Telephone Interview for the London Borough of Newtown - Report Example

Telephone Interview for the London Borough of Newtown Telephone Interview for the London Borough of Newtown Introduction This paper will provide a summarize data and findings of comprehended interviews conducted by the local estate authority from the local residents. The data is extracted from the 400 interviews taken from tenants and lease holders of seven states, comprising of 80 males and 183 female respondents. The aim of this paper is to highlight areas in which people of these estates are most satisfied and areas in which they are least satisfied. Both qualitative and quantitative data are summarized in this report, to give a clear understanding of people’s responses obtained. 1. Confirming Caretaking Services The first question in the interview was the base to rest of the questions as it caters people’s direct responses about caretaking services being offered. The interview was not carried out further if the respondent answered No to the question to confirm that their estate provides caretaking services. On this question to confirm estate services of caretaking, a greater number of people responded positively, saying that their estate local authority does offer caretaking services to its residents. From the 400 interviews being taken, 266 responded in positive while the rest 134 said that the local authority does not provide such services. This data leads to the finding that there are around 33% of people who carry the impression of the local authority, being non- active in their estate cleaning and caretaking services (Venter & Waldt, 2007). 2. Responses in Cleaning services For residents who responded ‘Yes’ to the first question, the interview was proceed further to ask them about their opinion on the quality of services being offered. This question addresses the cleaning services in the estate and which are the areas in which needs to be worked on by the local authority. Pattern of the answers follows three responses of satisfied, no opinion and dissatisfied. Therefore, it was easy to evaluate data, keeping the responses in three distinct categories. The question was divided into responses on the following cleaning and maintenance areas of removal of litter, cleaning of bin areas, maintenance of communal lighting, cleaning of rubbish chute areas, removal of bulk rubbish (Ammons, 2012). i. Removal of Litter Waste of litter and junk stuff in passageways and roads is one core problem for many people as it creates hindrances in traffic flow in lanes and walkways (United Nations Environment Programme, 2013). So this question was catered right after the respondent affirmed about the services of the estate. Out of the 400 respondents, 165 were satisfied with the litter removing services of the estate. On the contrary, 101 residents were dissatisfied from this service and suggested that there is a big room for improvement in this area of cleaning. The rest 134 residents being interviewed gave the response of no opinion. Two findings that can be made from this data are that, the people responding no opinion to this question are not fully dissatisfied as then they would have a stand in against of the removal of litter service. Hence, it can be said that a bigger majority of people are content with this service being offered. Second majority are the people who are neither completely satisfied nor dissatisfied, but can be considered to be inclined towards satisfaction. Then a minority of people, making around 25% of the total interviewees, falls in the category of dissatisfied residents in cleaning and removal of litter (Guillain, 2008). ii. Cleaning of Bin Areas The next part of the question was related to the cleaning of bin areas of the locality. These are the areas where trash bins are located, and people trash their junk and rubbish into theses bins. When these bins are not emptied on regular intervals, then people drop their trash beside the bins or in the passageway, which creates health and environment problems due to exposure of garbage which spreads germs all over (Reddy, 2011). In this data, it is seen that many people do not have an idea of this service and have responded ‘no opinion’ to this question. However, a majority of people have supported this service, and 164 out of the total interviewees said that they are satisfied from the cleaning of bin services provided by the local authority. From the remaining interviewees, 32 were ‘dissatisfied’ from this service, and 70 responded ‘no opinion’ to this question. This leads us to the finding that services provided in cleaning of bin areas is above average in the seven states been covered (Reddy, 2011). iii. Maintenance of Communal Lighting The maintenance of area lighting also falls under the responsibility description of the local authority of the estate, and this service was evaluated in the next question. 183 respondents, making more than 45% of the total respondents covered, were satisfied of the lighting services of their estate. 72 respondents did not give any opinion to this question while 11 respondents gave the answer of being dissatisfied from the current maintenance of lighting services provided (Public Services Association, 2005). iv. Cleaning of Rubbish Chute Areas The issue of rubbish cleaning from the chute areas was included in the questionnaire, and it was the cleaning area which got the most dissatisfactory responses. Cleaning garbage chute areas ensures safety environment in apartments, where rubbish of all houses is thrown in one place. On the response of this question, 165 respondents were dissatisfied from services offered in cleaning of the chute areas. 70 of the respondents answered in satisfaction while the 31 did not give any opinion on this part of the question (Williams, 1994). v. Removal of bulk rubbish The service of cleaning bulk items like furniture, electronic stuff and others that cannot be trashed in bins is also covered in this interview, which shows a very positive response overall. 196 respondents were satisfied from services in removal of bulk rubbish. Other 19 were dissatisfied while 51 respondents did not give any opinion on this matter (United Nations Environment Programme, 2013). 3. Caretaker’s Job Description After gathering responses on cleaning practices in different localities of the selected estates, a question was put forwarded on defining the responsibility of bulk rubbish removal, to be a part of caretaker’s job. On this question, 264 responses were collected out of which 90 were in favor of it, answering ‘Yes’ that they believe that it is the caretaker of the estate who carries the responsibility of bulk rubbish removal from their district. Other 80 people said ‘No’ to this question while majority people, 94 to be exact do not have any opinion for this question. This data leads us to the finding that more people are satisfied by the bulk rubbish removal in their estates, and want it to be continued by the estate cleaning association or authoritative (Ntakamulenga, 2008). 4. Response on Specialized Contractors It has been seen in municipal operation that workers are present with over burdened job responsibility. Being caretakers there main concern is about land stewardship which often gets distracted when they are asked to do additional municipal work like “garbage picking or removal”. The question addressed the similar problem where Newtown Council members asked people to respond on municipal job expansion and division (Venter & Waldt, 2007). The replies were from different states and different audience of the public, which provided comprehensive results on the findings. According to the data, there were about 182 replies out of the total 400 that supported the hiring of specialist contractors. The responses were based on self interpretation where people thoroughly supported the hiring up contractors activity. This was to reduce the work load on caretakers and to develop more concentration on the managerial side of the service. On further assessment, it was noted that people wanted to see specialist contractors’ work, which is more punctual in picking up garbage activity. Meanwhile, the interviewers found the clear point of opinion which was mainly on hiring specialized workers (Veolia, 2007). 5. Acquiring Specialized Contractors Cost management is decisively important for caretakers as they have a role to play in society and cannot be derailed in any of the financial means. Hiring specialist contractors was on the public opinion for which they were asked to assist on financial means. According to the data, 144 respondents said no and 62 stated yes to the option, which shows that majority stood on hiring specialists but without any financial contribution or donation. Actually there is a common perception that caretakers are government officials and each of the municipal activity is their responsibility. For such a reason people do not want to extra pay or contribute financially as they expect their caretakers to be fully on their duties (Veolia, 2007). The second part of the question addressed those respondents which agreed to contribute financially. As per the reflected data there were 62 respondents who supported the financial assistance to caretakers. The number of people which agreed was low but not low enough to get dejected. Hence, the council admired 62 respondents and asked further that how much they are going to pay on hiring specialist contractors. The options given were between £1.00-£ 1.50 which gave public a more choice to think and respond. Out of the 400 respondents 183 respondents were fixed to their opinion and which is not paying any financial donation to acquire municipal services (Ammons, 2012). 6. Communal Cleaning and Rubbish Management If we talk about communal services then cleansing is the main activity which falls under public service administration. It has been seen that communities do not bother if there is garbage on the streets or outer walkways, as they are much concerned about their internal block side cleaning. In this question the similar type of problem is addressed where respondents were asked on communal cleansing. The question brought positive response as majority of the people replied with entire communal cleaning instead of internal block side cleaning. It talked about the passage ways, walk ways and entire communal areas for which a good response was generated from the public. According to the data out of 400 respondents, 173 replied with yes as they wanted to see their communities clean and dirt free. 56 were still on the objection and 31 were out of the opinion (Craythorne, 2006). On further as 173 respondents agreed on entire communal cleaning service they were asked to assist financially. This was the second part of the question which was to test respondent’s perception and also to generate more accurate response and feedback. As per projections of the data, 136 respondents replied with no further assistance. Out of 400, 82 respondents were still on financial assistance which showed a positive sign from the respondents. This showed that the public all over from seven different states was interested in communal cleaning but without agreeing with any additional financial assistance. Hence, the interest was there in the public but with the lack of any further financial contribution (Ammons, 2012). In respect of 62 respondents who also agreed on financial favor, they were further asked that how much they can contribute. This was the last portion of the question which was to see the level of commitment from the public. Out of 400 respondents, 165 emphasized on paying nothing, 21 agreed to pay less than £50 and 15 agreed to pay between £1.01- £1.50. Here the majority was on no paying option which shows that the public was not interested to pay additionally for communal cleansing service (Ammons, 2012). Discussion and Recommendations Based on the survey of Newtown council London, there were different responses generated on the public administration side. The data obtained was from seven different states which is to understand the performance of caretaking at all the comprehensive level. As per results, there were different opinions that were reflected from the public as some were satisfied from the lighting and maintenance and some from the cleaning services. The survey brought deep insight as members of the council got a chance to meet public and their perception (Ammons, 2012). As per the findings the main dissatisfaction was in chute areas cleaning, as people thought that garbage is not properly collected or thrown to proper locations. This needs to be managed and requires more attention from the caretaking authorities. On further the survey highlighted the problem of road cleaning as garbage is mostly found on walkways and street areas which also requires attention of municipal authorities (Craythorne, 2006). On the second part of assessment which was to take the suggestion from the public side to improve caretaking activity, it was noted that people are on high support of specialist contractors. The public opinion is with the specialized working staff which is to reduce the workload from the caretakers. By implying it caretakers will be more focused on their true jobs like water planning, sewerage planning, land stewardship etc. In respect of the public opinion, hiring specialized contractors in on the highest recommendation to the authorities (World Bank Group, 2009). List of References Ammons, D., 2012. Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Craythorne, D., 2006. Municipal Administration:. Cape Town: Juta and Company Ltd. Guillain, C., 2008. Help the Environment: Cleaning Up Litter. New York: Pearson Publications Ltd. Ntakamulenga, D., 2008. An Overview of Community Participation in Solid Waste Management. Research Report. Mazingira, Tanzania: National Environment Management Council National Environment Management Council. Public Services Association, 2005. The Municipal Year Book and Public Services Directory. Chicago: Municipal Publications Limited. Reddy, P., 2011. Municipal Solid Waste Management: Processing - Energy Recovery - Global Examples. New Delhi: BS Publications. United Nations Environment Programme, 2013. Municipal Solid Waste Managemen. [Online] Viewed at: [Accessed 8 January 2013]. Venter, A. & Waldt, G., 2007. Municipal Management: Serving the People. Cape Town: Juta and Company Ltd. Veolia, 2007. Enviornmental Solutions for Local Authorities. Research Report. London: Veolia Environmental Services. Veolia, 2007. Environmental Solutions for Communities. Research Report. London : Veolia Environmental Services. Williams, d., 1994. Guide to Cleaner Technologies: Cleaning and Degreasing Process Changes. New York: US Environmental Protection Agency. World Bank Group, 2009. Improving Municipal Management for Cities to Succeed. Washington : World Bank Publications. Read More