Findings
- the project page had 300-page visitors. Of that number, 57 people clicked for further information and 22 of them completed surveys. This is a 7.3% visitor to respondent conversion rate which is very low. There could be several explanations for this. One being that the interim arrangements have been in place for a year and families have got used to current service delivery model. But we have no evidence to draw definite conclusions
- most respondents came via Let’s talk newsletter (11, 50%), social media (8, 36%), used an email link they had received directly (2, 9%) or a search engine (1, 5%). This reflects the way the survey was promoted
Of the 22 respondents:
- 14 respondents (14, 64%) selected option one - make permanent the interim arrangement to deliver services from nearby children's centres and provide outreach services in suitable locations, as their preferred option
- six respondents (6, 27%) selected option three - purchase the St Christopher’s building and undertake the necessary work to provide service there, as their preferred option
- two respondents (2, 9%) selected option two - make permanent the interim arrangement to deliver services from nearby children's centres, as their preferred option
- there were 19 text responses to provide any further comments they may have on the options or anything else they would like us to consider. These included:
- 13 comments supporting option one
- one comment supporting option two
- five comments supporting option three
- all respondents provided comments that supported their selected option
Those who supported option one and option two:
- expressed their satisfaction with the current interim arrangements (three comments) and close location of them (one comment)
- expressed their opinions about building maintenance responsibilities (two comments)
- stated that using existing facilities will save money (one comment)
- stated that outreach services will provide more accessible service to all families (one comment)
- expressed their concerns about capacity of the other children’s centres and limitation of sessions delivered due to closure of the building (one comment)
Those who supported option three emphasised the value of St Christopher’s as a community hub including:
- its location
- the potential for revitalising it to provide more services through partnership working with other organisations beyond the children’s centre services
In addition, respondents provided suggestions of alternative service delivery locations including:
- West Street offices
- outdoor and indoor sessions, for example at Peter Paine Performance Centre
- services within walking distance in other areas such as Kirton and Wyberton
- locations with parking
- other buildings in the Fenside area (for potential purchasing)
There was one suggestion to consider providing a bigger sensory room somewhere; similar to the room that was available at St Christopher’s Children’s Centre.
Who took part in the survey
- all respondents (22, 100%) either lived or worked in the Boston area
- out of 22 respondents:
- eight respondents (8, 36%) were health professionals
- seven respondents (7, 32%) were parents or carers
- five respondents (5, 23%) were responding in ‘other’ capacity including local residents (two), organisation representatives (two) and individuals previously using the centre (one)
- two respondents (2, 9%) were a representative of an organisation operating in Boston area
- of those who responded in the parent or carer capacity, five respondents (5, 71%) said that they had accessed services at St Christopher’s Children’s Centre whereas two respondents (2.29%) had not