Microsoft Word - Hadley Stadium.doc

NATIONAL BENCHMARKING SERVICE FOR SPORTS
AND LEISURE CENTRES

FACILITY REPORT
FOR
HADLEY STADIUM

Prepared by the
Sport Industry Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University
September 2007

NATIONAL BENCHMARKING SERVICE FOR SPORTS AND
LEISURE CENTRES

CONTENTS

Page

1. INTRODUCTION
1

2.
THE USER SURVEY SAMPLE
2

3.
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE FOR HADLEY STADIUM
4

4.
MAP OF CATCHMENT AREA
10

5.
RESULTS: CURRENT PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR HADLEY
11
STADIUM

APPENDIX 1: USER SURVEY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
30

NBS REPORT FOR HADLEY STADIUM

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1
This report has been produced by Sport England’s National Benchmarking Service
for Sports and Leisure Centres (hereafter referred to as ‘NBS’) for Hadley Stadium,
which is run by Sandwell Leisure Trust. The report has been compiled by staff
from the Sport Industry Research Centre (SIRC) at Sheffield Hallam University.

1.2
Before investigating the details of performance for Hadley Stadium in this report,
please read the accompanying Guidance document to accompany facility reports.

1.3
The data in this report is based upon a survey of 267 users of the centre between the
9th and 17th of June 2007, conducted by Leisure Net Solutions; and a financial
return based on the year 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2007. It should be noted that
the user survey sample is below the recommended number of 350, which reduces
the reliability of the results. The user survey and financial return are supplemented
by catchment area data provided by the University of Edinburgh. A catchment area
map is provided in section four of this report.

1.4
Hadley Stadium is classified as being a 'dry with outdoor' centre which means that
it has an indoor sports hall which could accommodate at least 4 badminton courts
as well as outdoor provision, but no swimming pool. The actual floor space of the
centre is 2,155m2 which means that it is benchmarked against comparable centres
with a total floor space of 1,500m2 to less than 3,000m2 (that is medium sized
centres) and it has 1,846m2 of usable space. The catchment area has a relatively
high proportion (21.68%) of residents from NS-SEC 6&7, representing the most
disadvantaged people in society. The centre is managed by a trust. In brief the
benchmarking 'families' used for Hadley Stadium are:

•  Dry with outdoor site (benchmark family of 11 centres)
•  20%+ of catchment population in NS-SEC 6&7 (benchmark family of 41
centres)
•  1,500 to <3000m2 floor space (benchmark family of 49 centres)
•  Trust management (benchmark family of 35 centres)

1

2.
THE USER SURVEY SAMPLE

Figure 1: Hadley Stadium User Survey Characteristics

Note: The survey instrument groups respondents according to the new NS-SEC

classification as used in the 2001 Census and now used as standard in all government surveys.

2.1
The broad nature of the 267 people who took part in the survey is shown in Figure
1. The primary purpose of the data in Figure 1 is for calculating Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) for comparison against benchmarks, whilst a secondary purpose
is to provide important stakeholders with an overview of the user survey sample.
Venue managers should reflect on the data and qualify the extent to which they are
truly representative of the customer base (191,956 visits in 2006/07). It should be
emphasised that any performance indicator scores dependent on the user survey
findings are governed by the accuracy of the sampling in this survey especially
given the low sample size.

2.2
A further test of representativeness is 'internal representativeness', that is the extent
to which the respondents to the user survey truly reflect the balance of the
programme and usage of the venue. Some key indicators in this regard are shown
in Figure 2.

2

Figure 2: Hadley Stadium User Survey Balance of Use

2.3
Using fitness equipment/machines was the most frequently stated main activity by
survey respondents, followed by badminton. These two activities accounted for
nearly two-thirds (65%) of the main activities undertaken during the survey period.
Given the distribution of activities undertaken, it is not surprising that the
gym/fitness centre and the main hall were the most utilised areas of the facility. It
is important that managers are able to confirm that the distribution of the users is
broadly in line with the centre's overall usage patterns especially given the low
sample size. The majority of activities undertaken were casual (67%) rather than
instructor led or club usage. Over half (51%) of the respondents had some form of
leisure card which gave them reduced price admission to the centre. Less than one
in every three discounted admissions made via leisure cards were by people with
some form of disadvantage.

2.4
Assuming that the surveys were conducted randomly and that the user profile
accurately reflects the centre's customer base, we now consider the centre's
performance against a series of Key Performance Indicators and family specific
benchmarks.

3

3.
SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE FOR HADLEY STADIUM

3.1
The centre's performance is reported first, for the key indicators, relative to CPA
thresholds; and second, for all indicators, relative to the 2006 national benchmarks,
the latest available.

3.2
At the time of reporting, the seven facility performance indicators which had been
proposed for the CPA have now been withdrawn from the CPA. Nevertheless, this
report retains a structure of reporting against the previously proposed CPA
thresholds for these seven indicators. This is because they are a good indication of
national government priorities for sports facilities, and can therefore still be
considered as key indicators for such facilities.

Performance for key indicators relative to proposed CPA thresholds

3.3
The centre's performs well relative to the proposed CPA thresholds, with three of
the seven key indicator scores above their upper thresholds, two indicator scores
between the thresholds and only one indicator score below the lower CPA threshold.
For the seventh proposed CPA indicator, disabled under 60 years, the measurement
of the indicator has changed and recommended CPA thresholds were not agreed.
The CPA strengths of the centre include elements of both access and efficiency
performance.

4

Performance relative to national benchmarks

3.4
The figures in this section position performance for each indicator relative to the
four quartiles and three benchmarks identified in the general guidance which
accompanies this report. This positioning has been judged by the NBS analysts by
examining 'average' performance across the four family comparisons. These four
comparisons for each indicator are in the detailed performance results in Section 5
below.

Key indicators

Bottom
2nd
3rd
Top
Key indicators
25%
50%
75%
quartile
quartile
quartile
quartile
11-19 years

NS-Sec 6&7

Ethnic minorities

60+ years

Disabled <60 years

Subsidy per visit

3.5
The performance of the centre for key indicators relative to the national
benchmarks offers a more detailed relative positioning than the performance
against the proposed CPA thresholds and in this case presents a weaker picture.
The table has been amended to include 'disabled under 60' performance and to
exclude 'visits per square metre'. Because the definition of the previously proposed
CPA indicator for visits per square metre was changed by the Audit Commission
and DCMS, to exclude corridors and offices in the measurement of square metres,
there are no benchmarks to compare with at present for this proposed CPA
indicator. In the 'other indicators' part of Section 5 of this report, and in the
utilisation summary below, the visits per square metre indicator is measured in the
way that NBS has always measured it (including corridors and offices in the square
metres), and is compared with the 2006 benchmarks. Furthermore, the centre had
actual central establishment charges which were zero and in the financial return you
estimated what they would have been if they had been charged - the CPA subsidy
per visit calculation includes these estimated central establishment charges in the
total costs. In the 'other indicators' part of Section 5 of this report, the subsidy per
visit indicator is measured by using actual costs, including zero central
establishment charges for your centre.

3.6
One of the key indicator scores, relating to visits by social classes 6&7, is in the top
quartile. Three, however, including two access indicators and one efficiency
indicator are at their 25% benchmark levels or in the bottom quartile. The

5

efficiency indicator - subsidy per visit - is at the 25% level despite scoring higher
than the lower CPA threshold, which is relatively weak performance in relation to
other similar facilities. Two other key access related indicators are positioned at
their third quartiles.

Access

Bottom
2nd
3rd
Top
Access indicators
25%
50%
75%
quartile
quartile
quartile
quartile
Females

11-19 years

20-59 years

60+ years

NS-Sec 6&7

Ethnic minorities

Disabled <60 years

Disabled 60+

Unemployed

Discount card holders

Disadvantaged card holders

First visits

3.7
When considering the wider set of access indicators, rather than just those in the
proposed CPA key indicators, the picture is of reasonable access performance. It is
important to stress that not all the access groups identified are likely to be important
to a social inclusion agenda. Five of the groups which might be seen as important
to social inclusion perform at the third quartile level or above (11-19 years, NS-
SEC 6&7, ethnic minorities, disadvantaged card holders, and the unemployed),
while three which are relevant to social inclusion are below their 25% benchmark
performance levels (60+ years, disabled under 60, and disabled 60+). Females are
in the bottom quartile - unusually for sports facilities, but not so unusual for dry
facilities. However, they comprise a rather small minority of visitors at this centre,
22%. The indicator for usage by 20-59 year olds is in the top quartile, but this
group of users is not normally considered relevant to social inclusion because they
are not necessarily disadvantaged.

3.8
Financial performance is modest relative to the benchmarks, with three of the four
subsidy indicators below their median (50%) benchmarks. All the subsidy scores
in the 'other indicators' figures in Section 5 are calculated using the actual costs,
rather than including any estimated central establishment costs. The main factor
which constrains this financial performance is low income, which is not
compensated for by the strong operating cost performance, despite a reasonably
high throughput for a centre of this size - see below. Direct income per visit is very
low, in its bottom quartile, while it is relevant to note that satisfaction levels with

6

the value for money of activities and entrance charges are high, with an average
customer score of 4.27 out of 5 for both attributes. This suggests that activity
prices are well within the bounds of acceptability by customers. Secondary income
per visit is also low, at the 25% level, and it is probably no coincidence that the
satisfaction scores for quality and value for money of food and drink are the two
lowest satisfaction scores.

Financial

Bottom
2nd
3rd
Top
Financial indicators
25%
50%
75%
quartile
quartile
quartile
quartile
Subsidy per visit

Cost recovery

Subsidy per m2

Subsidy per resident

Operating cost per visit

Operating cost per m2

Maintenance and repair

cost per m2
Energy cost per m2

Income per visit

Income per m2

Direct income per visit

Secondary income per visit

Utilisation

Bottom
2nd
3rd
Top
Utilisation indicators
25%
50%
75%
quartile
quartile
quartile
quartile
Visits per m2

% of visits casual

Weekly number of people

visiting

3.9
The main throughput indicator, visits per square metre, is measured in the 'other
indicators' figures in Section 5 by using the total floor space of the centre. This
indicator performs at the third quartile level, the simple product of a moderately
high number of annual visits for a centre of this size. The weekly number of people
visiting also performs at the third quartile, suggesting a reasonable market
penetration in the local catchment population. The percentage of visits which are
casual (67%) is below par by industry standards but whether or not this level of
casual use is appropriate depends on the targeting and programming policies of the
centre.

7

Satisfaction with and importance of attributes

3.10
The tables below identify five attributes with the largest gaps between importance
and satisfaction, by mean scores and by ranks. These gaps signal the attributes with
the most potential to represent problems, although it should be emphasised that no
attribute has a satisfaction score of less than three, the neutral score (neither
satisfied nor dissatisfied), so there are no absolute problems among the attributes
scored in the user survey. In fact, only one attribute has a satisfaction score less
than four, suggesting that satisfaction levels across the range of attributes is
relatively high.

Mean score gaps
Attribute Importance
Satisfaction
Gap
Quality of lighting in the sports hall
4.64
4.11
0.53
Quality of equipment
4.67
4.16
0.51
Value for money of food and drink
4.44
3.97
0.47
Cleanliness of activity
spaces
4.70 4.28 0.42
Value for money of activities
4.65
4.27
0.38

Rank gaps
Attribute Importance
Satisfaction
Gap
Cleanliness of activity spaces
2
9
-7
Quality of equipment
8
13
-5
Cleanliness of changing areas
5
8
-3
Quality of lighting in the sports hall
11
14
-3
Value for money of food and drink
15
16
-1

3.11
Four attributes feature in both of the tables above while two of the attributes in the
second table are amongst the five most important to customers. The appearance of
cleanliness related attributes in the gap tables is not unusual for sports facilities.
From the frequency distributions in the appendix, it is apparent that only about 3%
of the respondents were dissatisfied with the cleanliness of the activity spaces and
changing areas, which is very low by industry standards. Meanwhile 7% and 9% of
respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of equipment and the quality
of lighting in the sports hall respectively. Value for money attributes also feature in
the gap tables, however the gaps for these attributes are very small by industry
standards. Moreover, value for money of food and drink was also quite low (15th)
in the importance rankings by customers. So any problems are not absolute, but
relative - the satisfaction scores and ranks falling short of their corresponding
importance scores and ranks - and small minorities of customers are dissatisfied.

8

Strengths of the centre as perceived by customers
Attribute Satisfaction
Importance
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
Standard of coaching/instruction
4.59
1
4.71
1
Ease of booking
4.54
2
4.68
4
Helpfulness of reception staff
4.49
3
4.68
3
Quality of car parking on site
4.46
4
4.56
14
Helpfulness of other staff
4.46
5
4.66
9

3.12
According to the customers surveyed, the strengths of the centre involve staff and
accessibility attributes as well as quality of parking facilities. All three staff
attributes are in the top five satisfaction rankings and also in the top ten for
importance rankings - a desirable correlation. Overall satisfaction with the visit
achieves a mean score of 4.44 out of 5, which is one of the higher satisfaction
scores compared with the individual attributes.

9

4.
MAP OF CATCHMENT AREA

4.1
The catchment area shown in this map is defined as the area within which Hadley
Stadium attracts more visitors than any other centre, i.e. the area within which
Hadley is the dominant supplier.
Sport England Benchmark Service
Hadley Stadium
Smethw
Smet
Sme
i
thw
hw c
i k
c
ick
ic
Bear
B
B
wood
ear w
ear ood
w
Key
Catchment
Hadley Stadium
Additional material ©Sport England 2007
Source: 2001 Census, Output Area Boundaries. © Crown Copyright 2003
Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of The Controller of HMSO
Map produced by The Planning Data Management Service
Unauthorised reproduction infringes infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings
18/06/2007 Job PE using Mapinfo for Sport England
License numbers C02W 0003683 & 10003311 ©The Automobile Association 1999, all rights reserved

10

Proposed CPA Indicators
% visits 11-19 years ÷ % catchment population 11-19 years
3.29
3.00
2.61
2.18
2.15
2.00
1.59
1.48
1.33
1.18
1.10
1.00
0.91
0.92
0.90
CPA upper
0.78
0.65
0.72
0.71
CPA lower
0.29
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.95
CPA upper = 1.00
CPA lower = 0.55
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits from social classes 6 & 7 ÷ % catchment population in social classes 6 & 7
2.19
2.00
1.65
1.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.58
0.51
0.50
0.50
0.42
0.41
CPA upper
0.35
0.29 0.30
0.34
0.19
0.19
0.21
CPA lower
0.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 1.03
CPA upper = 0.50
CPA lower = 0.20
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
12

% visits from black, Asian & other ethnic groups ÷ % catchment population in same
ethnic groups
10.87
10.00
8.40
5.25
5.00
1.87
1.52
1.57
1.74
1.71
1.14
1.14
1.16
0.81
0.86
0.86
0.83 1.06 1.27
0.59
CPA upper
0.18
0.18
CPA lower
0.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 1.49
CPA upper = 1.00
CPA lower = 0.75
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits 60+ years ÷ % catchment population 60+ years
1.58
1.58
1.50
1.00
0.78
0.58
0.60
CPA upper
0.55
0.51
0.53
0.50
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.35
0.30
0.32
0.31
0.20
0.16
0.08
0.08
CPA lower
0.06
0.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.09
CPA upper = 0.65
CPA lower = 0.15
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
13

% visits <60 years disabled ÷ % catchment population <60 years disabled
1.42
1.30
1.12
1.00
0.77
0.69
0.65
0.68
0.63
0.57
0.55
0.57
0.49
0.51
0.50
0.46
0.41
0.44
0.19
0.19
0.15
0.08
0.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.14
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
At present, no proposed CPA thresholds are available for this indicator, because the indicator has changed. As soon
as the thresholds have been decided, NBS clients will be notified and their performance for the indicator compared with
the new thresholds.
Subsidy per visit (£) - 1
-1.92
-1.52
-0.39
-0.39
-0.37
-0.09
0.11
0.11
0.00
CPA upper
0.61
0.60
0.92
0.98
0.87
1.09
1.40
1.46
1.85
2.00
CPA lower
3.65
4.00
4.92
4.92
6.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 1.35
CPA upper = -0.10
CPA lower = 2.40
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
(a) To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest subsidy) is on the left of each cluster, and the
best score (= lowest subsidy) is on the right of each cluster. Also, note that the best scores/lowest subsidy and some
of the 75% benchmarks are 'negative subsidies' - i.e. surpluses.
(b) Subsidy for this proposed CPA indicator includes consideration of estimated central establishment charges where
the actual charges are zero
14

Annual visits per sq. m. - 1
300
200
100
CPA upper
CPA lower
0
Centre score = 104
CPA upper = 100
CPA lower = 35
For this performance indicator, square metres of indoor space excludes offices and corridors
15

Other important Indicators
% visits 20-59 years ÷ % catchment population 20-59 years
1.43
1.44
1.44
1.40
1.36
1.28
1.25
1.23
1.24
1.20
1.20
1.18
1.18
1.18
1.14
1.13
1.14
1.10
1.02
1.00
0.93
0.93
0.84
0.80
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 1.30
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits which were first visits
20.83
20.83
20.83
20.83
20.00
15.00
12.78
11.02
9.54
10.00
8.52
6.65
6.54
5.92
5.04
5.00
4.24
3.25
3.25
3.36
2.10
1.85
2.24
0.91
0.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 7.63
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
16

% visits with discount card
79.14
76.60
76.60
64.31
65.43
60.00
57.87
57.31
56.42
56.23
40.94
40.96
38.31
38.61
40.00
27.17
27.17
21.34
20.00
8.65
5.33
5.33
4.47
0.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 51.15
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits with discount card for 'disadvantage'
47.48
47.26
40.00
30.50
30.00
24.88
20.59
19.30
20.00
16.71
13.23
12.96
13.93
10.63
9.01
10.00
7.23
8.13
6.81
2.98
2.47
1.16
1.16
1.16
0.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 18.08
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
17

% visits female
80
80
73
69
65
63
63
60
60
57
56
56
54
52
51
52
49
41
41
40
35
30
30
20
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 22
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits 60+ years disabled ÷ % catchment population 60+ years disabled
0.27
0.24
0.24
0.20
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
-0.10
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.00
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
18

% visits unemployed
13.77
10.00
7.11
6.25
5.57
5.47
5.00
3.00
2.55
1.79
1.85
1.32
1.72
1.62
0.87
1.06
1.17
1.14
0.57
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
-5.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 4.23
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% cost recovery
164
150
140
113
113
110
103
96
96
100
79
80
75
71
66
58
58
52
47
50
36
27
27
0
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 59
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
19

Subsidy per visit (£) - 2
-1.92
-1.52
-0.39
-0.39
-0.37
-0.09
0.11
0.11
0.00
0.61
0.60
0.92
0.98
0.87
1.09
1.40
1.46
1.85
2.00
3.65
4.00
4.92
4.92
6.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.91
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
(a) To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest subsidy) is on the left of each cluster, and the
best score (= lowest subsidy) is on the right of each cluster. Also, note that the best scores/lowest subsidy and some
of the 75% benchmarks are 'negative subsidies' - i.e. surpluses.
(b) Subsidy for this indicator includes consideration of actual central establishment charges whether they are zero or
positive
Subsidy per sq. m. (£)
-367
-321
-200
-16
-26
-30
-6
0
26
10
10
55
99
82
82
105
125
121
147
200
284
363
363
400
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 81
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest subsidy) is on the left of each cluster, and the best
score (= lowest subsidy) is on the right of each cluster. Also, note that the best scores/lowest subsidy and some of the
75% benchmarks are 'negative subsidies' - i.e. surpluses.
20

Subsidy per resident (£)
-41.20
-40.00
-20.00
-17.84
-4.42
-2.21
-1.75
-3.23
0.57
1.71
0.00
5.92
4.18
6.42
6.89
10.58
8.77
14.85
14.13
20.58
19.19
20.00
26.40
30.23
40.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 10.64
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
The catchment population used for this indicator allows for competing facilities nearby. This is different from previous
NBS reports.
Total operating cost per visit (£)
1.68
1.96
1.96
1.78
2.00
2.46
2.46
3.06
2.90
3.13
3.63
3.63
3.64
4.15
4.00
4.61
4.90
4.79
5.45
6.00
6.44
8.26
8.00
10.00
10.45
12.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 2.21
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest cost) is on the left of each cluster, and the best
score (= lowest cost) is on the right.
21

Total operating cost per sq. m. (£)
48
48
124
99
124
209
208
186
230
316
297
310
310
405
405
405
500
612
802
1000
1063
1238
1500
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 197
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest cost) is on the left of each cluster, and the best
score (= lowest cost) is on the right.
Maintenance and repair costs per sq. m. (£)
4
1
0
0
6
1
12
14
14
10
11
9
31
27
27
27
50
63
71
68
100
150
156
200
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 10
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest cost) is on the left of each cluster, and the best
score (= lowest cost) is on the right.
22

Energy costs per sq. m. (£)
4
4
4
8
6
6
17
19
17
19
26
29
27
36
37
36
39
50
100
138
137
138
150
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 11
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
To be consistent with the other diagrams, the worst score (= highest cost) is on the left of each cluster, and the best
score (= lowest cost) is on the right.
Total income per visit (£)
7.83
7.83
6.35
6.00
4.58
4.15
4.00
3.79
3.52
3.52
3.05
2.68
2.80
2.61
2.68
2.23
2.00
1.72
1.80
1.50
1.12
0.77
0.77
0.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 1.30
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
23

Total income per sq. m. (£)
1431
1123
1000
876
602
500
423
344
274
235
248
226
190
139
153
139
96
127
46
67
66
46
0
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 116
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
Direct income per visit (£)
7.79
7.79
6.00
5.58
4.43
4.06
4.00
3.40
3.29
2.62
2.65
2.47
2.39
2.12
1.94
2.04
2.00
1.47
1.59
1.48
1.02
0.74
0.74
0.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 1.22
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
24

Secondary income per visit (£)
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.36
0.31
0.25
0.25
0.21
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.08
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
Annual visits per sq. m. - 2
355
350
301
300
200
145
117
117
103
102
100
88
87
75
64
64
70
43
45
16
23
23
16
0
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 89
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
For this indicator, total indoor floor space is used
25

% visits casual, instead of organised
96
96
90
84
83
80
80
76
72
74
74
74
70
63
61
61
60
47
40
37
20
16
16
11
0
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 67
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
Weekly number of people visiting the facility, as % of catchment population
65.24
60.00
40.00
22.19
22.97
20.00
15.88
13.08
10.83
11.01
11.18
8.71
6.79
7.98
7.92
5.05
5.59
5.59
4.66
0.59
1.53
1.31
0.59
0.00
Dry with outdoor
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 10.42
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
26

Satisfaction and importance scores: by attribute
GAPS
( Importance minus
IMPORTANCE
SATISFACTION
Satisfaction )
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean
Accessibility
a.
Activity available at convenient times
6 4.67 260
6 4.44 264
0
0.23
b.
Ease of booking
4 4.68 244
2 4.54 239
2
0.14
c.
The activity charge/fee
13 4.60 255
11 4.27 254
2
0.33
d.
The range of activities available
12 4.61 251
12 4.23 240
0
0.38
Quality of facilities/services
e.
Quality of flooring in the sports hall
7 4.67 226
7 4.36
81
0
0.31
f.
Quality of lighting in the sports hall
11 4.64 228
14 4.11
81
-3
0.53
g.
Quality of equipment
8 4.67 237
13 4.16 244
-5
0.51
k.
Quality of car parking on site
14 4.56 229
4 4.46 186
10
0.10
l.
Quality of food and drink
16 4.42 227
15 4.06 214
1
0.36
Cleanliness
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
5 4.67 238
8 4.31 231
-3
0.36
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
2 4.70 244
9 4.28 240
-7
0.42
Staff
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
3 4.68 261
3 4.49 262
0
0.19
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
9 4.66 260
5 4.46 252
4
0.20
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
1 4.71 228
1 4.59
82
0
0.12
Value for money
r.
Value for money of activities
10 4.65 257
10 4.27 253
0
0.38
s.
Value for money of food/drink
15 4.44 228
16 3.97 216
-1
0.47
Other attributes *
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
N/A
N/A
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
N/A
N/A
j.
Number of people in the pool
N/A
N/A
t.
Overall satisfaction with visit
N/A
4.44 254
* The other attribute(s) listed at the end of the table have either the satisfaction or importance scores but not both. This
is for logical reasons - e.g. Overall satisfaction with visit does not have an importance score; no satisfaction score for
pool attributes if there is no pool at the centre. Therefore such attributes do not appear in the subsequent tables of
'gaps'.
27

Satisfaction and importance scores: by mean gaps
GAPS
( Importance minus
IMPORTANCE
SATISFACTION
Satisfaction )
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean
f.
Quality of lighting in the sports hall
11 4.64 228
14 4.11
81
-3
0.53
g.
Quality of equipment
8 4.67 237
13 4.16 244
-5
0.51
s.
Value for money of food/drink
15 4.44 228
16 3.97 216
-1
0.47
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
2 4.70 244
9 4.28 240
-7
0.42
r.
Value for money of activities
10 4.65 257
10 4.27 253
0
0.38
d.
The range of activities available
12 4.61 251
12 4.23 240
0
0.38
l.
Quality of food and drink
16 4.42 227
15 4.06 214
1
0.36
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
5 4.67 238
8 4.31 231
-3
0.36
c.
The activity charge/fee
13 4.60 255
11 4.27 254
2
0.33
e.
Quality of flooring in the sports hall
7 4.67 226
7 4.36
81
0
0.31
a.
Activity available at convenient times
6 4.67 260
6 4.44 264
0
0.23
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
9 4.66 260
5 4.46 252
4
0.20
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
3 4.68 261
3 4.49 262
0
0.19
b.
Ease of booking
4 4.68 244
2 4.54 239
2
0.14
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
1 4.71 228
1 4.59
82
0
0.12
k.
Quality of car parking on site
14 4.56 229
4 4.46 186
10
0.10
28

Satisfaction and importance scores: by rank gaps
GAPS
( Importance minus
IMPORTANCE
SATISFACTION
Satisfaction )
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
2 4.70 244
9 4.28 240
-7
0.42
g.
Quality of equipment
8 4.67 237
13 4.16 244
-5
0.51
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
5 4.67 238
8 4.31 231
-3
0.36
f.
Quality of lighting in the sports hall
11 4.64 228
14 4.11
81
-3
0.53
s.
Value for money of food/drink
15 4.44 228
16 3.97 216
-1
0.47
r.
Value for money of activities
10 4.65 257
10 4.27 253
0
0.38
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
1 4.71 228
1 4.59
82
0
0.12
d.
The range of activities available
12 4.61 251
12 4.23 240
0
0.38
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
3 4.68 261
3 4.49 262
0
0.19
e.
Quality of flooring in the sports hall
7 4.67 226
7 4.36
81
0
0.31
a.
Activity available at convenient times
6 4.67 260
6 4.44 264
0
0.23
l.
Quality of food and drink
16 4.42 227
15 4.06 214
1
0.36
c.
The activity charge/fee
13 4.60 255
11 4.27 254
2
0.33
b.
Ease of booking
4 4.68 244
2 4.54 239
2
0.14
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
9 4.66 260
5 4.46 252
4
0.20
k.
Quality of car parking on site
14 4.56 229
4 4.46 186
10
0.10
29

APPENDIX 1:

USER SURVEY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
30

Q1 Main activity today?
Badminton
64 ( 24.0% )
Keep fit/aerobics/etc
27 ( 10.1% )
Fitness equipment/machines etc
109 ( 40.8% )
Martial arts
0 ( 0.0% )
Five-a-side football
21 ( 7.9% )
Gymnastics
7 ( 2.6% )
Basketball or volleyball
4 ( 1.5% )
Other physical activity
20 ( 7.5% )
Swimming or aqua fit
0 ( 0.0% )
A spectator
13 ( 4.9% )
Another type of activity
2 ( 0.7% )
Q2 Where did you do your main activity today?
Swimming pool
0 ( 0.0% )
Gym/fitness centre
126 ( 51.6% )
Outside facility
31 ( 12.7% )
Main hall
69 ( 28.3% )
Smaller hall
16 ( 6.6% )
Another part of the facility
2 ( 0.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
23
Q3 How you are taking part in your main activity today?
An organised class/session
38 ( 15.6% )
As an individual user
163 ( 66.8% )
As a member of a club or team
27 ( 11.1% )
Other
16 ( 6.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
23
31

Q4 Is today your first ever visit to this facility?
Yes
20 ( 7.6% )
No
242 ( 92.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
5
Q5a Number of times visited in past 7 days.
1
115 ( 45.3% )
2
79 ( 31.1% )
3
35 ( 13.8% )
4
14 ( 5.5% )
5
9 ( 3.5% )
6
0 ( 0.0% )
7
2 ( 0.8% )
8 plus
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q5b Number of times visited in past 4 weeks.
1 to 5
136 ( 51.7% )
6 to 10
78 ( 29.7% )
11 to 15
30 ( 11.4% )
16 to 20
17 ( 6.5% )
21 plus
2 ( 0.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
4
32

Q7 Do you have a leisure card?
Yes
133 ( 51.2% )
No
127 ( 48.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
7
Q8 Basis of eligibility for card/scheme.
Disadvantaged
47 ( 36.4% )
Other
82 ( 63.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
138
Q9 From where did you come here today?
Straight from home
221 ( 83.4% )
Straight from work, school or college
39 ( 14.7% )
Other e.g. from shopping
5 ( 1.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
2
Q10 Main method of transport.
Car/motorcycle
198 ( 76.4% )
Public transport
7 ( 2.7% )
Walked all the way
52 ( 20.1% )
Other, including cycle
2 ( 0.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
8
33

Q11Journey time.
0-5 minutes
78 ( 30.1% )
6-10 minutes
96 ( 37.1% )
11-15 minutes
44 ( 17.0% )
16-20 minutes
20 ( 7.7% )
21-30 minutes
13 ( 5.0% )
31-45 minutes
5 ( 1.9% )
Over 45 minutes
3 ( 1.2% )
Missing/Not applicable
8
Q12a Satisfaction - availability of activities at convenient times.
Very satisfied
144 ( 54.5% )
Fairly satisfied
100 ( 37.9% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
16 ( 6.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
1 ( 0.4% )
Very dissatisfied
3 ( 1.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
3
Q12b Satisfaction - ease of booking.
Very satisfied
147 ( 61.5% )
Fairly satisfied
75 ( 31.4% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
16 ( 6.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
28
34

Q12c Satisfaction - activity charges/fees.
Very satisfied
121 ( 47.6% )
Fairly satisfied
97 ( 38.2% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
24 ( 9.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
7 ( 2.8% )
Very dissatisfied
5 ( 2.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
13
Q12d Satisfaction - range of activities available.
Very satisfied
100 ( 41.7% )
Fairly satisfied
106 ( 44.2% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
24 ( 10.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
9 ( 3.8% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
27
Q12e Satisfaction - quality of flooring in sports hall.
Very satisfied
41 ( 50.6% )
Fairly satisfied
33 ( 40.7% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
4 ( 4.9% )
Fairly dissatisfied
1 ( 1.2% )
Very dissatisfied
2 ( 2.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
186
35

Q12f Satisfaction - quality of lighting in sports hall.
Very satisfied
35 ( 43.2% )
Fairly satisfied
30 ( 37.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
9 ( 11.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
4 ( 4.9% )
Very dissatisfied
3 ( 3.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
186
Q12g Satisfaction - quality of equipment.
Very satisfied
104 ( 42.6% )
Fairly satisfied
97 ( 39.8% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
27 ( 11.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
10 ( 4.1% )
Very dissatisfied
6 ( 2.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
23
Q12h Satisfaction - water quality in pool.
Very satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
267
36

Q12i Satisfaction - water temperature in pool.
Very satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
267
Q12j Satisfaction - number of people in pool.
Very satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly satisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
267
Q12k Satisfaction - quality of car parking on site.
Very satisfied
100 ( 53.8% )
Fairly satisfied
74 ( 39.8% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
10 ( 5.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
1 ( 0.5% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
81
37

Q12l Satisfaction - quality of food/drink.
Very satisfied
86 ( 40.2% )
Fairly satisfied
69 ( 32.2% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
49 ( 22.9% )
Fairly dissatisfied
5 ( 2.3% )
Very dissatisfied
5 ( 2.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
53
Q12m Satisfaction - cleanliness of changing area.
Very satisfied
109 ( 47.2% )
Fairly satisfied
93 ( 40.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
23 ( 10.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
4 ( 1.7% )
Very dissatisfied
2 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
36
Q12n Satisfaction - cleanliness of activity spaces.
Very satisfied
110 ( 45.8% )
Fairly satisfied
100 ( 41.7% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
22 ( 9.2% )
Fairly dissatisfied
4 ( 1.7% )
Very dissatisfied
4 ( 1.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
27
38

Q12o Satisfaction - helpfulness of reception staff.
Very satisfied
147 ( 56.1% )
Fairly satisfied
98 ( 37.4% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
15 ( 5.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
2 ( 0.8% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
5
Q12p Satisfaction - helpfulness of other staff.
Very satisfied
136 ( 54.0% )
Fairly satisfied
97 ( 38.5% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
17 ( 6.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
2 ( 0.8% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
15
Q12q Satisfaction - standard of coaching/instruction.
Very satisfied
58 ( 70.7% )
Fairly satisfied
15 ( 18.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
8 ( 9.8% )
Fairly dissatisfied
1 ( 1.2% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
185
39

Q12r Satisfaction - value for money of activities.
Very satisfied
114 ( 45.1% )
Fairly satisfied
106 ( 41.9% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
27 ( 10.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
6 ( 2.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
14
Q12s Satisfaction - value for money of food/drink.
Very satisfied
71 ( 32.9% )
Fairly satisfied
84 ( 38.9% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
50 ( 23.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
6 ( 2.8% )
Very dissatisfied
5 ( 2.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
51
Q12t Satisfaction - overall satisfaction of visit.
Very satisfied
137 ( 53.9% )
Fairly satisfied
98 ( 38.6% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
13 ( 5.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
5 ( 2.0% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
13
40

Q13a Importance - availability of activities at convenient times.
Very important
189 ( 72.7% )
Fairly important
59 ( 22.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
10 ( 3.8% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
7
Q13b Importance - ease of booking.
Very important
179 ( 73.4% )
Fairly important
54 ( 22.1% )
Neither important nor unimportant
10 ( 4.1% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
23
Q13c Importance - activity charges/fees.
Very important
172 ( 67.5% )
Fairly important
66 ( 25.9% )
Neither important nor unimportant
14 ( 5.5% )
Fairly unimportant
3 ( 1.2% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
12
41

Q13d Importance - the range of activities available.
Very important
170 ( 67.7% )
Fairly important
64 ( 25.5% )
Neither important nor unimportant
16 ( 6.4% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
16
Q13e Importance - quality of flooring in sports hall.
Very important
164 ( 72.6% )
Fairly important
49 ( 21.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
13 ( 5.8% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
41
Q13f Importance - quality of lighting in sports hall.
Very important
164 ( 71.9% )
Fairly important
48 ( 21.1% )
Neither important nor unimportant
13 ( 5.7% )
Fairly unimportant
3 ( 1.3% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
39
42

Q13g Importance - quality of equipment.
Very important
172 ( 72.6% )
Fairly important
53 ( 22.4% )
Neither important nor unimportant
11 ( 4.6% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
30
Q13h Importance - water quality in pool.
Very important
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly important
0 ( 0.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
267
Q13i Importance - water temperature in pool.
Very important
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly important
0 ( 0.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
267
43

Q13j Importance - number of people in pool.
Very important
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly important
0 ( 0.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
267
Q13k Importance - quality of car parking on site.
Very important
156 ( 68.1% )
Fairly important
51 ( 22.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
17 ( 7.4% )
Fairly unimportant
4 ( 1.7% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
38
Q13l Importance - quality of food/drink.
Very important
139 ( 61.2% )
Fairly important
55 ( 24.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
26 ( 11.5% )
Fairly unimportant
4 ( 1.8% )
Very unimportant
3 ( 1.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
40
44

Q13m Importance - cleanliness of changing area.
Very important
180 ( 75.6% )
Fairly important
43 ( 18.1% )
Neither important nor unimportant
12 ( 5.0% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Very unimportant
2 ( 0.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
29
Q13n Importance - cleanliness of activity spaces.
Very important
183 ( 75.0% )
Fairly important
52 ( 21.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
7 ( 2.9% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.8% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
23
Q13o Importance - helpfulness of reception staff.
Very important
191 ( 73.2% )
Fairly important
59 ( 22.6% )
Neither important nor unimportant
9 ( 3.4% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.8% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
6
45

Q13p Importance - helpfulness of other staff.
Very important
190 ( 73.1% )
Fairly important
55 ( 21.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
12 ( 4.6% )
Fairly unimportant
3 ( 1.2% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
7
Q13q Importance - standard of coaching/instruction
Very important
173 ( 75.9% )
Fairly important
44 ( 19.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
10 ( 4.4% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
39
Q13r Importance - value for money of activities.
Very important
186 ( 72.4% )
Fairly important
57 ( 22.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
11 ( 4.3% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.8% )
Very unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
10
46

Q13s Importance - value for money of food/drink.
Very important
140 ( 61.4% )
Fairly important
57 ( 25.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
25 ( 11.0% )
Fairly unimportant
4 ( 1.8% )
Very unimportant
2 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
39
Q14 Gender.
Male
198 ( 77.6% )
Female
57 ( 22.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
12
Q15 Ethnic origin of respondent.
White
90 ( 34.6% )
Mixed
18 ( 6.9% )
Asian or Asian British
116 ( 44.6% )
Black or Black British
28 ( 10.8% )
Chinese or other ethnic group
8 ( 3.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
7
47

Q16 Long term illness, health problem or disability.
Yes
5 ( 1.9% )
No
254 ( 98.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
8
Q17 Age.
11 to 19
38 ( 14.3% )
20 to 59
222 ( 83.8% )
60 plus
5 ( 1.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
2
Q18 Current employment status.
Working full-time (30+ hrs)
163 ( 62.7% )
Working part-time (less than 30 hrs)
24 ( 9.2% )
On government work training programme
1 ( 0.4% )
Housewife/ husband/ full-time in the home
2 ( 0.8% )
Retired - company / personal pension
4 ( 1.5% )
Retired - state pension only
3 ( 1.2% )
Temporarily unable to work
0 ( 0.0% )
Permanently unable to work
0 ( 0.0% )
Unemployed - more than 6 months
7 ( 2.7% )
Unemployed - less than 6 months
4 ( 1.5% )
In full-time education (school)
14 ( 5.4% )
Full-time student (college/university)
35 ( 13.5% )
Never worked
2 ( 0.8% )
None of these
1 ( 0.4% )
Refused to say
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
7
48

Socio-economic group.
1 & 2
99 ( 50.3% )
3
28 ( 14.2% )
4
12 ( 6.1% )
5
14 ( 7.1% )
6 & 7
44 ( 22.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
70
Q23 Postcode.
first part
number of
cumulative
of postcode
questionnaires
percent
B66
75
( 28.1% )
28.1
B67
68
( 25.5% )
53.6
B17
19
( 7.1% )
60.7
B16
15
( 5.6% )
66.3
B68
15
( 5.6% )
71.9
B18
8
( 3.0% )
74.9
B21
8
( 3.0% )
77.9
B32
8
( 3.0% )
80.9
B70
5
( 1.9% )
82.8
B20
3
( 1.1% )
83.9
B63
3
( 1.1% )
85.0
B65
3
( 1.1% )
86.1
B71
3
( 1.1% )
87.3
B15
2
( 0.7% )
88.0
B31
2
( 0.7% )
88.8
B38
2
( 0.7% )
89.5
B62
2
( 0.7% )
90.3
B69
2
( 0.7% )
91.0
B13
1
( 0.4% )
91.4
B24
1
( 0.4% )
91.8
B25
1
( 0.4% )
92.1
B28
1
( 0.4% )
92.5
B33
1
( 0.4% )
92.9
B37
1
( 0.4% )
93.3
B45
1
( 0.4% )
93.6
B5
1
( 0.4% )
94.0
49

B60
1
( 0.4% )
94.4
B61
1
( 0.4% )
94.8
B64
1
( 0.4% )
95.1
B75
1
( 0.4% )
95.5
B9
1
( 0.4% )
95.9
BJ0
1
( 0.4% )
96.3
BT6
1
( 0.4% )
96.6
D74
1
( 0.4% )
97.0
DE12
1
( 0.4% )
97.4
DY1
1
( 0.4% )
97.8
DY4
1
( 0.4% )
98.1
NV7
1
( 0.4% )
98.5
WJ14
1
( 0.4% )
98.9
WS5
1
( 0.4% )
99.3
WS9
1
( 0.4% )
99.6
WV4
1
( 0.4% )
100.0
50