South Bucks Community Engagement Strategy 2009 - 2012

This report highlights the findings of the consultation into South Bucks District Council’s Community Engagement Strategy. The purpose of this consultation was to look at ways in which we could better engage with the community we serve.

A list of recommendations appears in Conclusions at Annex A.


Focus Groups
We ran a series of focus groups with a wide range of people within South Bucks including members of our residents panel and those who were considered to be harder to reach, seldom heard or vulnerable in order to include them and take on board their particular views.

The Focus Groups held included:

• A Romany Gypsy and Travellers Group
•  A Disability and Access Group
• BME Women.
• A cross section group taken from our residents panel
• A Youth Group in Gerrards Cross
• A Befriending Group
• Burnham Older Peoples Action Group
• Older Persons Group Beaconsfield -Thursday Club

During the setting up and running of the focus groups, particularly in relation to older people and the vulnerable or disabled, we ensured that previous feedback obtained from other consultations was taken on board, namely:

• Enough notice was given to organise the focus group events.
• All vulnerable invitees were given the option to receive a letter confirming all the arrangements for the focus group session so that their relatives were aware and not unnecessarily having to make independent enquiries.
• Contingencies were in place to deal with cancellations i.e. over the quota in the first instance to allow for this and for 'no shows' on the day.
• Transportation and access/mobility issues were properly considered prior to the events, resulting in some events taking place off site at clubs and venues easy for the attendees to get to and in some cases at the home addresses of the consultees.
• Consideration was given to the type of language used in so far as ensuring language was in lay person’s terms and jargon and council-speak was avoided

Providing Feedback To Participants
We agreed that once the feedback report was complete, each focus group would be given either a written or verbal update of our findings. It was noted that quite often groups, local authorities and other partners consult with and talk to residents but rarely come back with any updates or any feedback, this was considered unacceptable.


Eight focus groups were held to discuss the Community Engagement Strategy. Below is a summary of the key points that emerged.

Views on Engagement and Communication

The groups highlighted the fact that some of our communications are too difficult for the wider public to understand, such as some strategies. They suggested that perhaps the format of strategies should be changed and presented in a way that allows for more simplicity in the language rather than a government type document. It was accepted that this is not possible in all circumstances and that some strategies are by their nature complex, however, wherever possible simple language explanations should be included when lay people are asked for their views.

Our Council magazine, the South Bucks Report was considered to be a very good publication but for some people a less formal design would be more appropriate. It was suggested that maybe it should also be available in an A5 size so that it could be posted out cheaper? Or it could be more like a leaflet.

“I like the South Bucks Report and read it but it is not good for everyone”.

“For some people the South Bucks report has too much information.”

Wider thoughts were that we should promote our websites more and consider using Twitter or YouTube or Face book.

“People like YouTube and Twitter and Face book, you should use them to engage people”.

It was also mentioned that we should consider being more proactive i.e. communicate via conducting events and road shows and consider setting up stalls at these event opportunities. The Flowerland garden centre or Apple Day event at Home Farm Cottage in Iver were suggested as good possible venues. This view endorses our plan to hold regular road shows contained in the action plan for this strategy which is currently being developed further.

The idea of conducting regular focus groups was considered to be a very good idea and there was a great deal of support for this to occur, many of the groups spoken to were willing volunteers for future groups. It was mentioned though, that attempts should be made to encourage more representatives of regular people, like those who work, not just those who happen to be around during the day. The suggestion that we consider holding focus groups at weekends or evenings too to allow a more diverse range of people to attend them was made. In addition to this, the offering of some type of incentive to encourage people to attend was made, a measure that we have previously undertaken to take forward and will maintain. When asked what would be a good incentive they said perhaps some vouchers to go to places, such as leisure centres or gyms.

Others in the groups said that in general focus groups only get those people who are particularly interested to participate whilst most other people really don’t care. They went on to say that we should look at how we could get the wider general public more involved. It was noted that the resident’s panel were one source but that many of them were inactive, given the poor turnout of one of the groups. By approaching just those people who express an interest we are likely only to be getting a biased view from people who actually care and are bothered to turn up. Ideally, a more realistic representative sample of people would be a better option. It was mentioned that our efforts would need to consider not incurring any extra costs because people would be likely to get annoyed if money was spent on this.

Some groups said they thought information about services was readily accessible and if they felt they didn’t know something they knew where they could easily find out, such as the internet or libraries or calling the council our partners . Although some groups had this view, they made the point that this would not be the case for all people, given individual circumstances.

Access to meetings was raised. It was felt that the Community and Voluntary sector often have difficulty attending meetings due to transport problems. Could more not be done to relocate or at least rotate certain meetings making them more accessible to those wishing to attend? It was recognised that the transport issue would be similar in many villages and perhaps a rotation system would be more workable. It was recognised that some areas had some form of assisted transportation and that this may be a more tangible solution in the majority of cases. The groups went on to say that even attending meetings at ‘Capswood’ - South Bucks District Council were a problem for many people on public transport. An example being that it would take three buses to get there from some parts of the district.

More widely, on communication it was mentioned that many years ago classes were made available to learn lip reading by Bucks County Council. This is not the case now and there is a need that these classes should be accessible to those working with the deaf / partially deaf and for people in general who wished to learn in order to communicate with people with hearing issues as well. It was felt that it was important to carry on having the facility to learn lip reading. Lip reading is very different from British Sign Language (BSL), which is a language of facial movements and finger and hand signs used by profoundly or severely deaf people to communicate among themselves and with their friends and families. Some people hear no sounds at all, often born deaf. RNID and others provide good BSL training for these people.

“I went to lip reading classes, run by the Council, about 25 years ago, without this skill I would find it very difficult to function amongst other people.”

Another focus group raised the issue of literature produced by the council being in English. It was felt that perhaps some copies could be made in other languages? Although, the people spoken to did not require the literature in other languages for themselves, they were aware of other residents who would benefit from this. They went on to say that the council do not routinely provide translators on the phone, and they were aware of some people who would wish to ask certain questions of the council, especially in relation to planning extensions to property. These people were not, in her view confident about getting this advice due to the language barrier, therefore a gap exists.

Another group who are Romany Gypsies and Travellers said that they wished to continue talking with a Council representative, verbally on a regular basis given their poor literacy levels. Quarterly meetings were agreed where topics in the Council magazine, the South Bucks Report would be discussed to keep them informed of what was happening.

Another group, who had mobility and disability issues voiced concerns that their group would possibly not continue due to a number of reasons and that this would impact on future dialogue and involvement with South Bucks District Council as a forum. We offered to support this group by providing a venue for future their future meetings and to provide some administrative support to alleviate current problems and become a regular forum for discussions to take place.


The majority of respondents agreed and endorsed the strategy but with some minor changes:

1. Consider transport and access to services when planning engagement work. Look at methods available to take engagement outside of the council office environment i.e. road shows, events, use of partner organisation venues.

2. Maintain focus groups and continue to offer incentives for attendance.

3. Ensure that information is available in a range of formats, including large print versions and audio on request. Also provide regular feedback to current focus group members. Consider the use of Twitter, Face book or You Tube.

4. Develop a policy on the use of translators and translation.