« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER FIVE: NOISE INVESTIGATION OFFICER SURVEY
Introduction
5.1 Noise Investigation Officers ( NIOs) and other professional staff involved in the delivery of neighbourhood noise nuisance services were contacted by email and asked to complete an online survey (a copy is provided in Appendix D). NIOs in 25 participating Local Authorities were included in the survey and responses were received from 23 LAs. Overall, the survey response rate was 42%, a relatively good response rate for this type of survey, and derived 83 respondents.
Respondents' role
5.2 Figure 5.1 illustrates the role of respondents. Just under half (46%) are EHOs, some dedicated to the noise nuisance service, others fulfilling a dual role. A further 2% are in promoted EHO posts, but it was not clear from the response given whether these were dedicated or dual roles. Forty-four percent of survey respondents are NIOs.
Figure 5.1 Current role of survey respondents
Notes to figure
Source: DTZ email survey
5.3 Of those who do not work exclusively on the noise nuisance service, 40% of those surveyed devote less than a quarter of their time to the noise service. Around a third spend the majority of their time on activities related to the noise service (see Table 5.1)
Table 5.1 What proportion of your time (approximately) do you spend on the noise service in relation to your other tasks?
More than 50% | 32% |
|---|
Between 25% and 50% | 28% |
|---|
Less than 25% | 40% |
|---|
5.4 We also asked those with a dual role if they felt that their noise nuisance work conflicted with their other duties (see Table 5.2)
Table 5.2 Do the time requirements of your work with the noise service ever conflict with your other duties?
Regularly | 8% |
|---|
Sometimes | 60% |
|---|
Never | 32% |
|---|
5.5 More detailed analysis of this question by the proportion of time typically spent on noise nuisance service duties shows that most (63%) of those devoting more than half of their time to noise service activities said that conflicts with other duties never occur. Those devoting half of their time or less to the noise service were more likely to say that conflicts do sometimes occur (86% of those devoting between 25% and 50% of their time and 70% of those devoting less than 25% of their time).
5.6 Of those with a dual role, 56% felt that this arrangement benefits the service, whereas only 12% felt that it detracts from the service.
Recruitment and training
5.7 Most (69%) respondents' previous job had been for a LA, 67% of these had been previously employed as EHOs. A large range of other previous employers were also mentioned, but no single employer was significantly represented.
5.8 Seventeen percent of respondents said they did not receive any training before joining the noise nuisance service. There is little variation between the proportion of EHOs and the proportion of NIOs that received no training. The nature of training provided is summarised in Figure 5.2. More than half of all respondents received introductory training on acoustics and on antisocial behaviour legislation and around half received conflict management training.
Figure 5.2 Types of training received prior to involvement in delivery of the noise nuisance service
Notes to figure
Totals sum to more than 100% because respondents could select more than one training type
Source: DTZ email survey
5.9 Those that did receive key types of training were asked to comment on the relevance, duration and quality of delivery of this training. Their comments are shown in Figures 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 below. Training was considered to be of relevance by all respondents, with the exception of a small proportion of respondents commenting on conflict management training. The duration of training was also generally considered to be appropriate, although a significant minority felt that acoustics training, training on antisocial behaviour legislation and conflict management training was too short. The apparent contradiction with other respondents indicating that these same training types were too short can be explained in a number of ways including:
- the respondent's own background;
- the respondent's perceptions of the length of the training; and
- the particular nature of the training provided, which is likely to differ across LAs.
5.10 Quality of delivery was assessed to be at least satisfactory by almost all respondents across most categories. Conflict management was felt to be less than satisfactory by 10% of those undertaking this type of training.
Figure 5.3 Relevance of training received prior to involvement in delivery of the noise nuisance service
Note to figure
Source: DTZ email survey
Figure 5.4 Duration of training received prior to involvement in delivery of the noise nuisance service
Note to figure
Source: DTZ email survey
Figure 5.5 Quality of delivery of training received prior to involvement in delivery of the noise nuisance service
Notes to figure
Source: DTZ email survey
5.11 Respondents were asked to describe training received outside of any induction period. The proportion that had not received any training rose to 27%, compared to 17% who had not received any training prior to commencing their Noise Service work. Again, the most common types of training received were in acoustics and antisocial behaviour legislation, with around a third of respondents citing these training types. A full breakdown of responses is provided in Figure 5.6.
Figure 5.6 Types of training received (outside of any induction training)
Notes to figure
Totals sum to more than 100% because respondents could select more than one training type.
Source: DTZ email survey
5.12 Responses regarding the relevance, duration and quality of delivery of this training received after commencing work on the noise nuisance service are summarised in Figures 5.7, 5.8 and 5.9 (below). Again, the training considered to be of least relevance overall is conflict management, while training on antisocial behaviour legislation is considered most relevant. Around one in five respondents undertaking acoustics, self defence or antisocial behaviour legislation training said that it was too short. The quality of delivery was broadly felt to be at least satisfactory across all types of training.
Figure 5.7 Relevance of training received (outside of any induction training)
Note to figure
Source: DTZ email survey
Figure 5.8 Duration of training received (outside of any induction training)
Note to figure
Source: DTZ email survey
Figure 5.9 Quality of delivery of training received (outside of any induction training)
Note to figure
Source: DTZ email survey
Time allocation
5.13 Respondents were asked to indicate the proportion of the time they spent on paperwork. Just under two thirds said that this was less than half of their typical time allocation - see Figure 5.10.
Figure 5.10 Proportion of time spent on administration and/or paperwork
Note to figure
Source: DTZ email survey
5.14 The vast majority of respondents felt that current time allocations are appropriate, although almost one in five felt they spent too much time on administrative tasks - see Figure 5.11 below.
Figure 5.11 Opinions on proportion of time spent on administration/paperwork
Note to figure
Source: DTZ email survey
5.15 Fifty-eight percent of respondents stated that their LA employs dedicated administration staff as part of the noise nuisance service.
Working in partnership
5.16 Most noise nuisance teams work in conjunction with other LA departments or the police (see Figure 5.12). Other LA departments most commonly engaged with are:
- A dedicated antisocial behaviour team (81% of those respondents who said that they work with other LA departments).
- Housing department (70% of those respondents who said that they work with other LA departments).
- Social Work department (30% of those respondents who said that they work with other LA departments).
Figure 5.12 Respondents that are working in partnership with…
Note to figure
Source: DTZ email survey
5.17 The relationship with other LA departments was felt to be strong at least some of the time, however, 17% of respondents said that this was a weak relationship.
Figure 5.13 Description of the nature of the relationship with other LA departments
Notes to figure
Percentages are a proportion of respondents working with other LA department(s).
Source: DTZ email survey
5.18 Relationships with the police were also generally considered to be good at least some of the time, and less than one in ten respondents said that this relationship was weak (see Figure 5.14).
Figure 5.14 Description of the nature of the relationship with the police
Notes to figure
Percentages are a proportion of respondents working with the police
Source: DTZ email survey
5.19 Such relationships hinge on cooperation and awareness. Figure 5.15 shows respondents' perceptions of relationships with other LA departments and with the police. This shows that levels of cooperation and awareness are generally felt to be better among police colleagues than within the LA, while there is room for improvement in terms of partnership working internally and with other organisations.
Figure 5.15 Cooperation and Awareness
Note to figure
Source: DTZ email survey
5.20 Specifically in terms of working with police, some LAs insist on police presence when a fixed penalty is issued - 73% of survey respondents indicated this was the case in their noise nuisance work. Only 3% of respondents said that the police were not reliable at attending in situations where a fixed penalty notice was being issued.
Involvement with the public
5.21 Survey respondents were asked to consider the importance of a number of aspects of the noise nuisance service. Figure 5.16 shows those aspects ranked as either important or very important by respondents. It is clear that those delivering the noise service see a number of strongly positive elements in the service.
Figure 5.16 Important or very important aspects of service delivery
Note to figure
Source: DTZ email survey
5.22 Of those respondents who were aware of customer satisfaction surveys (42%) that had been carried out by the LA generally, 43% and 34% respectively said that public perceptions of the service's ability to resolve noise disputes were either very good or good. No respondents said that public perception of the service was either poor or very poor at resolving disputes. From their experience, 94% of respondents said that the service was well received by the members of the public who had come into contact with it, but that awareness of the legislation and the powers of NIOs is not well developed, with 19% of respondents saying that the public has good awareness of noise/antisocial behaviour legislation but only 5% saying that the public have a good awareness of the powers of NIOs and the enforcement powers available to them. Just over 20% of respondents said that the noise nuisance service in their LA is not advertised.
5.23 Almost half (45%) of respondents said that nuisance noise is a symptom of more serious neighbourhood disputes.
5.24 Engagement with members of minority and immigrant groups is frequent for noise nuisance staff. 68% of survey respondents said they had dealt with complaints about households from these groups. Around a third said that they had dealt with complaints made by an individual from the BME or immigrant community, although these tended to be respondents who also said that they had dealt with complaints about households from these groups. This is summarised in Figure 5.17.
Figure 5.17 Have you had to deal with complaints involving minority and immigrant groups?
Note to figure
Source: DTZ email survey
5.25 Of those who said that their work with the noise service had led to contact with minority and/or immigrant groups, the majority said that language issues were a problem at least some of the time (see Figure 5.18).
Figure 5.18 Do language issues create problems when trying to resolve complaints involving minority and immigrant groups?
Note to figure
Source: DTZ email survey
Legislation and enforcement
5.26 Almost three out of five (58%) respondents stated that current antisocial behaviour legislation is not sufficient to deal with noise nuisance. Most common areas suggested for change were:
- Accounting for level of sound insulation (61%).
- The seizure of noise-making equipment should be made easier (55%).
- The flexibility of written warning notices and fixed penalty notices should be made easier (53%).
5.27 Of the enforcement measures available to noise nuisance service staff, survey respondents indicate that the most effective are informal mediation and fixed penalty notices. Least effective are verbal warnings, with more than half of respondents stating that these are "never effective."
Figure 5.19 Effectiveness of current enforcement measures
Notes to figure
Respondents selecting "don't know" or not providing any response to this question have been omitted from Figure 5.19
Source: DTZ email survey
Funding and resources
5.28 While less than a third of respondents said that the level of funding from the Scottish Executive was insufficient, the vast majority of respondents felt that the short term nature of funding was a problem. 58% of respondents said that the funding arrangements in place negatively impact on how they feel about the security of their job and 24% said that it negatively affects service delivery. The overwhelming majority (89%) of respondents stated that longer term funding would have a positive impact, particularly in terms of staff retention; financial and resource planning; and strategic planning (see Figure 5.20). Overall, staff indicated that the service does provide value for money (only 1% of respondents said that they think the service does not provide value for money).
Figure 5.20 Nature of positive impacts from longer term funding
Note to figure
Source: DTZ email survey
5.29 Most respondents (93%) were aware of Scottish Executive guidance on antisocial behaviour legislation, and 61% of these consider it to be either good or very good. Only 3% felt that Scottish Executive guidance is poor and none said it is very poor. Just over three quarters (76%) of respondents were also aware of guidance prepared and produced by their LA and two thirds (66%) of these said this guidance was either very good or good. Again, no respondents described LA guidance as "very poor."
Summary
Key Findings
5.30 Eighty-four members of staff involved in NNN completed an online survey (42% of those contacted). Of these, 46% were EHOs, 44% NIOs and 10% had another role. Around a third do not work exclusively on the NNN.
5.31 Just over two-thirds of respondents had been employed by a LA in their previous post, the majority of which had been employed as EHOs. 17% did not receive any training before joining the NNN. Of those that did receive training, the most common types of training received were acoustics training, ASB legislation training and conflict management training. The relevance, duration and quality of delivery was generally considered to be appropriate. 27% of respondents had not received any training following recruitment/induction. Of the remaining 73%, again, the most common training types were acoustics and ASB legislation training. This training was also generally considered to be satisfactory (or better) in terms of relevance, duration and quality.
5.32 Most respondents (63%) said that they spend less than half of their time on paperwork/ administration and most (74%) felt that the current balance between administration and service delivery is appropriate.
5.33 Most NNN teams work with other LA departments (including specialist ASB teams, housing and social work) and the police. Around half of respondents who work with another LA department (or departments) said they have a strong working relationship and a similar proportion said that they have a strong working relationship with the police. However, room for improvement was identified, with 85% of respondents saying there should be a greater cooperation with other LA departments and 59% saying there should be a greater cooperation with the police. Around half said that there was insufficient awareness of the noise service in other LA departments or in the police.
5.34 The single most important element of the service identified by respondents is its responsive nature; its specific enforcement powers; the relationship with the public (recognition and awareness); its ability to complement the work of the police; and the fact that those delivering the service have a strong technical knowledge. Formal survey and anecdotal evidence suggests that public satisfaction with the service is high, but work to raise awareness of what the service can offer is needed.
5.35 Seventy-one percent of respondents had engaged with members of ethnic minority and/or immigrant groups as part of their NNN service work (either as the subject of a complaint or as the person lodging a complaint) and most (82%) of these said that language issues were a problem at least some of the time.
5.36 More than half of respondents said that current ASB legislation is insufficient to deal with noise nuisance. Particular areas of difficulty were that the legislation does not account for the level of sound insulation; that equipment seizure is too difficult; and that there is insufficient flexibility on the issue of written warning notices and fixed penalty notices. However, the majority of respondents felt that Scottish Executive guidance on the legislation is either good or very good.
5.37 The main issue highlighted regarding funding is its temporary nature, however, the level of funding was generally felt to be appropriate. Overwhelmingly, respondents said that they feel the service provides value for money.
« Previous | Contents | Next »