, as well as issues with dog fouling in the park and communal gardens. Clearly, there are measures that the community can take itself to remedy some of the

10


littering; and rubbish collection could be monitored to assess regularity and frequency and if there are issues these could be raised with the Council. Issues associated with the upkeep of buildings, were mentioned by some residents. Doorbell functioning was a concern for a number of residents (3) and fire proofing buildings was mentioned by 4 people. Fences reportedly needed fixing (2) and the fabric of the buildings (roofs) was referred to by 2 people. Insulation was required by 2 people and damp-proofing by 2. These are small numbers but highlight issues that can impact hard on people’s lives and need to be addressed quickly. The fire-proofing was a priority issue in the wake of the Grenfell Towers tragedy that occurred the week before the research and the 4 people who mentioned this were living in some fear. This kind of issue can be draining for residents and affect quality of life. The Community Centre might consider how it can help people to manage these concerns. Some people expressed very strong concerns about antisocial behaviour (42). A third of respondents mentioned it and it was referred to in the case of adults to a neighbour in particular, probably a different neighbour in each case and most frequently the concern was around noise in the flats, and in one case, ‘a bunch of families are making problems’. The Association might consider how this issue might be tackled, and how residents facing antisocial behaviour from neighbours might be supported. Providing activities will undoubtedly help the situation but building on the sense of community, the Association might think of ways to tackle this with the residents themselves. The community spirit of Powis I suggest may reduce the frequency or severity of neighbourhood disputes, which it may be argued, are inevitable in any community. The major concern about anti-social behaviour was, however, directed at children and teens and these concerns were generally addressed at young people as a group. They were accused of littering, throwing stones, breaking windows and carrying knives. ‘Broken windows,’ ‘School kids – aggressive kids – impolite. ‘Throw wine in the street.’ ‘Criminal area. Bikes get stolen.’ ‘Playing with rubbish. Throwing stones’. This was coupled with a concern for more activities for teens and ‘kids’. One resident suggested a youth worker would be an improvement and this is a concern I would echo. There is clearly a widespread view that there is a youth ‘problem’. This could be addressed through an improvement in behaviour and/or an improvement in the perception of young people being problematic. It was difficult in some instances to distinguish whether people felt the need for activities for children to be stronger than the need for teens and young people. Children and young people were referred to as ‘kids’ interchangeably. It may be that the schools can help in this regard through educational programmes and raising awareness of the concerns and fears of residents. The Council may be able to advise on youth work opportunities for the area. Thinking about other ways in which Powis could be improved, there can be no doubt there is a strong desire for a play park for children. This was one of the most commonly mentioned ways in which the area could be improved. The lack of facilities for children’s play was one of the most commonly mentioned “worst aspects” of Powis. This is clearly something for the Council and residents to discuss. As well as calls for festivals, one resident suggested more community projects as a way in which Powis could be improved. Other required improvements centred on parking but there were no suggestions about how the parking issues could be alleviated. 11


Different facilities that needed fixing or providing were mentioned each by one person, ‘toilets in park’, ‘improve roads,’ ‘lighting’, cash machine’, ‘security cameras’, ‘park finished’, ‘fences on windows’, ‘fixing door’, ‘pelican crossing.’ These are worthy of consideration even though mentioned infrequently. Lighting and cameras help with a sense of security and fences on windows was mentioned by someone whose windows had been broken. These are indicative of fear or anxiety at some level in the neighbourhood, also of the aforementioned antisocial behaviour. Thinking about the Community Centre itself, its role was considered to be very strong in a number of areas for the community. A strong sense of its importance for the community’s children was apparent and it important role in inclusion and socialising is testament to the achievements to date in bringing people from different sectors together and its further potential in this domain. Its role in facilitating discussion of community issues was apparent and this could be extended further in the light of this research to continue to tackle issues associated for example with parking and housing. Some peoples saw its educational role as being crucial ‘people talk about jobs,’ ‘parental skills’ ‘selfconfidence classes, ESOL, drama, exhibitions.’ There is further work to be done with those who knew little about the Centre. There is a very small number of people who may never attend but there are others who need some encouragement and who may feel isolated but need a helping hand. One person who had not been to the Centre, an elderly person, said it could be ‘a place to feel welcome, not to be lonely at home.’ Similarly someone who had been to the Centre said ‘A place you can go, an extension of the home.’ I consider that the understandings of the role of the Centre to be relatively sophisticated as in other research a similar Centre has been thought of as just a place for classes. This deeper understanding augurs well for the Association’s work so far and for the future of the Centre as a place that contributes to the sense of community. When asked what they would like to see at the Centre, unsurprisingly a wide range of activities were mentioned, almost as many as the number of respondents. The more frequently mentioned activities were physical activities such as gym aerobics, exercise and discos, yoga and Zumba (38). Only yoga and Zumba had scores of 10+ that would signal a class would be possible. Other more sedentary activities such as arts and crafts (15) computer café, bingo, board game club and drama, creative writing were mentioned. Support for particular groups was mentioned by 6 people: ‘More targeted at boys’; ‘more disabled facilities;’ Muslim group,’ ‘women’s group;’ ‘stuff for people from different communities;’ ‘activities for families.’ Other activities that were mentioned by more than 1 person were self esteem and confidence classes, back to work, employment skills youth work (6); homework club (3); self defence/martial arts (3). Single mentions were given to children’s gardens, NVQ childcare, parents’ meetings, origami, engineering classes for kids, drama, bar, cheap food, music, longer opening hours, blood donation, dance, bingo, swimming pool. When residents were asked what they would attend, the profile was very similar to what they had wished to see at the Centre and one always needs to be cautious when people indicate they will attend, as on a cold evening with good programmes on the TV, attending can look very different. Arts and Crafts (15) and gym/yoga and Zumba (33) were popular. Yoga scored 15 and Zumba 12. ESOL was mentioned by 7 people and self-confidence by 5. The following activities were mentioned once: speaking skills, classes for learning difficulties, bingo, dance, nursery school, back to work, football, and maths tuition. Interesting negatives showed the social isolation of some people. ‘Too old,’ ‘too injured’, ‘nothing is here for older people and it should be,’ ‘sick leave.’

12


It is difficult to correlate potential classes with desirable times for attendance, as the times for attendance did not match to produce class size numbers of 6 or more at any one time. It is clear, however, that afternoon and early evening are the preferred times for classes. One important feature of this research is the finding that classes are not always what people are looking for in a Centre, its focus and inclusion and social dimensions are just as important to the community. More people were prepared to pay for classes than thought they should be free. The most common amount to be paid was between £3 and £5 per week. Some were prepared to pay more than this up to £11 but some referred to the poverty in the areas and suggested £1 or £2 (18). 19 people chose not to answer this question which is quite high for the survey as a whole. ‘People are poor here,’ ‘should only be paid if they can afford it.’ ‘If people work they should pay’, ‘very low price.’ 7 people thought activities should be free or a donation should be given. It is clear that ability to pay needs to be taken into account for classes as is commonly the case where people who are ‘unwaged’ pay different amounts. The number of people who volunteered their knowledge and skills surpassed all expectations. A total of 43 people volunteered and gave their names. This is a third of respondents and each one is valuable as a commitment to the Centre and what it stands for. The activities they possessed are listed as Appendix A and their names and contact details have been passed to the Community Centre Association Committee. It is humbling to see the number who volunteered to donate their time to help out generally by “doing anything” and “just helping out”. In addition there were many highly specialised offers such as language skills, maths tuition and carpentry and joinery. This augurs well for the future of the Community Centre. Finally, and overall, well-being in Powis was very high (86%) and this was because of community spirit and friendship in the main, across different sectors of the community. “It is friendly here. When we had trouble – someone threw a stone in the window –a lot of people helped out – a good sense of community.’ ‘Nice people in community centre’, ‘Many people from my community (Bengali) live here.’ ‘Students and Polish make it a better place.’ The most common negative comments given by those who did not feel a sense of wellbeing living in Powis were linked to housing issues (3). Not hearing back from the council, housing and dirty hallways were mentioned by these individuals respectively. One person mentioned it was boring, one person mentioned bad influences for the children and one mentioned their own psychological issues. An 86% score for wellbeing in Powis is very high and is a tribute to the general community spirit and cohesion. The final comment goes to someone who said they did not feel well being in the area. ‘Don’t like living in the city. Born and bred in the country. But it’s a good area, though!” Even country folk feel it is a good area in which to live.

13


Appendix A The following offers were made by community volunteers. Names have been removed for purposes of confidentiality. Names were however passed to the Community Centre Association for follow up. Studying psychology can do self-esteem, confidence building. Does not say what she can do. Youth Work Development Officer Arts and Crafts Making greeting cards Story maker/teller Salsa dancing Henna tattoo, sewing Drawing Willing to help out. Help out at café and clean up Drama and Dungeons and Dragons Helping with children Help with catering. Has GTC (teaching) qualification Writing classes Carpentry joinery Kids Groups/Café Admin and business management. Computer trained English as a Foreign Language Crèche helper Painting in glass

English as a foreign or second language and English lit. Can teach dance. Keen to work with kids if a nursery is set up. Can teach maths Spanish classes Tennis teacher, photography Body piercing and body modification Catering services Portuguese classes Help with board/video game clubs Cooking Cooking with Plants Organising events Volunteering or any kind of job. Help with groups or just whatever you need Drama/play Arts and Crafts (Acrylics) Beauty, massages, make up Chef - Making Xmas cake, making Xmas pudding, fresh cooking Picture framing. Writing a book about Powis Help with elderly Polish/English translation assistance

Appendix B Questionnaire Powis Community Centre Association Questionnaire to be used in semi-structured interviews. Please ask questions exactly as written. You may prompt and probe in open questions. Please write legibly exactly as (or as close to) the answer spoken. Section 1 Thank the respondent for their time and explain the purpose of the research (Card A). 1. Gender? Male Female (Do NOT ask this question!) 2. Do you live in Powis (not visiting)? Yes (continue) No (thank them and say questionnaire is not relevant) 14


3. How long have you lived in Powis?

4. Can you tell me your age?

(Show Card B) A (0 – 1 year) B (2-5 years) C (6 – 10 years) D (11 + years) (Show Card C) A (16 – 20 years) B (21 – 25 years) C (26 – 30 Years) D (31 – 45 Years) E (46 – 55 years) F (56 – 65 years) G (66 – 75 years) H (76+ Years)

5. Can you say which of these applies to you? (Read Card D) A (student) B (Unemployed) C (Employed) D (Self Employed) E (None of the above) 6. What is the number of people who live in this home? (Write number)

7. How many of the people who live here are under 16? (Write number) 8. Is English the first language in this house? Yes No If NO, what is the first language? Section 2 9. What are the best things about living in Powis? (Try for 3 things) 10. What are the worst things about living in Powis (Try for 3 things) 11. What could be improved in Powis? (one thing) 12. How could this be improved? Section 3 Community Centre 13. Have you ever used the community centre? Yes No 14. If yes, what for? If no, why not? 15


15. What would you like to see put on at the Community Centre? (Try for 3 things) 16. What would you attend if it were offered at the Community Centre (Show and tick Sheet E) 17. What is the best time of day for you to attend the Community Centre? Morning Afternoon Early evening (5.30 – 7.30pm) Late evening (after 7.30pm) 18. Would you be prepared to pay to attend classes? Yes No Other (please specify) If yes, what would be a reasonable cost per week for an activity? 19. Do you have any skills or knowledge you could offer at the Community Centre? (Try for detailed response and affirm any suggestions) 20. If yes, would you be prepared for me to take your name for this? (write name if yes) 21. The Centre has limited space, what is the most important use for the building? 22. Do you feel a sense of wellbeing living in Powis? Yes No Other 23. What makes you say that? (seek explanation) Close and express thanks on behalf of Powis Community Centre Association Appendix C Letter of interviewer Introduction Dear Resident of Powis, I am writing to confirm that the student identified below is working for Powis Community Centre Association conducting interviews to explore your views on how the Community Centre should be used. Please help this research by taking some time to answer a few questions. Your answers will be completely confidential. If you have any queries about this research, please contact me at the University of Aberdeen at the address and number below. Yours sincerely, Professor Karen McArdle (01224) 274654 k.a.mcardle@abdn.ac.uk

16


Appendix D Data tables Age 16 – 20 21 – 25 26 – 30 31 - 45 46 – 55 56 – 65 66 – 75

Reasons for using the centre Café/breakfast 23 Kids clubs and activities 23 Voting 14 Adults courses 11 Parties 6 Volunteering 3 Meetings 3 Have a look 2 Church 2 Gym 2 Arts and Crafts 2 Work 2 Dancing 1 Reasons given for not attending the Centre No Time/too busy 16 Not interested 8 Do not know about it 5 Night shift 3 Anxiety/not feeling safe/disabled 3 More for children 1 Anti-social/not good at socialising 2 Don’t like it 1 Expensive 1 I am a student, not for me 1

9 17 17 48 23 10 12

Employment status Student 22 Unemployed 26 Employed 55 Self-employed 9 Retired 10 Housewife 3 No answer 1 Number of residents in household 1 21 2 31 3 33 4 18 5 13 6 8 7 2 Number of residents under 16 1 60 2 32 3 18 4 8 5 5 6 1 7 1 Is English your first language? YES 80 64% NO 44 35% No answer 4

Best time to attend Morning 27 Afternoon 34 Early evening 49 Late evening 19 Weekends 2 Varies 2 All day 11 Do you feel a sense of wellbeing living in Powis YES 108 NO 16 Other 2

17

K mcardle knowing people report (oct17) web  

Research undertaken with Aberdeen City Council,Aberdeen University and Powis Community Centre Association

K mcardle knowing people report (oct17) web  

Research undertaken with Aberdeen City Council,Aberdeen University and Powis Community Centre Association

Advertisement