Microsoft Word - Tipton SC.doc

NATIONAL BENCHMARKING SERVICE FOR SPORTS
AND LEISURE CENTRES

FACILITY REPORT
FOR
TIPTON SWIMMING CENTRE

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 TIPTON SWIMMING CENTRE
4

4.
MAP OF CATCHMENT AREA
10

5.
RESULTS: CURRENT PERFORMANCE SCORES FOR TIPTON
11
SWIMMING CENTRE

APPENDIX 1: USER SURVEY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
30

NBS REPORT FOR TIPTON SWIMMING CENTRE

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 Tipton
Swimming Centre, 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 Tipton Swimming Centre 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 329 users of the centre between
30th June and 8th July 2007, conducted by Leisure Net Solutions; and a financial
return based on the year 1st April 2006 to 31st March 2007. 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
Tipton Swimming Centre is classified as being a 'wet' centre which means that it
has a swimming pool of at least 20 metres in length but no indoor sports hall that is
of the minimum configuration (of four badminton courts) to be classed by Sport
England as having 'dry' provision. The actual floor space of the centre is 2,856m2
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
2,396m2 of usable space. The catchment area has a relatively high proportion
(30.72%) 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 Tipton are:

•  Wet (benchmark family of 27 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 (benchmark family of 35 centres)

1

2.
THE USER SURVEY SAMPLE

Figure 1: Tipton 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 329 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 (83,002 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.

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: Tipton User Survey Balance of Use

Note: the percentages 'swimming' and 'using the pool' may vary because of two factors: first,
many spectators use the pool area; second, the number of non-respondents to each question
differs considerably.

2.3
Swimming was the most frequently stated main activity by survey respondents,
accounting for 80% of the main activities undertaken during the survey period.
Given the distribution of activities undertaken, it is not surprising that the pool was
the predominantly utilised area 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. The vast majority of activities undertaken were casual (80%)
rather than instructor led or club usage. This finding is also consistent with the
nature of swimmers who form the bulk of the sample. Just under half (48%) of the
respondents had some form of leisure card which gave them reduced price
admission to the centre. About one in every other discounted admission made via
leisure card was 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 TIPTON SWIMMING CENTRE

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 performance is weak relative to the proposed CPA thresholds, with one
of the seven key indicator scores above its upper threshold, one indicator score
between the thresholds, and four indicator scores 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.

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 similar 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 access by social classes 6&7, is in the
top quartile. Three other key access related indicators, however, score at their

5

bottom quartile levels. The efficiency indicator - subsidy per visit - is also at the
bottom quartile relative to other similar facilities.

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 mixed access performance. It is
important to stress that not all the access groups identified are likely to be important
to a social inclusion agenda. Three of the groups which might be seen as important
to social inclusion perform at the 75% benchmark level or in the top quartile (NS-
SEC 6&7, disadvantaged card holders, and the unemployed), but three which are
relevant to social inclusion are below their 25% benchmark performance levels (11-
19 years, ethnic minorities and disabled under 60). Three other indicators are in
their top quartiles, but they are not normally considered relevant to social inclusion,
either because they are not necessarily disadvantaged (20-59 years, first visits) or
they are typically well represented in centres of this type (females).

3.8
Financial performance is poor relative to the benchmarks, with all subsidy related
indicators rooted in their bottom quartiles. 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 factors which
constrain this financial performance are low income levels coupled with weak visits
performance (see below), which are not compensated for by the generally strong
operating cost performance - albeit operating cost per visit is at its bottom quartile
owing to low throughput. Income per visit is very low, at the bottom quartile level,
and is partly constrained by low direct income per visit. It is relevant to note that
customer satisfaction with the value for money of activities and entrance charges is
relatively high, with average customer scores of 4.22 and 4.30 out of 5 respectively.
This suggests some scope to raise activity prices, and hence direct income per visit.

6

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 bottom quartile level, the simple product of a relatively
low number of annual visits for a centre of this size despite achieving excellent
market penetration in the local catchment population (NB weekly number of people
visiting is in the top quartile). The percentage of visits which are casual (80%) is
very high by industry standards but whether or not this level of casual use is
appropriate depends on the targeting and programming policies of the centre.

Satisfaction with and importance of attributes

3.10
The tables below identify attributes with the largest gaps between importance and
satisfaction, by mean scores or 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.

7

Mean score gaps
Attribute Importance
Satisfaction
Gap
Quality of car parking on site
4.45
3.45
1.00
Water temperature in the swimming pool
4.84
4.11
0.73
Cleanliness of changing areas
4.84
4.13
0.71
Quality of food and drink
4.35
3.68
0.67
Cleanliness of activity
spaces
4.82 4.19 0.63

Rank gaps
Attribute Importance
Satisfaction
Gap
Water temperature in the swimming pool
2
13
-11
Cleanliness of changing areas
1
12
-11
Cleanliness of activity spaces
4
10
-6
Quality of car parking on site
16
17
-1

3.11
Four attributes feature in both of the tables above. The second table only contains
four attributes because only four had negative importance-satisfaction rank gaps.
The second table demonstrates that three of the attributes are among the most
important to customers. The appearance of cleanliness attributes in the gap scores
is not unusual for sports facilities. From the frequency distributions in the appendix,
it is apparent that 6% of respondents were dissatisfied with the cleanliness of the
changing areas and only about 3% were dissatisfied with the cleanliness of activity
spaces (Appendix Q12m, and n). This reinforces the fact that there is not a
widespread, absolute problem with such attributes. Water temperature and quality
of parking facilities also appear in both gap tables - 10% and 21% of respondents
expressed dissatisfaction with these attributes respectively (Q12i and k) - although
it should be noted that quality of car parking on site was quite low (16th) in the
satisfaction rankings by customers. So any problems are not absolute, but relative
- the satisfaction scores falling short of the importance scores - and minorities of
customers are dissatisfied.

Strengths of the centre as perceived by customers
Attribute Satisfaction
Importance
Mean
Rank
Mean
Rank
Water quality in the swimming pool
4.54
1
4.82
3
Helpfulness of reception staff
4.48
2
4.82
5
Helpfulness of other staff
4.44
3
4.81
7
Standard of coaching/instruction
4.40
4
4.81
6
Activity available at convenient times
4.37
5
4.76
8

3.12
According to the customers surveyed, the strengths of the centre involve attributes
relating to staff, accessibility and water quality in the swimming pool. All top five
satisfaction attributes are also in the top ten for importance rankings - a desirable
correlation. The relatively high satisfaction with availability of activities at
convenient times may reflect the relatively low number of visits to this centre.
Overall satisfaction with the visit achieves a mean score of 4.32 out of 5, which is a
good satisfaction score compared with the individual attributes.

8

4.
MAP OF CATCHMENT AREA

4.1
The catchment area shown in this map is defined as the area within which Tipton
Swimming Centre attracts more visitors than any other centre, i.e. the area within
which Tipton is the dominant supplier.
Sport England Benchmark Service
Tipton Swimming Centre
Oc
O k
Oc
c e
O k r
Occ e
k
Hi
r H
ker
ker
l
er Hiil
Hl
Hiil
ill
Ocker Hilll
ll
ill
Ti
T pt
ii on
pto
pt
G
on
n
on r
G e
r e
ee n
e
een
Ti
T p
Tii
Ti t
pp o
ptt
pt n
o
on
n
o
on
Dud
Du
Du l
d e
Du
Du ll y
d e
ll  P
y o
ey
e  P r
y o
P
Po t
or
Po t
r
Dudley Por
Key
Catchment
Tipton Swimming Centre
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
30/07/2007 Job PE using Mapinfo for Sport England
License numbers C02W 0003683 & 10003311     ©The Automobile Association 1999, all rights reserved

9

Proposed CPA Indicators
% visits 11-19 years ÷ % catchment population 11-19 years
3.29
3.00
2.61
2.61
2.15
2.00
1.48
1.33
1.18
1.10
1.00
0.91
0.92
0.90
CPA upper
0.71
0.65
0.72
0.71
0.44
CPA lower
0.22
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.41
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
2.19
2.00
1.65
1.50
1.00
1.00
0.74
0.68
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.58
0.51
0.50
0.50
0.44
0.41
CPA upper
0.34
0.35
0.21
0.19
0.19
0.21
CPA lower
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.91
CPA upper = 0.50
CPA lower = 0.20
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
11

% visits from black, Asian & other ethnic groups ÷ % catchment population in same
ethnic groups
10.87
10.00
5.25
5.00
3.52
1.74
1.71
1.38
1.57
1.14
1.16
0.69 0.94
0.86
0.86
0.83 1.06 1.27
0.59
CPA upper
0.18
0.18
0.18
CPA lower
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.65
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
1.58
1.50
1.00
0.78
CPA upper
0.65
0.60
0.55
0.50
0.53
0.50
0.43
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.35
0.32
0.31
CPA lower
0.16
0.16
0.06
0.08
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.52
CPA upper = 0.85
CPA lower = 0.35
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
12

% visits <60 years disabled ÷ % catchment population <60 years disabled
1.42
1.42
1.30
1.12
1.00
0.79
0.77
0.66
0.69
0.68
0.63
0.55
0.57
0.51
0.50
0.44
0.44
0.46
0.19
0.15
0.08
0.08
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.33
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
-1.52
-0.39
-0.37
-0.03
-0.09
0.11
0.00
CPA upper
0.84
0.60
0.98
0.87
1.09
1.46
1.85
1.85
2.00
CPA lower
3.65
4.00
4.92
4.92
4.92
6.00
8.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 6.42
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
13

Annual visits per sq. m. - 1
300
200
CPA upper
100
CPA lower
0
Centre score = 35
CPA upper = 150
CPA lower = 60
For this performance indicator, square metres of indoor space excludes offices and corridors
14

Other important Indicators
% visits 20-59 years ÷ % catchment population 20-59 years
1.44
1.44
1.44
1.40
1.36
1.27
1.28
1.25
1.24
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.18
1.18
1.13
1.14
1.11
1.10
1.00
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.84
0.80
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 1.33
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits which were first visits
20.83
20.83
20.83
20.00
14.55
15.00
9.54
10.00
8.52
7.17
6.65
6.54
5.56
5.92
5.04
5.00
3.71
3.25
3.25
3.36
1.85
1.85
2.24
0.91
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 8.84
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
15

% visits with discount card
79.14
79.14
76.60
76.60
65.43
60.11
60.00
57.31
56.42
56.23
50.00
40.94
40.96
38.61
40.00
36.17
27.17
27.17
18.73
20.00
8.65
5.33
4.47
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 47.71
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits with discount card for 'disadvantage'
47.48
47.48
47.26
40.00
30.50
30.00
27.54
24.88
19.30
20.00
16.16
16.71
12.96
13.93
10.63
9.22
10.00
7.23
8.13
6.81
4.27
2.47
1.16
1.16
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 23.85
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
16

% visits female
80
80
80
73
69
70
63
63
63
60
60
56
56
56
54
52
51
52
49
50
47
41
40
35
30
30
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 67
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% visits 60+ years disabled ÷ % catchment population 60+ years disabled
0.27
0.26
0.24
0.24
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.06
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
17

% visits unemployed
13.77
13.77
10.00
7.11
6.25
5.47
4.91
5.00
2.55
3.00
2.55
1.58
1.72
1.62
1.85
0.80
1.06
1.17
1.14
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
-5.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 4.36
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
% cost recovery
164
150
136
140
113
110
101
103
96
100
80
80
75
71
66
58
51
47
50
36
27
27
27
0
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 22
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
18

Subsidy per visit (£) - 2
-1.92
-1.52
-1.52
-0.39
-0.37
-0.03
-0.09
0.11
0.00
0.60
0.84
0.98
0.87
1.09
1.46
1.85
1.85
2.00
3.65
4.00
4.92
4.92
4.92
6.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 5.11
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
-367
-321
-200
-26
-30
-2
-6
10
0
55
84
82
82
105
121
142
147
200
284
363
363
363
400
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 149
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.
19

Subsidy per resident (£)
-41.20
-40.00
-20.00
-17.84
-8.84
-4.42
-3.23
-0.21
-1.75
1.71
0.00
4.08
4.18
6.42
6.89
9.02
8.77
14.85
14.13
19.55
19.19
20.00
26.40
30.23
40.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 22.12
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
1.68
1.96
1.78
2.00
2.46
3.03
2.90
3.13
3.63
3.64
4.17
4.15
4.00
4.90
4.79
5.45
5.45
6.00
6.44
6.79
8.26
8.00
10.00
10.45
12.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 6.56
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.
20

Total operating cost per sq. m. (£)
48
99
147
124
208
186
230
279
297
310
310
393
405
405
405
475
500
802
1000
1063
1238
1238
1500
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 191
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. (£)
0
0
0
1
10
6
11
9
17
14
14
10
27
27
27
35
50
71
68
100
150
156
156
200
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 2
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

Energy costs per sq. m. (£)
6
4
4
15
19
17
19
27
26
27
32
29
36
39
37
39
50
100
138
138
137
138
150
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 25
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
7.83
6.35
6.00
4.58
4.13
4.00
3.79
3.52
3.05
2.79
2.80
2.61
2.68
2.39
2.23
1.80
2.00
1.50
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 1.45
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
22

Total income per sq. m. (£)
1431
1431
1123
1000
876
500
423
423
323
344
248
274
226
190
137
127
153
139
67
67
66
46
0
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 42
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
Direct income per visit (£)
7.79
7.79
7.79
6.00
5.58
4.43
3.86
4.00
3.40
3.29
2.51
2.65
2.47
2.39
2.12
2.12
2.04
2.00
1.59
1.48
0.74
0.74
0.74
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 1.33
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
23

Secondary income per visit (£)
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.00
0.72
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.43
0.31
0.25
0.21
0.16
0.09
0.09
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 0.12
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
Annual visits per sq. m. - 2
355
355
350
301
300
200
136
117
103
102
100
89
88
87
64
64
64
70
45
31
23
23
16
0
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 29
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
For this indicator, total indoor floor space is used
24

% visits casual, instead of organised
96
96
96
90
87
84
83
80
80
80
76
74
74
71
70
61
61
60
43
40
37
20
16
11
0
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 80
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
16.33
10.83
11.01
11.18
7.50
7.98
8.71
7.92
4.31 5.84
5.59
5.59
4.66
1.31
1.53
1.31
0.59
0.00
Wet
High NS-SEC
1500 to < 3000 sq.m.
Trust
Centre score = 13.27
lowest score
25%
50%
75%
highest score
25

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
8 4.76 321
5 4.37 319
3
0.39
b.
Ease of booking
12 4.68 281
8 4.28 246
4
0.40
c.
The activity charge/fee
10 4.70 314
7 4.30 318
3
0.40
d.
The range of activities available
13 4.62 287
11 4.13 269
2
0.49
Quality of facilities/services
g.
Quality of equipment
14 4.61 236
14 4.00 110
0
0.61
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
3 4.82 299
1 4.54 299
2
0.28
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
2 4.84 300
13 4.11 299
-11
0.73
j.
Number of people in the pool
11 4.69 303
6 4.33 298
5
0.36
k.
Quality of car parking on site
16 4.45 304
17 3.45 251
-1
1.00
l.
Quality of food and drink
17 4.35 284
16 3.68 241
1
0.67
Cleanliness
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
1 4.84 315
12 4.13 313
-11
0.71
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
4 4.82 313
10 4.19 284
-6
0.63
Staff
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
5 4.82 317
2 4.48 324
3
0.34
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
7 4.81 319
3 4.44 315
4
0.37
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
6 4.81 273
4 4.40 104
2
0.41
Value for money
r.
Value for money of activities
9 4.73 313
9 4.22 312
0
0.51
s.
Value for money of food/drink
15 4.51 278
15 3.91 262
0
0.60
Other attributes *
e.
Quality of flooring in the sports hall
4.50
48
N/A
f.
Quality of lighting in the sports hall
4.44
50
N/A
t.
Overall satisfaction with visit
N/A
4.32 320
* 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'.
26

Satisfaction and importance scores: by mean gaps
GAPS
( Importance minus
IMPORTANCE
SATISFACTION
Satisfaction )
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean
k.
Quality of car parking on site
16 4.45 304
17 3.45 251
-1
1.00
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
2 4.84 300
13 4.11 299
-11
0.73
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
1 4.84 315
12 4.13 313
-11
0.71
l.
Quality of food and drink
17 4.35 284
16 3.68 241
1
0.67
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
4 4.82 313
10 4.19 284
-6
0.63
g.
Quality of equipment
14 4.61 236
14 4.00 110
0
0.61
s.
Value for money of food/drink
15 4.51 278
15 3.91 262
0
0.60
r.
Value for money of activities
9 4.73 313
9 4.22 312
0
0.51
d.
The range of activities available
13 4.62 287
11 4.13 269
2
0.49
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
6 4.81 273
4 4.40 104
2
0.41
c.
The activity charge/fee
10 4.70 314
7 4.30 318
3
0.40
b.
Ease of booking
12 4.68 281
8 4.28 246
4
0.40
a.
Activity available at convenient times
8 4.76 321
5 4.37 319
3
0.39
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
7 4.81 319
3 4.44 315
4
0.37
j.
Number of people in the pool
11 4.69 303
6 4.33 298
5
0.36
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
5 4.82 317
2 4.48 324
3
0.34
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
3 4.82 299
1 4.54 299
2
0.28
27

Satisfaction and importance scores: by rank gaps
GAPS
( Importance minus
IMPORTANCE
SATISFACTION
Satisfaction )
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean no
Rank Mean
i.
Water temperature in the swimming pool
2 4.84 300
13 4.11 299
-11
0.73
m.
Cleanliness of changing areas
1 4.84 315
12 4.13 313
-11
0.71
n.
Cleanliness of activity spaces
4 4.82 313
10 4.19 284
-6
0.63
k.
Quality of car parking on site
16 4.45 304
17 3.45 251
-1
1.00
r.
Value for money of activities
9 4.73 313
9 4.22 312
0
0.51
g.
Quality of equipment
14 4.61 236
14 4.00 110
0
0.61
s.
Value for money of food/drink
15 4.51 278
15 3.91 262
0
0.60
l.
Quality of food and drink
17 4.35 284
16 3.68 241
1
0.67
h.
Water quality in the swimming pool
3 4.82 299
1 4.54 299
2
0.28
q.
Standard of coaching/instruction
6 4.81 273
4 4.40 104
2
0.41
d.
The range of activities available
13 4.62 287
11 4.13 269
2
0.49
o.
Helpfulness of reception staff
5 4.82 317
2 4.48 324
3
0.34
a.
Activity available at convenient times
8 4.76 321
5 4.37 319
3
0.39
c.
The activity charge/fee
10 4.70 314
7 4.30 318
3
0.40
p.
Helpfulness of other staff
7 4.81 319
3 4.44 315
4
0.37
b.
Ease of booking
12 4.68 281
8 4.28 246
4
0.40
j.
Number of people in the pool
11 4.69 303
6 4.33 298
5
0.36
28

APPENDIX 1:

USER SURVEY FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS
29

Q1 Main activity today?
Badminton
0 ( 0.0% )
Keep fit/aerobics/etc
6 ( 1.8% )
Fitness equipment/machines etc
1 ( 0.3% )
Martial arts
0 ( 0.0% )
Five-a-side football
0 ( 0.0% )
Gymnastics
0 ( 0.0% )
Basketball or volleyball
0 ( 0.0% )
Other physical activity
0 ( 0.0% )
Swimming or aqua fit
262 ( 79.6% )
A spectator
51 ( 15.5% )
Another type of activity
9 ( 2.7% )
Q2 Where did you do your main activity today?
Swimming pool
262 ( 98.9% )
Gym/fitness centre
3 ( 1.1% )
Outside facility
0 ( 0.0% )
Main hall
0 ( 0.0% )
Smaller hall
0 ( 0.0% )
Another part of the facility
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
64
Q3 How you are taking part in your main activity today?
An organised class/session
46 ( 17.4% )
As an individual user
211 ( 79.9% )
As a member of a club or team
2 ( 0.8% )
Other
5 ( 1.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
65
30

Q4 Is today your first ever visit to this facility?
Yes
29 ( 8.8% )
No
299 ( 91.2% )
Missing/Not applicable
1
Q5a Number of times visited in past 7 days.
1
212 ( 67.5% )
2
72 ( 22.9% )
3
16 ( 5.1% )
4
5 ( 1.6% )
5
4 ( 1.3% )
6
1 ( 0.3% )
7
3 ( 1.0% )
8 plus
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
0
Q5b Number of times visited in past 4 weeks.
1 to 5
224 ( 72.3% )
6 to 10
68 ( 21.9% )
11 to 15
8 ( 2.6% )
16 to 20
6 ( 1.9% )
21 plus
4 ( 1.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
19
31

Q7 Do you have a leisure card?
Yes
156 ( 47.7% )
No
171 ( 52.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
2
Q8 Basis of eligibility for card/scheme.
Disadvantaged
78 ( 52.0% )
Other
72 ( 48.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
179
Q9 From where did you come here today?
Straight from home
265 ( 81.3% )
Straight from work, school or college
52 ( 16.0% )
Other e.g. from shopping
9 ( 2.8% )
Missing/Not applicable
3
Q10 Main method of transport.
Car/motorcycle
272 ( 83.4% )
Public transport
16 ( 4.9% )
Walked all the way
37 ( 11.3% )
Other, including cycle
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
3
32

Q11Journey time.
0-5 minutes
108 ( 33.0% )
6-10 minutes
128 ( 39.1% )
11-15 minutes
38 ( 11.6% )
16-20 minutes
29 ( 8.9% )
21-30 minutes
16 ( 4.9% )
31-45 minutes
6 ( 1.8% )
Over 45 minutes
2 ( 0.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
2
Q12a Satisfaction - availability of activities at convenient times.
Very satisfied
148 ( 46.4% )
Fairly satisfied
150 ( 47.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
12 ( 3.8% )
Fairly dissatisfied
8 ( 2.5% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
10
Q12b Satisfaction - ease of booking.
Very satisfied
108 ( 43.9% )
Fairly satisfied
110 ( 44.7% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
22 ( 8.9% )
Fairly dissatisfied
2 ( 0.8% )
Very dissatisfied
4 ( 1.6% )
Missing/Not applicable
83
33

Q12c Satisfaction - activity charges/fees.
Very satisfied
139 ( 43.7% )
Fairly satisfied
144 ( 45.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
28 ( 8.8% )
Fairly dissatisfied
4 ( 1.3% )
Very dissatisfied
3 ( 0.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
11
Q12d Satisfaction - range of activities available.
Very satisfied
96 ( 35.7% )
Fairly satisfied
130 ( 48.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
30 ( 11.2% )
Fairly dissatisfied
9 ( 3.3% )
Very dissatisfied
4 ( 1.5% )
Missing/Not applicable
60
Q12e Satisfaction - quality of flooring in sports hall.
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
329
34

Q12f Satisfaction - quality of lighting in sports hall.
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
329
Q12g Satisfaction - quality of equipment.
Very satisfied
29 ( 26.4% )
Fairly satisfied
54 ( 49.1% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
25 ( 22.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
2 ( 1.8% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
219
Q12h Satisfaction - water quality in pool.
Very satisfied
188 ( 62.9% )
Fairly satisfied
89 ( 29.8% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
16 ( 5.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
6 ( 2.0% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
30
35

Q12i Satisfaction - water temperature in pool.
Very satisfied
130 ( 43.5% )
Fairly satisfied
109 ( 36.5% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
30 ( 10.0% )
Fairly dissatisfied
24 ( 8.0% )
Very dissatisfied
6 ( 2.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
30
Q12j Satisfaction - number of people in pool.
Very satisfied
148 ( 49.7% )
Fairly satisfied
114 ( 38.3% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
25 ( 8.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
8 ( 2.7% )
Very dissatisfied
3 ( 1.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
31
Q12k Satisfaction - quality of car parking on site.
Very satisfied
42 ( 16.7% )
Fairly satisfied
98 ( 39.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
58 ( 23.1% )
Fairly dissatisfied
37 ( 14.7% )
Very dissatisfied
16 ( 6.4% )
Missing/Not applicable
78
36

Q12l Satisfaction - quality of food/drink.
Very satisfied
39 ( 16.2% )
Fairly satisfied
105 ( 43.6% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
83 ( 34.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
10 ( 4.1% )
Very dissatisfied
4 ( 1.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
88
Q12m Satisfaction - cleanliness of changing area.
Very satisfied
107 ( 34.2% )
Fairly satisfied
164 ( 52.4% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
23 ( 7.3% )
Fairly dissatisfied
13 ( 4.2% )
Very dissatisfied
6 ( 1.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
16
Q12n Satisfaction - cleanliness of activity spaces.
Very satisfied
97 ( 34.2% )
Fairly satisfied
156 ( 54.9% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
22 ( 7.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
6 ( 2.1% )
Very dissatisfied
3 ( 1.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
45
37

Q12o Satisfaction - helpfulness of reception staff.
Very satisfied
175 ( 54.0% )
Fairly satisfied
132 ( 40.7% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
16 ( 4.9% )
Fairly dissatisfied
1 ( 0.3% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
5
Q12p Satisfaction - helpfulness of other staff.
Very satisfied
153 ( 48.6% )
Fairly satisfied
148 ( 47.0% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
14 ( 4.4% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
14
Q12q Satisfaction - standard of coaching/instruction.
Very satisfied
57 ( 54.8% )
Fairly satisfied
36 ( 34.6% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
9 ( 8.7% )
Fairly dissatisfied
0 ( 0.0% )
Very dissatisfied
2 ( 1.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
225
38

Q12r Satisfaction - value for money of activities.
Very satisfied
120 ( 38.5% )
Fairly satisfied
150 ( 48.1% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
34 ( 10.9% )
Fairly dissatisfied
7 ( 2.2% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
17
Q12s Satisfaction - value for money of food/drink.
Very satisfied
57 ( 21.8% )
Fairly satisfied
136 ( 51.9% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
61 ( 23.3% )
Fairly dissatisfied
5 ( 1.9% )
Very dissatisfied
3 ( 1.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
67
Q12t Satisfaction - overall satisfaction of visit.
Very satisfied
125 ( 39.1% )
Fairly satisfied
178 ( 55.6% )
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
12 ( 3.8% )
Fairly dissatisfied
4 ( 1.3% )
Very dissatisfied
1 ( 0.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
9
39

Q13a Importance - availability of activities at convenient times.
Very important
252 ( 78.5% )
Fairly important
62 ( 19.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
7 ( 2.2% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
8
Q13b Importance - ease of booking.
Very important
205 ( 73.0% )
Fairly important
63 ( 22.4% )
Neither important nor unimportant
12 ( 4.3% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
48
Q13c Importance - activity charges/fees.
Very important
228 ( 72.6% )
Fairly important
78 ( 24.8% )
Neither important nor unimportant
7 ( 2.2% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
15
40

Q13d Importance - the range of activities available.
Very important
192 ( 66.9% )
Fairly important
81 ( 28.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
13 ( 4.5% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
42
Q13e Importance - quality of flooring in sports hall.
Very important
29 ( 60.4% )
Fairly important
14 ( 29.2% )
Neither important nor unimportant
5 ( 10.4% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
281
Q13f Importance - quality of lighting in sports hall.
Very important
27 ( 54.0% )
Fairly important
18 ( 36.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
5 ( 10.0% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
279
41

Q13g Importance - quality of equipment.
Very important
162 ( 68.6% )
Fairly important
55 ( 23.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
19 ( 8.1% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
93
Q13h Importance - water quality in pool.
Very important
249 ( 83.3% )
Fairly important
47 ( 15.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
3 ( 1.0% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
30
Q13i Importance - water temperature in pool.
Very important
252 ( 84.0% )
Fairly important
47 ( 15.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
29
42

Q13j Importance - number of people in pool.
Very important
229 ( 75.6% )
Fairly important
63 ( 20.8% )
Neither important nor unimportant
6 ( 2.0% )
Fairly unimportant
2 ( 0.7% )
Very unimportant
3 ( 1.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
26
Q13k Importance - quality of car parking on site.
Very important
181 ( 59.5% )
Fairly important
91 ( 29.9% )
Neither important nor unimportant
24 ( 7.9% )
Fairly unimportant
4 ( 1.3% )
Very unimportant
4 ( 1.3% )
Missing/Not applicable
25
Q13l Importance - quality of food/drink.
Very important
160 ( 56.3% )
Fairly important
73 ( 25.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
43 ( 15.1% )
Fairly unimportant
5 ( 1.8% )
Very unimportant
3 ( 1.1% )
Missing/Not applicable
45
43

Q13m Importance - cleanliness of changing area.
Very important
267 ( 84.8% )
Fairly important
45 ( 14.3% )
Neither important nor unimportant
3 ( 1.0% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
14
Q13n Importance - cleanliness of activity spaces.
Very important
260 ( 83.1% )
Fairly important
50 ( 16.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
3 ( 1.0% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
16
Q13o Importance - helpfulness of reception staff.
Very important
260 ( 82.0% )
Fairly important
56 ( 17.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
12
44

Q13p Importance - helpfulness of other staff.
Very important
258 ( 80.9% )
Fairly important
60 ( 18.8% )
Neither important nor unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
10
Q13q Importance - standard of coaching/instruction
Very important
227 ( 83.2% )
Fairly important
40 ( 14.7% )
Neither important nor unimportant
6 ( 2.2% )
Fairly unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
56
Q13r Importance - value for money of activities.
Very important
234 ( 74.8% )
Fairly important
74 ( 23.6% )
Neither important nor unimportant
4 ( 1.3% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.3% )
Very unimportant
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
16
45

Q13s Importance - value for money of food/drink.
Very important
175 ( 62.9% )
Fairly important
75 ( 27.0% )
Neither important nor unimportant
25 ( 9.0% )
Fairly unimportant
1 ( 0.4% )
Very unimportant
2 ( 0.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
51
Q14 Gender.
Male
109 ( 33.3% )
Female
218 ( 66.7% )
Missing/Not applicable
2
Q15 Ethnic origin of respondent.
White
290 ( 89.5% )
Mixed
9 ( 2.8% )
Asian or Asian British
21 ( 6.5% )
Black or Black British
4 ( 1.2% )
Chinese or other ethnic group
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
5
46

Q16 Long term illness, health problem or disability.
Yes
26 ( 8.1% )
No
294 ( 91.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
9
Q17 Age.
11 to 19
18 ( 5.5% )
20 to 59
265 ( 81.5% )
60 plus
42 ( 12.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
4
Q18 Current employment status.
Working full-time (30+ hrs)
148 ( 46.1% )
Working part-time (less than 30 hrs)
54 ( 16.8% )
On government work training programme
0 ( 0.0% )
Housewife/ husband/ full-time in the home
18 ( 5.6% )
Retired - company / personal pension
6 ( 1.9% )
Retired - state pension only
23 ( 7.2% )
Temporarily unable to work
2 ( 0.6% )
Permanently unable to work
2 ( 0.6% )
Unemployed - more than 6 months
10 ( 3.1% )
Unemployed - less than 6 months
4 ( 1.2% )
In full-time education (school)
5 ( 1.6% )
Full-time student (college/university)
12 ( 3.7% )
Never worked
37 ( 11.5% )
None of these
0 ( 0.0% )
Refused to say
0 ( 0.0% )
Missing/Not applicable
8
47

Socio-economic group.
1 & 2
86 ( 35.8% )
3
46 ( 19.2% )
4
14 ( 5.8% )
5
27 ( 11.3% )
6 & 7
67 ( 27.9% )
Missing/Not applicable
89
Q23 Postcode.
first part
number of
cumulative
of postcode
questionnaires
percent
DY4
206
( 62.8% )
62.8
B69
31
( 9.5% )
72.3
DY3
17
( 5.2% )
77.4
DY1
12
( 3.7% )
81.1
B70
11
( 3.4% )
84.5
WV14
11
( 3.4% )
87.8
B71
7
( 2.1% )
89.9
DY2
5
( 1.5% )
91.5
B68
4
( 1.2% )
92.7
WS10
4
( 1.2% )
93.9
B62
3
( 0.9% )
94.8
B65
3
( 0.9% )
95.7
B67
2
( 0.6% )
96.3
DY6
2
( 0.6% )
97.0
WS5
2
( 0.6% )
97.6
BY4
1
( 0.3% )
97.9
DY10
1
( 0.3% )
98.2
OY3
1
( 0.3% )
98.5
TF7
1
( 0.3% )
98.8
WS1O
1
( 0.3% )
99.1
WV2
1
( 0.3% )
99.4
WV4
1
( 0.3% )
99.7
WV5
1
( 0.3% )
100.0
Missing/Not applicable
1
48