The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local ... panel... · Government Panel Survey 7 Prepared for: The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Prepared by:

Cover Page

Research

Report

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7

Prepared for: The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local

Government Panel Survey 7

Prepared for: The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government

Prepared by: BMG Research

July 2008

Produced by BMG Research

© Bostock Marketing Group Ltd, 2008

www.bmgresearch.co.uk

Project:

Registered in England No. 2841970

Registered office:

7 Holt Court North

Heneage Street West

Aston Science Park

Birmingham

B7 4AX

UK

Tel: +44 (0) 121 3336006

UK VAT Registration No. 580 6606 32

Birmingham Chamber of Commerce Member No. B4626

Market Research Society Company Partner

ESOMAR Member (The World Association of Research Professionals)

British Quality Foundation Member

Market Research Quality Standards Association (British Standards Institute) BS7911 for Market Research -

Certificate No. FS76713

Investors in People Standard - Certificate No. WMQC 0614

Interviewer Quality Control Scheme (IQCS) Member Company

Registered under the Data Protection Act - Registration No. Z5081943

The BMG Research logo is a trade mark of Bostock Marketing Group Ltd


Table of Contents

1 Executive summary ........................................................................................................ 4

1.1 Views on anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood .............................................. 4

1.1.1 Anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood ..................................................... 4

1.2 Responsibility for dealing with anti-social behaviour ................................................ 4

1.2.1 Anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood ..................................................... 4

1.2.2 Anti-social behaviour near the home ................................................................ 5

1.3 Experiences of anti-social behaviour ....................................................................... 5

1.3.1 Experience of Anti-social behaviour ................................................................. 5

1.3.2 To whom problems/issues were reported. ........................................................ 5

1.3.3 Satisfaction with the way in which the landlord dealt with the problem ............. 6

1.3.4 Way in which the landlord dealt with the problem ............................................. 6

1.3.5 Reasons for not reporting problems or issues to the landlord ........................... 6

1.3.6 Effectively dealing with anti-social behaviour ................................................... 7

1.3.7 Dealing with anti-social behaviour where tenants have had experience of anti-

social behaviour ............................................................................................................. 7

1.3.8 Satisfaction with the way the landlord deals with anti-social behaviour ............ 7

1.3.9 Reasons for satisfaction with the way landlord deals with anti-social behaviour7

1.3.10 Reasons for dissatisfaction with the way landlord deals with anti-social

behaviour ....................................................................................................................... 8

1.4 Policies on anti-social behaviour ............................................................................. 8

1.4.1 Awareness of an anti-social behaviour policy ................................................... 8

1.3.2 Level of resident involvement and consultation in drawing up an anti-social

behaviour policy ............................................................................................................. 8

1.4.2 Rating of anti-social behaviour policy ............................................................... 9

1.4.3 Whether or not landlord is compliant with own anti-social behaviour policy ...... 9

2 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 10

2.1 Background and method ....................................................................................... 10

2.1.1 A note on all LAs ............................................................................................ 11

3 Views on anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood ................................................... 12

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood .......................................................... 12

3.2.1 Demographic analysis .................................................................................... 13

3.2.2 BME-related issues ........................................................................................ 14

3.2.3 Tracking over time ......................................................................................... 15

3.3 Responsibility for dealing with types of anti-social behaviour ................................ 16

3.3.1 Anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood ................................................... 16

3.3.2 Demographic variations – RSLs ..................................................................... 17

3.3.3 Demographic variations – all LAs ................................................................... 17


3.3.5 Anti-social behaviour near the home .............................................................. 18


4 Experience of anti-social behaviour.............................................................................. 20

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 20

4.2 Experience of ASB ................................................................................................ 21

4.3 To whom problems/issues were reported .............................................................. 22

4.4 Satisfaction with the way in which the landlord dealt with the problem .................. 25

4.5 Way in which the landlord dealt with the problem .................................................. 27

4.6 The way the problem was dealt with by satisfaction with the way in which the

problem was dealt with .................................................................................................... 30

4.7 Reasons for not reporting problems or issues to the landlord ................................ 31

4.8 Effectively dealing with anti-social behaviour ........................................................ 33

4.8.1 Further analysis ............................................................................................. 34

4.8.2 Teenagers hanging around on the street ....................................................... 34

4.8.3 People using or dealing drugs ........................................................................ 34

4.8.4 People being drunk or rowdy in public places ................................................ 34

4.8.5 Further analysis ............................................................................................. 37

4.8.6 Teenagers handing around on the streets ...................................................... 37

4.8.7 ALMOs and retained LAs ............................................................................... 37

4.9 Dealing with ASB where tenants have had experience of ASB (RSL tenants)....... 39

4.10 Dealing with ASB where tenants have had experience of ASB (All LA tenants) .... 41

4.11 Satisfaction with the way the landlord deals with anti-social behaviour ................. 43

4.11.1 Reasons for satisfaction with the way the landlord deals with ASB ................ 45

4.11.2 Reasons for dissatisfaction with the way the landlord deals with ASB ............ 47

4.12 What should be done to prevent ASB ................................................................... 49

5 Policies to tackle ASB problems ................................................................................... 50

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 50


5.2 Awareness of an ASB policy ................................................................................. 50

5.3 Level of resident involvement and consultation in drawing up an ASB policy ........ 52

5.4 Rating of ASB policy ............................................................................................. 54

5.5 Whether or not landlord is compliant with own ASB policy .................................... 56

6 Appendix – profile ........................................................................................................ 58

Table of Figures

Figure 1 Anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood - % very/fairly big problem (Q1) ......... 12

Figure 2 Responsibility for dealing with ASB in their neighbourhood (Q2a) ......................... 16

Figure 3 Responsibility for dealing with ASB near the home (Q2b) ..................................... 18

Figure 4 Experience of anti-social behaviour (Q3) ............................................................... 21

Figure 5 Satisfaction with the way in which the landlord dealt with the problem (Q5) .......... 25

Figure 6 Way in which landlord dealt with the problem (Q6) ................................................ 28

Figure 7 Satisfaction with the way in which landlord deals with ASB (Q9) ........................... 43

Figure 8 Whether or not the landlord has made tenants aware that they have an ASB policy

(Q12) .................................................................................................................................. 50

Figure 9 Whether or not residents were involved/consulted in developing ASB policy (Q13)

........................................................................................................................................... 52

Figure 10 Rating of ASB policy (Q14) ................................................................................. 54

Figure 11 Whether or not landlord is doing what is set out in ASB policy (Q15) .................. 56

Table of Tables

Table 1 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (% very/fairly big problem) (Panel 1 – Q28;

Panel 7 – Q1) ...................................................................................................................... 15

Table 2 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q29a; Panel 7 – Q2a) .............. 17

Table 3 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q29b; Panel 7 – Q2b) .............. 19

Table 4 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q30; Panel 7 – Q3) .................. 22

Table 5 Reporting issues and problems in the local neighbourhood (Q4) ............................ 23




Table 9 The way the problem was dealt with by satisfaction with the way in which the

problem was dealt (Q6 ran by Q5) ...................................................................................... 30

Table 10 Reasons for not reporting problems or issues to the landlord (Q7) ....................... 31

Table 11 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q34; Panel 7 – Q7) ................ 32

Table 12 Agreement landlord deals effectively with ASB (RSL tenants) (Q8) ...................... 33

Table 13 Agreement landlord deals effectively with ASB (All LA tenants) (Q8).................... 36

Table 14 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (% agree) (Panel 1 – Q35; Panel 7 – Q8) 38

Table 15 Experience of ASB by dealing effectively with ASB (RSL tenants) (Q3 by Q8) ..... 40

Table 16 Experience of ASB by dealing effectively with ASB (all LA tenants) (Q3 by Q8) ... 42

Table 17 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q36; Panel 7 – Q9) ................ 44

Table 18 Reasons for satisfaction (very/fairly) with the way landlord deals with ASB (Q10) 45

Table 19 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q37; Panel 7 – Q10) .............. 46

Table 20 Reasons for dissatisfaction (very/fairly) with the way the landlord deals with ASB

(Q10) .................................................................................................................................. 47


Table 22 What should be done to prevent ASB (top three) (Panel 1 – Q38; Panel 7 – Q11) 49





Table 27 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q42; Panel 7 – Q15) Where

provided a valid response ................................................................................................... 57

Table 28 Housing Corporation panel members profile......................................................... 58

Table 29 Communities and Local Government panel members profile ................................ 62


4

1 Executive summary

1.1 Views on anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood

1.1.1 Anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood

All tenants were asked to indicate from a list of anti-social behaviour issues whether

they thought these forms of anti-social behaviour were at a high (meaning a very big or

fairly big problem) or a low (meaning not a very big problem or not a problem at all)

level in their neighbourhood.

The most common form of anti-social behaviour indicated was rubbish or litter lying

around, with over half of all tenants (52% of RSL tenants and 56% of all LA tenants)

identifying this as either a very or fairly big problem in their area. The top three issues

following this were:

teenagers hanging around on the street (36% of RSL tenants, 46% of all LA tenants)

vandalism, graffiti & other deliberate damage to property or vehicles (34% of RSL

tenants, 40% of all LA tenants)

people using or dealing drugs (32% of RSL tenants, 41% of all LA tenants).

Perceptions of anti-social behaviour vary significantly across tenures, with RSL tenants

consistently reporting lower levels of anti-social behaviour in their area compared to LA

tenants. There are also significant variations amongst LA tenants in their perceptions

of anti-social behaviour, with ALMO tenants reporting higher levels of anti-social

behaviour than retained LA tenants for the majority of the issues identified in the

survey. This variation is quite pronounced for some issues such as people using or

dealing drugs, with 45% of ALMO tenants reporting this as a very or fairly big problem

compared to 34% of retained LA tenants.

There have been few significant changes since these questions were asked in survey

1. There has been a 6% rise in RSL tenants reporting that rubbish or litter lying around

is a very or fairly big problem in their area. There has also been a 6% fall in the

number of RSL tenants identifying teenagers hanging around on the street as a

problem in their area.

1.2 Responsibility for dealing with anti-social behaviour


There is a strong consensus amongst all tenants that the police should take overall

responsibility for dealing with anti-social behaviour issues in the neighbourhood. On

this point, no significant variation can be seen between tenure types with 59% of both

RSL and ALMO tenants and 58% of retained LA tenants indicating that the police

should take the lead on this issue.

Differences between tenure types can be observed in the extent to which tenants feel

other agencies should be involved in tackling anti-social behaviour. RSL tenants were

six times more likely to say that their housing association or landlord should take

responsibility than LA tenants (12% of RSL tenants against 2% of all LA tenants). LA

Executive summary

5

tenants, however, were almost twice as likely to say that the local council should take

responsibility as RSL tenants (19% of all LA tenants against 11% of RSL tenants).

1.2.2 Anti-social behaviour near the home

As with anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood, a significant number of tenants felt

that it was the police’s responsibility for dealing with anti-social behaviour near the

home. However, there is a greater variation between tenure types in tenants

expressing this opinion. 53% of RSL tenants believed the police should take

responsibility for tackling the problem whereas 48% of ALMO and 41% of retained LA

tenants felt this should be the case.

A significant number of LA tenants (25%) felt that the local council should be

responsible for dealing with anti-social behaviour near the home. Breaking this figure

down, 28% of retained LA tenants felt it was the local council’s responsibility as

opposed to 22% of ALMO tenants.

1.3 Experiences of anti-social behaviour

1.3.1 Experience of Anti-social behaviour

All tenants were asked whether they or any members of their household have had

experience of any of a list of neighbourhood problems in the last 12 months. The top

three issues experienced by tenants were: rubbish or litter lying around (55% of RSL

tenants, 60% of all LA tenants); teenagers hanging around on the street (41% of RSL

tenants, 54% of all LA tenants) and vandalism, graffiti & other deliberate damage to

property or vehicles (30% of RSL tenants, 40% of all LA tenants).

As with perceptions of anti-social behaviour, experiences varied significantly across

tenure types. RSL tenants consistently reported lower rates of experiencing anti-social

behaviour than LA tenants on all of the issues listed. Amongst LA respondents, ALMO

tenants were, in general, more likely than retained LA tenants on to have experienced

the anti-social behaviour issues identified in the list.

Since survey 1 was conducted in 2006, there has been a major increase in the number

of RSL tenants reporting that they have experienced rubbish or litter lying around in

their area. In 2006, 35% of RSL tenants reported that they had experienced this but in

2008, the figure has risen to 55%. 6% rises in the number of tenants having

experienced people being drunk or rowdy in public places and people using or dealing

drugs can also be observed. There has, however, been a 6% fall in the number of RSL

tenants having experienced abandoned or burnt out cars in their area.

1.3.2 To whom problems/issues were reported.

All tenants who had experienced anti-social behaviour issues were asked whether or

not they had reported the issue and, if they had, to whom they had reported it to. RSL

tenants were most likely to have reported the problem to their housing association or

landlord (38%), closely followed by the police (35%). Around a tenth of RSL tenants

reported the problem to the Environmental Health department of their local council. In

contrast, all LA tenants reported incidents to both the Housing department at the

council and the police in almost equal numbers (46% reported to the Housing

department, 45% reported to the police).


6

It is notable, however, that a significant minority of both RSL and LA tenants did not

report the problem. 31% of RSL tenants and 24% of all LA tenants did not report the

problem or issue to anybody and, as a consequence of this, a significant amount of

anti-social behaviour may be going unnoticed.

1.3.3 Satisfaction with the way in which the landlord dealt with the problem

All tenants who had reported incidents of anti-social behaviour to their landlord were

asked to indicate their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the way in which their

landlord dealt with the problem. 38% of both RSL and all LA tenants reported that they

were satisfied with the way in which their landlord dealt with the problem. However,

breaking down the all LAs figure reveals a major difference in satisfaction levels:

ALMO tenants were more than twice as likely to say they were satisfied than retained

LA tenants (53% against 26%).

1.3.4 Way in which the landlord dealt with the problem

All tenants who had reported incidents of anti-social behaviour to their landlord were

asked to indicate how their landlord dealt with the problem. The ways in which the

landlord dealt with the problem varied significantly by tenure type. RSL tenants were

almost equally dealt with by:

being told to keep an incident diary (25%)

being visited by representatives from the landlord (25%)

letters being sent to the residents involved (24%)

the police being contacted (24%).

Higher proportions of all LA tenants had their problem dealt with by:

being told to keep and incident diary (40%)

letters being sent to the residents involved (38%)

the police being contacted (41%).

Whilst 32% of all LA tenants were visited by a representative of from their landlord,

significant variation can be seen by tenure type. ALMO tenants were significantly more

likely to be visited by a representative than retained LA tenants (54% of ALMO tenants

against 22% of retained LA tenants).

Comparisons with survey 1 suggest an increase in the amount of action being taken by

housing associations. The number of RSL tenants reporting that the residents involved

were visited by representatives of the housing association increased by 19% and 18%

more residents were told to keep an incident diary. 15% more tenants reported that the

police were contacted.

1.3.5 Reasons for not reporting problems or issues to the landlord

Tenants who indicated they had not reported the incident or problem to their landlord

were asked their reasons for not doing so. The main reason given by RSL tenants was

that they did not feel the problem was the responsibility of their landlord (13% of RSL

tenants). 8% of both RSL and all LA tenants responded that the problem was a matter

for the police or other agencies. 8% of all LA tenants felt that when a problem was

Executive summary

7

reported, nothing was done. This view was more prevalent amongst ALMO tenants

with 12% feeling nothing was done when incidents were reported.

1.3.6 Effectively dealing with anti-social behaviour

All tenants were asked to rate their level of agreement that their landlord deals

effectively with various types of anti-social behaviour. Levels of agreement vary

significantly by tenure type, with all LA tenants responding much more positively than

RSL tenants. All LA tenants feel their landlords deal effectively with most types of anti-

social behaviour and are particularly positive about landlord efforts to deal with

abandoned or burnt out cars (balance score of +13%) and people being attacked or

harassed because of the skin colour, ethnic origin or religion (balance score of +13%).

RSL tenants, by contrast, are much more negative about their landlord’s performance.

They express a negative opinion of their landlord’s effectiveness in dealing with most

forms of anti-social behaviour. They are, however, positive about some aspects, such

as the landlord’s effectiveness in dealing with noisy neighbours or loud parties

(balance score of +8%)

1.3.7 Dealing with anti-social behaviour where tenants have had experience of anti-

social behaviour

Where tenants or a member of their household had experienced anti-social behaviour

in the last 12 months, the level of agreement that their landlord deals effectively with

anti-social behaviour was exceptionally low. On balance, both RSL and all LA tenants

who had experienced anti-social behaviour were overwhelmingly negative about their

landlord’s effectiveness in dealing with the issues. They were particularly negative

about their landlords effectiveness on people using or dealing drugs (balance scores of

-34% for RSL, -32% for all LA tenants) and people being insulted or intimidated in the

street (balance scores of -30 for RSL tenants, -27% for all LA tenants).

1.3.8 Satisfaction with the way the landlord deals with anti-social behaviour

All tenants were asked to what extent they were satisfied with the way their landlords

dealt with anti-social behaviour. Levels of satisfaction vary quite considerably across

tenure types, with a higher proportion of all LA tenants being satisfied with their

landlord’s efforts. 36% of all LA tenants indicate that they are satisfied with the way

their landlord deals with anti-social behaviour, compared with 30% of RSL tenants.

Interestingly, a higher proportion of all LA tenants were also dissatisfied with the way

their landlord dealt with anti-social behaviour (28% of all LA tenants, 22% of RSL

tenants). The cause of this is a high degree of ambivalence amongst RSL tenants

about how their landlord deals with anti-social behaviour. 35% of RSL tenants were

neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with their landlord’s efforts.

1.3.9 Reasons for satisfaction with the way landlord deals with anti-social behaviour

All tenants who indicated that they were satisfied with the way that their landlord deals

with anti-social behaviour were asked to explain the reason for their satisfaction. The

main reason given by both RSL and all LA tenants was complaints were dealt with

effectively (24% of RSL tenants, 16% of all LA tenants).


8

In addition to this, the responses of tenants suggest they are not experiencing

significant problems, answering either that there is very little / no anti-social behaviour

in the area (18% of RSL tenants, 10% of all LA tenants) or that they have never

experienced a problem (13% of RSL tenants, 5% of all LA tenants). Whilst there has

been little change over time, it is notable that the number of RSL tenants stating that

there is very little / no anti-social behaviour in their area has increased by 12% since

survey 1.

1.3.10 Reasons for dissatisfaction with the way landlord deals with anti-social

behaviour

Tenants who indicated that they were dissatisfied with the way that their landlord deals

with anti-social behaviour were asked to explain the reason for their dissatisfaction.

The most common reason for dissatisfaction was that no action was taken by the

landlord to resolve the problem (50% of RSL tenants, 31% of all LA tenants). Just over

one tenth of all LA tenants (12%) felt that their landlord did not seem to care or was not

interested in the problem, whereas only 5% of RSL tenants expressed this opinion.

Since survey 1 in 2006, there has been a 15% drop in the number of RSL tenants who

felt that their landlord did not seem to care or was not interested in the problem (20%

in 2006, 5% in 2008). However, this decrease has been matched almost exactly by a

16% increase in RSL tenants claiming that no action was taken to resolve the problem

(34% in 2006, 50% in 2008).

1.4 Policies on anti-social behaviour

1.4.1 Awareness of an anti-social behaviour policy

All tenants were asked whether their landlord had made them aware of whether or not

they had a policy for dealing with anti-social behaviour problems. All LA tenants were

slightly more likely to be aware that their landlord had a policy for dealing with anti-

social behaviour (47% of all LA tenants, 43% of RSL tenants). Comparatively high

proportions of tenants did not know whether their landlord had an anti-social behaviour

policy or not (36% of RSL tenants, 34% of all LA tenants). ALMO tenants were the

least likely not know about any policies (28%) although this figure is still relatively high.

1.3.2 Level of resident involvement and consultation in drawing up an anti-social

behaviour policy

All tenants that indicated that they were aware of their landlord having an anti-social

behaviour policy were asked whether or not, to the best of their knowledge, residents

had been involved or consulted when it was developed. RSL tenants were slightly less

likely to indicate that residents had been involved than all LA tenants (35% of RSL

tenants, 39% of all LA tenants). When breaking down the all LA figure by organisation

type, a significant difference can be seen, with 46% of ALMO tenants indicating

involvement as opposed to only 32% of retained LA tenants.

RSL tenants were the most likely to say that they did not know whether tenants had

been involved, with almost half giving this answer (49%). This figure has not improved

significantly since the survey was originally conducted in 2006. There has, however,

been a 9% improvement in RSL tenants indicating that residents were involved or

Executive summary

9

consulted in drawing up the anti-social behaviour policy (26% in 2006 against 35% in

2008).

1.4.2 Rating of anti-social behaviour policy

Tenants who were aware of their landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy were asked to

rate the policy. More than half of all tenants, regardless of tenure type, rated their

landlord’s policy as being good (57% of RSL tenants, 54% of all LA tenants). Only a

small proportion of tenants rated their landlord’s policy as poor (12% of RSL tenants,

19% of all LA tenants), with a noticeable variation amongst LA tenants. 22% of

retained LA tenants rated their landlord’s policy as poor whilst only 13% of ALMO

tenants felt the same way. Since the original survey in 2006, there has been a 7%

decrease in RSL tenants rating their landlord’s policy as good (64% in 2006 against

57% in 2008).

1.4.3 Whether or not landlord is compliant with own anti-social behaviour policy

All tenants who were aware of their landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy were asked

to identify to what extent they thought their landlord was doing what it set out in its’

own policy. Whilst the overall level of compliance is the same for both RSL and all LA

tenants (68%), major differences can be seen by tenure type when the degree of

compliance is examined. 33% of RSL tenants think that their landlord is in complete

compliance with their own anti-social behaviour policy whereas only 17% of all LA

tenants express this opinion.

Despite the same overall compliance rating, all LA tenants were more than twice as

likely than RSL tenants to indicate that their landlord was not at all compliant with their

own anti-social behaviour policy (15% of all LA tenants, 7% of RSL tenants). RSL

tenants were, however, significantly more likely than all LA tenants to not know how

compliant their landlord was with their own anti-social behaviour policy (25% of RSL

tenants, 15% of all LA tenants).


10

2 Introduction

2.1 Background and method

This document outlines the results from a survey of the Residents Consultation Panel,

conducted by BMG Research during April and May 2008. The panel is jointly owned

by the Housing Corporation and the department of Communities and Local

Government. It is the 7th full survey of RSL tenants, and the second 'joint' survey

covering both RSL and local authority tenants.

Of the 2,425 questionnaires sent to panel members, 1,089 were completed and

returned (a response rate of 45%). The fieldwork was carried out during April and May

2008, with an initial mailing and a reminder mailing to those panel members who had

not returned a questionnaire.

The data report that has been produced sets out the findings of the survey in tables

and analyses them according to the cross tabulations set out below (amongst others):

Housing type (i.e. Local Authority – both retained and ALMOs; and RSLs - Housing

Association)

Gender;

Age;

Ethnicity (both broadly and by age);

Employment Status;

Disability;

Family status; and.

Geographical area.

The total sample (1,089) is subject to a maximum standard error of +/-3.0% at the 95%

confidence level on an observed statistic of 50%. This means that if the total adult

population had participated in the survey and a statistic of 50% was observed, we can

be 95% confident that the true response lies between 47.0% and 53.0%.

Looking at the sub-groups, the confidence levels can be seen in the table below:

Type of housing provider Sample size Confidence interval

RSLs 469 +/-4.5%

All LAs 617 +/-4.0%

ALMOs 256 +/-6.2%

Retained LAs 289 +/-5.8%

Introduction

11

The level of statistical significance on an observed statistic of 50% between sub-

groups can also be seen below:

Housing providers Sample sizes Level of statistical significance

RSLs and All LAs 469and 616 r. +/-6.0%

ALMOs and Retained LAs 256 and 289 r. +/-8.4%

Panel survey 1 and Panel survey 7 (RSL tenants only)

857 and 469 r. +/-5.6%

Where tables and graphics do not match exactly to the text in the report this occurs

due to the way in which figures are rounded up (or down) when responses are

combined. Results that differ in this way should not have a variance any larger than

1%.

Where a * is used, this denotes a figure of <0.5%.

Significance has been tested at the 95% confidence interval, therefore wherever a

variation is described as ‘significant’, this is statistically significant at the 95%

confidence level.

This report covers the results from this panel survey whereby Panel members were

asked to respond to questions about the following areas:

Levels of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in neighbourhoods and experience of this;

Perceived ownership of responsibility for dealing with such issues;

Tenants’ experiences when reporting ASB to the landlord; and

Views on landlord’s ASB policies.

2.1.1 A note on all LAs

Where the terminology ‘all LAs’ has been used, this means the combined result for

both ALMO and Retained LA tenants. ALMO and Retained LA tenants are then

separated out for further analysis of these sub-groups.


12

3 Views on anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood

3.1 Introduction

This section will examine the types of anti-social behaviour that are perceived to be

prevalent in local neighbourhoods amongst housing association tenants and all LA

tenants. This section will also examine tenants’ views on where the responsibility for

dealing with such anti-social behaviour lies.

3.2 Anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood

All tenants were asked to indicate from a list of anti-social behaviour issues, whether

or not they think forms of anti-social behaviour are at high (a very or fairly big problem)

or low (not a very big problem or not a problem at all) levels in their local area. The

figure (1) below indicates the proportion of tenants who indicated such issues are

very/fairly big problems.

Figure 1 Anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood - % very/fairly big problem (Q1)

Unweighted sample bases = RSLs – 469; All LAs – 617; ALMOs – 256; Retained LAs – 289

52%

36%

34%

32%

22%

20%

19%

14%

6%

6%

6%

6%

2%

56%

46%

40%

41%

26%

22%

32%

22%

9%

9%

9%

8%

3%

61%

44%

40%

45%

28%

19%

33%

26%

8%

9%

9%

7%

3%

54%

44%

40%

34%

24%

25%

30%

19%

10%

8%

7%

8%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Rubbish or litter lying around

Teenagers hanging around on the street

Vandalism, graffiti & other deliberate damage to property or vehicles

People using or dealing drugs

People being drunk or rowdy in public places

Noisy neighbours or loud parties

Nuisance neighbours or problem families

People being insulted, pestered or intimidated in the street

Abandoned or burnt out cars

People being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin, religion

People being attacked or harassed because of a disability

People being attacked or harassed because of their gender or sexual orientation

Other

RSLs

All LA

ALMOS

Retained LAs

Views on anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood

13

It can be seen from figure 1 that perceived levels of anti-social behaviour vary across

tenant groups. For example, it can be seen that in general, RSL tenants are less likely

to indicate local issues are a very/fairly big problem than all LA tenants. Indeed, this

can be seen when looking at results for: nuisance neighbours or problem families,

where around one in five (19%) RSL tenants consider this to be a very/fairly big

problem in comparison with all LA tenants, where this proportion is nearly one in three,

(32%).

The same pattern can be seen when examining two of the top four issues for ALMOs

that tenants across the samples have identified as very or fairly big problems: rubbish

and litter and people using or dealing drugs. This is worth commenting on, as this may

be due to the fact that ALMO tenants tend to be located in inner city areas, and hence

this may be driving perceptions of ASB more than tenure.

The top four issues that tenants have indicated are either a very or fairly big problem

are as follows:

Rubbish or litter lying around (52% - RSLs; 56% - all LAs; 61% - ALMOs; and 54% -

retained LAs);

Teenagers hanging around on the street (36% - RSLs; 46% - all LAs; 44% - ALMOs;

and 44% - retained LAs);

Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property (34% - RSLs; 40% - all LAs;

40% - ALMOs; and 40% - retained LAs); and

People using or dealing drugs (32% - RSLs; 41% - all LAs; 45% - ALMOs; and 34% -

retained LAs).

3.2.1 Demographic analysis

There are no significant variations to speak of when looking at demographic variations

for all LA tenants. However, when examining responses for RSL tenants for the four

key issues highlighted above, the following can be seen:

RSL tenants significantly more likely to say that rubbish and litter is a problem are:

Tenants with a disability (57%), in comparison with those without (45%);

Tenants with children in the household, compared with adult-only families (61% and

48% respectively); and

Asian tenants (79%), compared with White (50%) and Black (47%) tenants.

RSL tenants significantly more likely to say that teenagers hanging around the street is

a problem are:

Tenants who are working (49%), in comparison with those who are not (31%);



BME tenants (58%), compared with Non-BME tenants (33%).

RSL tenants significantly more likely to say that vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate

damage to property is a problem are:


14




RSL tenants significantly more likely to say that people using or dealing drugs is a

problem are:




3.2.2 BME-related issues

Looking at issues that are considered to be less of a problem, such as people being

attacked for their skin colour, ethnic origin or religion, BME tenants (29%) are

significantly more likely than Non-BME tenants to say this is a problem (2%) (RSL

tenants only).


15

3.2.3 Tracking over time

The following table (1) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in

2006. There are no significant differences when comparing panel 1 with panel 7.

Table 1 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (% very/fairly big problem) (Panel 1 – Q28; Panel 7 – Q1)

RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change

over time

Rubbish or litter lying around 46% 52% +6%

Teenagers hanging around on the street 42% 36% -6%


38% 34% -4%

People using or dealing drugs 29% 32% +3%

People being drunk or rowdy in public places 24% 22% -2%

Noisy neighbours or loud parties 18% 20% +2%

Nuisance neighbours or problem families 24% 19% -5%


13% 14% +1%

Abandoned or burnt out cars 9% 6% -3%


6% 6% 0%

People being attacked or harassed because of a disability 5% 6% +1%


5% 6% +1%

Other 3% 2% -1%

Unweighted sample bases 857 469 -


16

3.3 Responsibility for dealing with types of anti-social behaviour


All tenants were asked who they feel should have the overall responsibility for dealing

with the types of anti-social behaviour listed in figure 2 in two situations: a) their

neighbourhood; and b) near their home.

Considering firstly who should have responsibility in the neighbourhood, the general

consensus is that the police should assume overall responsibility for anti-social

behaviour issues, with around three in five tenants from each organisation type

indicating this is the case.

Further to this, equal proportions of RSL tenants agree that their housing association

or landlord (12%); or the local council (11%) should take responsibility for dealing with

these issues.

A higher proportion (19%) of all LA tenants (in comparison with RSL tenants) believes

that dealing with ASB in their neighbourhood is the responsibility of the local council.

Breaking this down by ALMOs and retained LAs, the distribution is almost equal (18%

and 20% respectively).

Figure 2 Responsibility for dealing with ASB in their neighbourhood (Q2a)

Unweighted sample bases = RSLs – 469; All LAs – 617; ALMOs – 256; Retained LAs - 289 *denotes <0.5%

59%

12%

11%

4%

*%

*%

*%

3%

11%

58%

2%

19%

2%

1%

2%

*%

1%

14%

59%

3%

18%

1%

1%

1%

0%

1%

16%

58%

1%

20%

3%

*%

3%

1%

2%

12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Police

Your housing association / landlord

Local Council

Local residents

Parents

Everyone

Other

Don't know

Not provided

RSL's

All LA's

ALMO's

Retained LA's


17

3.3.2 Demographic variations – RSLs

For RSL tenants, some significant demographic variations can be seen when looking

at where tenants feel responsibility should lie.

Tenants with children in the household are more likely to say that they think either the

Police (61%) or the local Council (12%) should take responsibility, in comparison with

households who do not have any children living there (50% and 5% respectively).

In addition, Non-BME tenants are more likely to say that the Police should take

responsibility, rather than BME tenants (61% and 43% respectively).

3.3.3 Demographic variations – all LAs

There are few variations when reviewing responses by all LA tenants, however tenants

who are working (68%) are significantly more likely to say the Police should be held

responsible than those who are not working (51%).




Table 2 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q29a; Panel 7 – Q2a)


over time

Police 59% 59% 0%

Your housing association / landlord 12% 12% 0%

Local Council 11% 11% 0%

Local residents 3% 4% +1%

Parents - *% -

Everyone - *% -

Other 1% *% -0.5%

Don't know/not provided 14% 14% 0%



18

3.3.5 Anti-social behaviour near the home

When considering anti-social behaviour near the home, once again the general

consensus is that the police should assume overall responsibility for anti-social

behaviour issues; however proportions vary slightly more than for ASB in the

neighbourhood, with a greater contrast between the proportion of RSL tenants (53%)

who believe it is the responsibility of the police, and all LA tenants, who are less likely

to state this is the case (44%).

Further to this, a slightly higher proportion of RSL tenants agree that their housing

association or landlord (13%); should take responsibility for dealing with these issues

near the home rather than the local council (9%).

Again, a higher proportion of LA tenants (25%) believe that ASB near the home is the

responsibility of the local council, which can also be seen when separating out the

ALMOs and retained LAs (22% and 28% respectively).

Figure 3 Responsibility for dealing with ASB near the home (Q2b)


53%

13%

9%

5%

*%

*%

*%

3%

15%

44%

4%

25%

5%

1%

2%

*%

2%

17%

48%

3%

22%

6%

1%

1%

*%

1%

19%

41%

5%

28%

5%

1%

3%

*%

2%

15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Police

Your housing association / landlord

Local Council

Local residents

Parents

Everyone

Other

Don't know

Not provided

RSL's

All LA

ALMO's

Retained LA's


19




Table 3 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q29b; Panel 7 – Q2b)


over time

Police 51% 53% +2%

Your housing association / landlord 18% 13% -6%

Local Council 10% 9% -1%

Local residents 5% 5% 0%

Parents - 1% -

Everyone - 0% -

Other 1% 0% -1%

Don't know / not provided 15% 18% +3%



20

4 Experience of anti-social behaviour

4.1 Introduction

This section will examine the types of anti-social behaviour experienced by tenants in

their neighbourhood. Further to this, it will then review how the anti-social behaviour

was dealt with by tenants, in terms of whether or not it was reported and also

landlords, when tenants’ experiences of reporting ASB to the landlord are explored.

Experience of anti-social behaviour

21

4.2 Experience of ASB

All tenants were asked whether, in the past 12 months, they or other members of their

household have had experience of any of the neighbourhood problems listed (see

figure 4). As the figure below shows, higher proportions of ALMO tenants have

experienced neighbourhood problems over the last 12 months, rather than RSL

tenants.

The main top three issues across organisations can be described as follows: rubbish

or litter lying around; teenagers hanging around on the street; and vandalism, graffiti

and other deliberate damage to people’s property.

Figure 4 Experience of anti-social behaviour (Q3)


55%

41%

30%

27%

26%

26%

25%

13%

6%

3%

3%

3%

1%

1%

15%

4%

60%

54%

40%

30%

32%

30%

33%

15%

12%

6%

8%

5%

*%

2%

11%

3%

66%

56%

37%

33%

34%

32%

36%

19%

10%

6%

6%

5%

0%

2%

9%

2%

58%

51%

41%

28%

29%

30%

32%

14%

14%

7%

9%

5%

*%

*%

14%

4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%






Nosiy neighbours or loud parties




People being attacked/harassed - skin colour, ethnic origin, religion

People being attacked/harassed - disability

People being attacked/harassed - gender or sexual orientation

Parking issues

Other

None of these

Not provided

RSL's

All LA's

ALMO's

Retained LA's


22


2006. When examining the results for 2006 and 2008, it can be seen that there has

been a significant increase in the proportion of tenants indicating that they have

experienced rubbish and litter lying around in their neighbourhood over the last 12

months (+20% points). Table 1 highlights a large increase in the proportion of tenants

who feel that rubbish and litter is a very or fairly big problem.

Table 4 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q30; Panel 7 – Q3)

RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change over time

Rubbish or litter lying around 35% 55% +20%*1

Teenagers hanging around on the street 44% 41% -3%

Vandalism, graffiti & other deliberate damage to property or vehicles 34% 30% -4%

People being drunk or rowdy in public places 21% 27% +6%


Noisy neighbours or loud parties 28% 26% -2%

Nuisance neighbours or problem families 22% 25% +3%

People being insulted, pestered or intimidated in the street 11% 13% +2%

Abandoned or burnt out cars 12% 6% -6%

People being attacked/harassed - skin colour, ethnic origin, religion 3% 3% 0%

People being attacked/harassed - disability 4% 3% -1%

People being attacked/harassed - gender or sexual orientation 3% 3% 0%

Parking issues - 1% +1%

Other 4% 1% -3%

None of these 22% 15% -7%

Not provided 5% 4% -1%


4.3 To whom problems/issues were reported

All tenants who have experienced issues or problems related to anti-social behaviour

were then asked whether or not they had reported it, and if they had, to whom they

had reported the issue or problem.

For RSL tenants, the largest proportion (38%) has reported such incidents to their

housing association, suggesting that the landlord is the first port of call for housing

association tenants. Further to this, over one in three (35%) contacted the police.

1 *This is significant at the 95.0% level


23

In comparison, the highest proportion of all LA tenants (46%) contacted the housing

department at the Council, including almost half (49%) of retained LA tenants.

The Environmental Health department at the Council receives around one tenth of

reports from each tenant group.

Further to this, a higher proportion of RSL tenants (31%) did not report the incident or

issue to anyone in comparison with all LA tenants (24%).

Table 5 Reporting issues and problems in the local neighbourhood2 (Q4)

RSLs All LAs ALMOs Retained

LAs

Your housing association / landlord 38% 19% 17% 21%

Police 35% 45% 47% 43%

Environmental Health department at the Council 11% 11% 12% 10%

Housing department at the Council 10% 46% 43% 49%

Neighbourhood warden 7% 12% 8% 17%

Neighbourhood Watch 5% 8% 9% 7%

Social Services 2% 3% 2% 4%

Citizens Advice 1% 1% *% 2%

Local Councillors 1% 1% 1% *%

Caretaker 1% *% 0% 1%

Anti-Social Behaviour Unit *% *% 1% 0%

Local school *% *% 1% *%

Did not report the incident to anyone 31% 24% 25% 26%

Other 1% 4% 4% 6%

Don't know / can't remember 2% 2% 4% 1%

Not provided 4% 2% 1% 3%

Unweighted sample bases 388 510 220 229

2 The top three are shaded in grey; significant variations are shaded in blue.


24





over time

Your housing association / landlord 38% 38% 0%

Police 40% 35% -5%

Environmental Health department at the Council 12% 11% -1%

Housing department at the Council 8% 10% +2%

Neighbourhood warden 8% 7% -1%

Neighbourhood Watch 8% 5% -3%

Social Services 2% 2% 0%

Citizens Advice 1% 1% 0%

Local Councillors - 1% +1%

Caretaker - 1% +1%

Anti-Social Behaviour Unit - *% +0.5%

Local school - *% +0.5%

Did not report the incident to anyone 27% 31% +4%

Other 3% 1% -2%

Don't know / can't remember 2% 2% 0%

Not provided 3% 4% +1%



25

4.4 Satisfaction with the way in which the landlord dealt with the

problem

All tenants who had reported the incident or issue to their landlord were then asked to

rate their level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the way in which their landlord

dealt with the problem.

Results across the tenant groups show some variations. Interestingly, the same

proportion of RSL tenants and all LA tenants (38% each) are satisfied with the way

their report was dealt with. However, breaking this down by retained tenants and

ALMO tenants, it can be seen that whilst over half (53%) of ALMO tenants are

satisfied, this figure is just over a quarter (26%) for retained tenants, representing a

significant difference.

Further to this, around one in three (34%) RSL tenants are dissatisfied and a similar

proportion of all LA tenants are dissatisfied (31%). Once again, disparity between

ALMO and Retained tenants can be seen, with around one in five (19%) ALMO

tenants dissatisfied, but almost double the amount of retained tenants is dissatisfied

(37%).

Figure 5 Satisfaction with the way in which the landlord dealt with the problem (Q5)

Unweighted sample base = RSLs – 147; All LAs – 78; ALMOs – 34; Retained LAs - 38

11%

27%

21%

14%

20%

38%

34%

7%

18%

20%

19%

11%

20%

38%

31%

11%

23%

31%

25%

13%

6%

53%

19%

2%

10%

16%

18%

1%

36%

26%

37%

18%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Not provided

RSL's

All LA's

ALMO's

Retained LA's


26





over time

Very satisfied 16% 11% -5%

Fairly satisfied 21% 27% +6%

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 22% 21% -1%

Fairly dissatisfied 23% 14% -9%

Very dissatisfied 17% 20% +3%

Satisfied 37% 38% +1%

Dissatisfied 40% 34% -6%




27

4.5 Way in which the landlord dealt with the problem

All tenants who had contacted their landlord to report a local issue or incident were

then asked to identify from a pre-determined list of options (see figure 6) how their

landlord dealt with the problem.

The ways in which the landlord dealt with the problem differ by organisation type.

Almost equal proportions of RSL tenants indicated that they were: ‘told to keep an

incident diary’ (25%); ‘visited by representatives from the landlord’ (25%); ‘letters were

sent to the residents involved’ (24%); and ‘the police were contacted’ (24%).

By comparison, higher proportions of all LA tenants indicated that they were told to

‘keep an incident diary’ (40%); that ‘letters were sent to the residents involved’ (38%);

and that ‘the police were contacted’ (41%). A relatively lower proportion indicated that

they were ‘visited by representatives from the housing association’ (32%).


28

However, breaking all LA tenants down by ALMOs and Retained LAs, it can be seen

that ALMO tenants are significantly more likely to have had a visit from representatives

of their landlord than retained LA tenants (54% and 22% respectively).

In terms of tenants who indicate that the problem was not dealt with, this is slightly

higher for all LA tenants (29%), in comparison with RSL tenants (24%). However,

when all LA tenants are separated out, it can be seen that for ALMO tenants, just 14%

indicated the problem was not dealt with, whereas over two in five (45%) retained LA

tenants indicated this was the case, a significant difference. However, caution is

required due to low base.

Figure 6 Way in which landlord dealt with the problem (Q6)

Unweighted sample bases = RSLs – 147; All LAs – 78; ALMOs – 34; Retained LAs - 38

25%

25%

24%

24%

24%

10%

5%

3%

3%

7%

10%

40%

32%

29%

38%

41%

15%

4%

14%

13%

8%

7%

45%

54%

14%

53%

44%

26%

6%

6%

20%

2%

0%

43%

22%

45%

33%

41%

10%

4%

22%

11%

4%

10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

I was told to keep an incident diary

The residents involved were visited by representatives from the housing …

The problem was not dealt with

Letters were sent to the residents involved

The police were contacted

The problem is being investigated at the moment

The resident involved was evicted

I was referred to other agencies

Other

Don't know / can't remember

Not provided

RSL's

All LA's

ALMO's

Retained LA's


29


2006. There are no significant differences when comparing panel 1 with panel 7

at the 95.0% level.

When examining the variations across the last 2 years, it can be seen that there have

been significant increases at the 98.0% level and above in relation to: tenants being

told to keep an incident diary (+18% points); the nuisance residents being visited by

their housing association or landlord (+19% points); the police being contacted (+15%

points); and letters being sent to the residents involved (+10% points). All these

results suggest an increase in action being taken by housing associations.



over time

I was told to keep an incident diary 7% 25% +18%*3

The residents involved were visited by representatives from the housing association / landlord

6% 25% +19%*4

The problem was not dealt with 25% 24% -1%

Letters were sent to the residents involved 14% 24% +10%*5

The police were contacted 9% 24% +15%*6

The problem is being investigated at the moment 5% 10% -5%

The resident involved was evicted 4% 5% +1%

I was referred to other agencies 4% 3% -1%

Other 6% 3% -3%

Don't know / can't remember 14% 7% -7%



3 *This variation is significant at the 99.9% level





30

4.6 The way the problem was dealt with by satisfaction with the way in

which the problem was dealt with

The following table (table 9) shows analysis of the way in which the problem was dealt

with by satisfaction with the way the problem was dealt with. As can be seen, the base

sizes are too low for all LAs to provide any significant differences. Looking at the

results for RSLs, it can be seen that where the problem is not dealt with at all, tenants

are significantly more likely to be dissatisfied (52%) than those satisfied (0%). Further

to this, tenants are significantly more likely to be satisfied where:

Letters were sent to the residents involved (37% satisfied, in comparison with 17%

dissatisfied);

The police were contacted (36% satisfied in comparison with 17% dissatisfied); and

The residents involved were visited by representatives of the landlord (45% satisfied in

comparison with 15% dissatisfied).

These results point to the suggestion that where tenants can see tangible results from

their landlord in terms of action against ASB, satisfaction tends to be higher.

Table 9 The way the problem was dealt with by satisfaction with the way in which the problem was dealt (Q6 ran by Q5)7

How the problem was dealt with

Satisfaction with the way in which the problem was dealt with

RSLs All LAs

Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied

The problem was not dealt with 0% 52% 11% 59%

Letters were sent to the residents involved 37% 17% 56% 10%

The police were contacted 36% 17% 50% 32%

I was told to keep an incident diary 28% 28% 35% 41%

The residents involved were visited by representatives from the housing association / landlord

45% 15% 51% 15%

The problem is being investigated at the moment 5% 16% 20% 5%

The resident involved was evicted 8% 3% 9% 0%

I was referred to other agencies 1% 4% 3% 27%

Other 6% 0% 19% 9%


Not provided 9% 4% 3% 0%

Unweighted Bases 54 51 30 23 [caution, low base]

7 Shaded areas denote significant variations when compared with counterparts


31

4.7 Reasons for not reporting problems or issues to the landlord

All tenants who indicated that they have not reported the incident or problem they have

experienced in the last 12 months to their landlord were then asked the reasons for

this. The main reason given by RSL tenants is that they believe the issue or problem

is not the responsibility (13%) of the landlord. This is followed by around one in ten

(9%) who indicated the problem was only minor and therefore not worth reporting and

a similar proportion who indicated this is a matter for the police or other agencies (8%).

For all LA tenants, the highest proportions indicated that it was a matter for the police

or other agencies and that when they do report something; nothing is done about it

(8% each). Breaking this down by ALMOs and Retained LAs, it can be seen that

similar proportions consider the problem to be a matter for other agencies or police

(10% and 7% respectively).

Table 10 Reasons for not reporting problems or issues to the landlord8 (Q7)

RSLs All LAs ALMOs Retained LAs

It is not their responsibility 13% 4% 4% 3%

Only a minor problem / not worth reporting 9% 6% 5% 7%

It was a matter for the police / other agencies 8% 8% 10% 7%

Not sure they could have done anything about it 7% 1% 2% 1%

When reported, nothing is done 7% 8% 12% 4%

Fear of reprisals / intimidation 4% 2% 2% 3%

I blamed the lack of facilities for the young 3% *% 1% 0%

Someone else did it before me 2% 1% 1% 2%

I didn't know who to contact 1% 1% 2% 1%

Needed proof / witnesses 1% 1% 1% *%

Dealt with it myself 2% *% 1% 0%

Lack of time / too busy *% *% 0% 1%

Language problems *% 0% - -

Incident happened outside of hours *% *% *% 0%

The situation needed dealing with straight away *% *% 0% *%

Didn’t want to get involved / not my business - 1% 2% *%

Other 2% 3% 3% 3%


Not provided 33% 55% 52% 56%

Unweighted sample bases 241 432 186 191

8 Top three have been shaded.


32



When examining the variations across the last 2 years, it can be seen that there have

been only slight increases and decreases; therefore few inferences as to change in

perceptions can be made.


RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change over

time

It is not their responsibility 14% 13% -1%

Only a minor problem / not worth reporting 7% 9% +2%

It was a matter for the police / other agencies 9% 8% -1%

Not sure they could have done anything about it 7% 7% 0%

When reported, nothing is done 6% 7% +1%

Fear of reprisals / intimidation 2% 4% +2%

I blamed the lack of facilities for the young *% 3% +2.5%

Someone else did it before me 2% 2% 0%

I didn't know who to contact *% 1% +*%

Needed proof / witnesses - 1% +1%

Dealt with it myself - 2% +2%

Lack of time / too busy - *% +0.5%

Language problems - *% +0.5%

Incident happened outside of hours - *% +0.5%

The situation needed dealing with straight away - *% +0.5%

Didn’t want to get involved / not my business - - -

Other 7% 2% -5%



Unweighted sample bases 386 241


33

4.8 Effectively dealing with anti-social behaviour

All tenants were then asked to rate the level of agreement that their landlord deals

effectively with various types of anti-social behaviour. The table (12) below shows

levels of agreement and disagreement for RSL tenants.

Table 12 Agreement landlord deals effectively with ASB (RSL tenants) (Q8)

Strongly agree

Tend to agree

Nei-ther

Tend to disagree

Strongly disagree Agree

Dis-agree

Balance score9

Not provided


10% 14% 31% 10% 6% 24% 16% +8% 29%


7% 15% 27% 13% 12% 22% 25% -3% 26%


10% 13% 31% 10% 9% 22% 20% +2% 27%


6% 12% 32% 13% 10% 18% 23% -5% 27%


7% 8% 36% 12% 10% 15% 23% -8% 27%


6% 9% 33% 13% 10% 15% 23% -8% 29%


8% 7% 40% 6% 6% 15% 12% +3% 33%


6% 8% 35% 11% 9% 14% 21% -7% 31%


8% 7% 38% 7% 8% 14% 15% -1% 33%


7% 7% 40% 6% 7% 14% 13% +1% 33%


7% 6% 37% 9% 8% 13% 17% -4% 33%


7% 6% 40% 6% 7% 13% 13% - 34%

Unweighted sample base = 469

9 Balance scores are calculated by subtracting the negative from the positive proportions i.e. 24%

satisfied – 21% dissatisfied = +3%


34

As the table on the previous page shows, RSL tenants indicate that their housing

association exhibits success in dealing with noisy neighbours and loud parties

(balance score of +8%); people being attacked or harassed because of their skin

colour, ethnic origin or religion (+3%); and nuisance neighbours or problem families

(+2%).

In terms of areas where tenants feel the housing association is less successful, the

main areas are: teenagers hanging around on the street (balance score -8%); people

using or dealing drugs (-8%); and people being drunk or rowdy in public places (-7%).

4.8.1 Further analysis

Concentrating on the areas where RSL tenants feel their landlord is less successful

(teenagers hanging around the street; people using or dealing drugs; and people being

drunk or rowdy in public places), the following paragraphs highlight the key findings

amongst tenants who have:

Made a complaint to their landlord, other agencies or not made a complaint;

Are satisfied or dissatisfied with the way in which the complaint was dealt with; and

Whether or not they are aware of ASB policy.

4.8.2 Teenagers hanging around on the street

Tenants significantly more likely to disagree their landlord is successful in tackling

teenagers hanging around the streets are:

Tenants who have reported the incident to an agency other than their landlord (36%), in

comparison with those who did not report the incident at all (21%);

Tenants who are dissatisfied with the way in which their landlord dealt with their ASB

report, than those who are satisfied (40% and 18% respectively); and

Tenants who are unaware if their landlord has an ASB policy (35%), in comparison with

those who are aware of an ASB policy (21%).

4.8.3 People using or dealing drugs


people using or dealing drugs are:





Of those tenants who disagree that their landlord is effective in dealing with people

using or dealing drugs, three in ten (30%) made an ASB report to their landlord which

is a slightly higher proportion than those who did not report the incident to anyone

(25%), although this difference is not significant.

4.8.4 People being drunk or rowdy in public places


people being drunk or rowdy in public places are:


35





Of those tenants who agree that their landlord is effective in dealing with people being

drunk and rowdy in public places, one in five (18%) made an ASB report to their

landlord, which is a significantly higher proportion than those who did not report the

incident to anyone (9%).


36

The table below shows overall levels of agreement and disagreement for all LA

tenants.

Table 13 Agreement landlord deals effectively with ASB (All LA tenants) (Q8)

Strongly agree

Tend to agree

Nei-ther

Tend to disagree


Dis-agree

Balance score10

Not provided


14% 22% 18% 16% 13% 35% 28% +7% 18%


11% 19% 24% 13% 10% 30% 23% +7% 23%


9% 17% 33% 8% 6% 27% 14% +13% 26%


10% 16% 29% 14% 10% 26% 24% +2% 21%


12% 12% 38% 6% 6% 25% 12% +13% 25%


10% 14% 28% 14% 10% 24% 24% - 24%


12% 12% 39% 6% 6% 24% 13% +11% 25%


10% 13% 27% 14% 13% 23% 27% -4% 23%


11% 12% 39% 6% 6% 23% 12% +11% 26%


9% 12% 29% 19% 12% 21% 31% -10% 19%


9% 11% 34% 14% 9% 20% 23% -3% 23%


7% 12% 37% 11% 7% 20% 18% +2% 25%

Unweighted sample base = 617

10

Balance scores are calculated by subtracting the negative from the positive proportions i.e. 24% satisfied – 21% dissatisfied = +3%


37

As the table above shows, all LA tenants indicate that their landlord exhibits success in

dealing with the majority of aspects, particularly abandoned or burnt our cars (balance

score of +13%); people being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic

origin or religion (+13%); people being attacked or harassed because of their gender

or sexual orientation (+11%); and people being attacked or harassed because of a

disability (+11%).

In terms of areas where tenants feel their landlord is less successful, the main areas

are: teenagers hanging around on the street (balance score -10%); and people being

drunk or rowdy in public places (-3%), very similar to the aspects described by tenants.

4.8.5 Further analysis

Concentrating on the areas where all LA tenants feel their landlord is less successful

(teenagers hanging around the street and people being drunk or rowdy in public

places) the following paragraphs highlight the key findings amongst tenants who have:

Made a complaint to their landlord, other agencies or not made a complaint;

Are satisfied or dissatisfied with the way in which the complaint was dealt with; and

Whether or not they are aware of ASB policy.

4.8.6 Teenagers handing around on the streets

Tenants more likely to disagree their landlord is successful in tackling teenagers

hanging around the streets are:




those who are aware of an ASB policy (16%), a significant difference.

4.8.7 ALMOs and retained LAs

Looking at the results for all LAs, by the sub-groups of ALMOs and retained LAs, some

significant variations can be seen.

Concentrating on the areas where tenants tend to disagree that their landlord is

effective:

Retained LA tenants are significantly more likely than ALMO tenants to disagree that

their landlord is effective at dealing with teenagers hanging around on the streets (36%

and 27% respectively);


their landlord is effective at dealing with vandalism and graffiti (29% and 19%

respectively); and


their landlord is effective at dealing with nuisance neighbours or problem families (27%



38



Table 14 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (% agree) (Panel 1 – Q35; Panel 7 – Q8)


over time

Noisy neighbours or loud parties 18% 24% +6%

Rubbish or litter lying around 20% 22% +2%

Nuisance neighbours or problem families 19% 22% +3%


18% 18% 0%

Teenagers hanging around on the street 12% 15% +3%



12% 15% +3%

People being drunk or rowdy in public places 11% 14% +3%

Abandoned or burnt out cars 14% 14% 0%


12% 14% +2%


10% 13% +3%


11% 13% +2%



39

4.9 Dealing with ASB where tenants have had experience of ASB (RSL

tenants)

To examine whether or not RSL tenants think their landlord is effective in dealing with

various forms of ASB, the following table (14) depicts those tenants who have had

experience of the varying forms of ASB analysed by how effective they think their

landlord is at dealing with that particular type of ASB.

Overall, higher proportions of tenants who have experienced the various forms of ASB

are more likely to disagree than agree that their landlord is effective at dealing with

ASB.

Where base sizes are large enough to give robust results (i.e. over 30 cases), it can be

seen that high negative balance scores are achieved for how effective the landlord is

at dealing with:

People using or dealing drugs (-34%);

People being insulted, pestered or intimidated in the street (-30%); and

Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles (-27%).


40

Table 15 Experience of ASB by dealing effectively with ASB (RSL tenants) (Q3 by Q8)

Level of agreement that landlord deals effectively with various types of ASB

Tenants who have had experience of...

Strongly agree

Tend to agree

Nei-ther

Tend to disagree


Dis-agree

Balance score11

Not provided

Teenagers hanging around on the street [192]

8% 6% 37% 19% 16% 14% 35% -21% 14%

People using or dealing drugs [120]

8% 6% 28% 28% 21% 15% 49% -34% 8%

Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property [141]

5% 12% 25% 24% 21% 18% 45% -27% 13%

Rubbish or litter lying around [259]

7% 14% 25% 19% 18% 21% 37% -16% 17%

People being drunk or rowdy in public places [128]

4% 7% 35% 18% 19% 11% 37% -26% 17%

Nuisance neighbours or problem families [117]

16% 13% 24% 20% 20% 29% 40% -11% 8%

People being insulted pestered or intimidated in the street [59]

7% 7% 26% 21% 23% 14% 44% -30% 16%

Noisy neighbours or loud parties [124]

13% 18% 22% 23% 16% 31% 39% -8% 8%

Abandoned/burnt out cars [28]

6% 4% 26% 10% 29% 10% 39% -29% 25%

People being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnicity or religion [16]

10% 6% 24% 35% 12% 16% 47% -31% 12%

People being attacked or harassed because of a disability [13]

5% 11% 40% 4% 12% 16% 16% 0% 28%

People being attacked or harassed because of their gender or sexual orientation [12]

5% 0% 22% 34% 34% 5% 68% -63% 4%

11



41

4.10 Dealing with ASB where tenants have had experience of ASB (All

LA tenants)

To examine whether or not all LA tenants think their landlord is effective in dealing with

various forms of ASB, the following table (16) depicts those tenants who have had

experience of the varying forms of ASB analysed by how effective they think their

landlord is at dealing with that particular type of ASB.

Overall, higher proportions of tenants who have experienced the various forms of ASB

are more likely to disagree than agree that their landlord is effective at dealing with

ASB. However, there are three instances in which tenants tend to agree rather than

disagree: abandoned or burnt out cars (+5%); people being attacked or harassed

because of their skin colour, ethnicity or religion (+17%); and people being attacked or

harassed because of their gender or sexual orientation (+42%).

Where base sizes are large enough to give robust results (i.e. over 30 cases), it can be

seen that high negative balance scores are achieved for how effective the landlord is

at dealing with:

People using or dealing drugs (-32%);

People being drunk or rowdy in public places (-31%);

People being insulted, pestered or intimidated on the street (-27%); and

Teenagers hanging around the street (-25%).


42

Table 16 Experience of ASB by dealing effectively with ASB (all LA tenants) (Q3 by Q8)

Level of agreement that landlord deals effectively with various types of ASB

Tenants who have had experience of...

Strongly agree

Tend to agree

Nei-ther

Tend to disagree


Dis-agree

Balance score12

Not provided

Teenagers hanging around on the street [332]

11% 9% 24% 27% 19% 20% 45% -25% 11%

People using or dealing drugs [198]

11% 8% 19% 22% 29% 19% 51% -32% 11%

Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property [248]

8% 17% 19% 21% 20% 25% 41% -16% 15%

Rubbish or litter lying around [373]

14% 19% 18% 22% 16% 33% 37% -4% 12%

People being drunk or rowdy in public places [184]

8% 5% 29% 26% 18% 13% 44% -31% 13%

Nuisance neighbours or problem families [204]

14% 10% 21% 22% 24% 24% 46% -22% 10%

People being insulted pestered or intimidated in the street [95]

15% 3% 22% 24% 21% 18% 45% -27% 15%

Noisy neighbours or loud parties [188]

11% 13% 16% 24% 25% 24% 49% -25% 11%

Abandoned/burnt out cars [75]

13% 16% 29% 18% 6% 29% 24% +5% 17%

People being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnicity or religion [38]

22% 17% 21% 8% 14% 39% 22% +17% 18%

People being attacked or harassed because of a disability [51]

12% 15% 10% 26% 12% 27% 38% -11% 26%

People being attacked or harassed because of their gender or sexual orientation [33]

36% 22% 8% 4% 12% 58% 16% +42% 18%

12



43

4.11 Satisfaction with the way the landlord deals with anti-social

behaviour

All tenants were asked to what extent they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the way

their landlord deals with anti-social behaviour.

Levels of satisfaction vary across organisation type, with three in ten (30%) RSL

tenants satisfied with the way in which their landlord deals with ASB, slightly lower

than the proportion collected for all LA tenants (36%).

Looking at variations within all LA tenants, it can be seen that ALMO tenants tend to

express a higher level of satisfaction in comparison with retained LA tenants (39% and

35% respectively).

In terms of dissatisfaction, this is higher with all LA tenants (28%), in comparison with

RSL tenants (22%). Indeed, when LA responses are broken down, it can be seen that

retained LA tenants exhibit a higher level of dissatisfaction than ALMO tenants (31%


Noteworthy, is that there are relatively high levels of ambivalence (35% of RSL tenants

neither satisfied nor dissatisfied), which indicates a communication deficit in terms of

how ASB is being dealt with by landlords.

Figure 7 Satisfaction with the way in which landlord deals with ASB (Q9)


14%

16%

35%

13%

9%

30%

22%

13%

10%

26%

24%

16%

12%

36%

28%

12%

12%

27%

25%

16%

10%

39%

26%

10%

8%

28%

22%

17%

14%

35%

31%

12%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Not provided

RSL's

All LA's

ALMO's

Retained LA's


44





over time

Very satisfied 12% 14% +2%

Fairly satisfied 20% 16% -4%

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 34% 35% +1%

Fairly dissatisfied 11% 13% +2%

Very dissatisfied 7% 9% +2%

Satisfied 32% 30% -2%

Dissatisfied 18% 22% +4%




45

4.11.1 Reasons for satisfaction with the way the landlord deals with ASB

All tenants who indicated that they are satisfied (very/fairly) with the way in which their

landlord deals with ASB were asked to explain the reason for their level of satisfaction.

The main reason given for satisfaction for both RSL tenants and all LA tenants is that

complaints and situations are dealt with effectively (24% and 16% respectively).

Further to this, two related responses suggest that their level of satisfaction is due to

the fact that they do not tend to experience ASB: ‘very little/no ASB in the area’; and

‘never experienced any problems’.

Table 18 Reasons for satisfaction (very/fairly) with the way landlord deals with ASB (Q10)


Complaints / situations dealt with effectively

24% 16% 16% 17%

Very little / no anti-social behaviour in the area

18% 10% 8% 13%

Never experienced any problems 13% 5% 2% 7%

Do the best they can 7% 5% 3% 6%

The Association has clear guidelines in place to tackle anti-social behaviour

7% 3% 4% 3%

Residents and organisations all work together on this issue

5% 2% 1% 3%

It is a police matter - not their responsibility

3% 5% 8% 2%

Have good security 1% 1% 2% *%

Takes too long for action to be taken 1% 1% 2% 1%

Resident Warden on site to help - 2% 3% 0%

Residents / tenants are kept informed via letters / newsletters

- 4% 8% *%

Provides activities for teenagers - 1% 1% 2%

Other 6% 8% 8% 8%


Not provided 21% 31% 33% 32%

Unweighted sample base 146 226 103 96


46





Complaints / situations dealt with effectively 19% 24% +5%

Very little / no anti-social behaviour in the area 6% 18% +12%

Never experienced any problems 12% 13% +1%

Do the best they can 6% 7% +1%

The Association has clear guidelines in place to tackle anti-social behaviour

5% 7% +2%

Residents and organisations all work together on this issue

1% 5% +4%

It is a police matter - not their responsibility 3% 3% 0%

Have good security - 1% -

Takes too long for action to be taken - 1% -

Resident Warden on site to help 1% - -

Residents / tenants are kept informed via letters / newsletters

4% - -

Provides activities for teenagers - - -

Other 5% 6% +1%





47

4.11.2 Reasons for dissatisfaction with the way the landlord deals with ASB

All tenants who indicated that they are dissatisfied (very/fairly) with the way in which

their landlord deals with ASB were asked to explain the reason for their level of

dissatisfaction.

The main reason given for dissatisfaction across all organisations is that no action is

taken to resolve the problem. Further to this, two related responses suggest that their

level of dissatisfaction is due to the fact that there is a lack of interest on behalf of

landlords and also that situations have not improved since a complaint was made.

Table 20 Reasons for dissatisfaction (very/fairly) with the way the landlord deals with ASB (Q10)


No action taken to resolve the problem 50% 31% 31% 32%

Housing Association are too far away to be effective here

6% - - -

Situation has not improved since 5% 7% 7% 8%

They do not seem to care /not interested 5% 12% 12% 11%

Do not listen to our concerns 5% 3% 3% 2%

No response to complaints 2% 1% 1% 1%

Takes too long to process complaints 3% 11% 11% 11%

Have limited powers to deal with the problem 3% 4% 4% 4%

More visible deterrents are needed 3% 4% 4% 2%

Do not give feedback when action has been taken

1% *% *% *%

Tenants should be vetted before being allowed to move in

*% *% *% *%

Troublesome tenants are treated better than law-abiders

*% 2% 2% 2%

Other 4% 4% 4% 3%


Not provided 19% 26% 26% 27%

Unweighted sample base 109 147 55 76

There are no significant variations for RSL tenants when examining reasons for

dissatisfaction with the way in which the landlord deals with ASB by tenants who have

reported ASB, however it can be seen that tenants who reported ASB to agencies

other than their landlord are more likely to say that no action has been taken to resolve

the problem (57%), in comparison to those who reported the incident to their landlord

(48%) or did not report the incident at all (44%).


48

For all LA tenants, it can be seen that tenants who are dissatisfied with the way their

landlord deals with ASB in terms of their landlord not listening to their concerns are

significantly more likely not to report the incident at all (11%), in comparison with those

who reported the incident to their landlord (0%) or other agencies (1%). Further to

this, tenants who reported the incident to their landlord are more likely to say that no

action was taken to resolve the problem ((39%), in comparison with those who

reported the incident to other agencies (36%) and those who did not report the incident

at all (22%).





over time

No action taken to resolve the problem 34% 50% +16%

Housing Association are too far away to be effective here 2% 6% +4%

Situation has not improved since 6% 5% -1%

They do not seem to care /not interested 20% 5% -15%

Do not listen to our concerns 7% 5% -2%

No response to complaints 4% 2% -2%

Takes too long to process complaints 5% 3% -2%

Have limited powers to deal with the problem 5% 3% -2%

More visible deterrents are needed 2% 3% +1%

Do not give feedback when action has been taken - 1% -

Tenants should be vetted before being allowed to move in

- *% -

Troublesome tenants are treated better than law-abiders - *% -



49

4.12 What should be done to prevent ASB

All tenants were asked to make suggestions, in their own words, as to what they feel

their landlord should be doing to prevent ASB from happening near their home.

The largest proportions, for both RSL and all LA tenants, do not know (22% and 18%

respectively) or did not provide a response (30% and 33% respectively).

Although responses do vary by tenant type, generally speaking, the highest proportion

of tenants across the board are saying that there is a need for more police wardens

and patrols. Further suggestions are that problem families or neighbours should be

evicted and that more activities and facilities should be provided for young people.

Table 22 What should be done to prevent ASB (top three) (Panel 1 – Q38; Panel 7 – Q11)

RSL tenants (top three) All LA tenants (top three)

Need more police wardens/patrols (5% in ’08; 6% in ’06)

Need to consult/liaise with Police/Council (4% in ’08; 6% in ’06)

Evict problem families or neighbours (4% in ’08; 3% in ’06)

Need more police wardens/patrols (10%);

Evict problem families or neighbours (7%)

Provide more activities and facilities for young people (5%)

ALMO tenants (top three)


Evict problem families or neighbours (9%);

Install CCTV cameras (5%).


Provide more activities and facilities for young people (6%);

Take a stronger stance on offenders (7%)


50

5 Policies to tackle ASB problems

5.1 Introduction

This section will examine tenants’ awareness of ASB policies put in place by their

landlord. Other issues that will be explored include whether or not tenants believe that

they were consulted about the development of the policy and also their rating of their

landlord’s policy.

5.2 Awareness of an ASB policy

All tenants were asked whether or not their landlord has made them aware of whether

or not they have a policy for tackling anti-social behaviour problems.

Levels of awareness of ASB policies vary, with all LA tenants slightly more likely to be

aware that their landlord has an ASB policy than RSL tenants (47% and 43%

respectively).

Within all LA tenants, a marked difference can be seen (although this is not

significant), as over half (52%) of ALMO tenants are aware of an ASB policy in

comparison with 46% of retained LA tenants.

Relatively high proportions of tenants do not know if their landlord has an ASB policy,

with similar proportions of RSL tenants (36%) and all LA tenants (34%) stating that this

is the case, however for ALMO tenants, this proportion is lower, at 28%.

Figure 8 Whether or not the landlord has made tenants aware that they have an ASB policy (Q12)


43%

14%

36%

7%

47%

13%

34%

6%

52%

14%

28%

6%

46%

12%

35%

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Yes, landlord has a policy

No, landlord does not have a policy

Don't know

Not provided

RSL's

All LA's

ALMO's

Retained LA's

Policies to tackle ASB problems

51

Looking at demographic variations, it can be seen that RSL tenants significantly more

likely to be aware of an ASB policy are:

Older tenants (48% of over 65’s; and 45% of 45 – 64’s; in comparison with just 33% of

those 25 – 44 years old);

Tenants with a disability (48%), in comparison with those who do not have a disability

(36%); and

Tenants who reported the incident to their landlord (51%) in comparison with those who

did not report the incident to anyone (37%).

Looking at further demographic variations, it can be seen that all LA tenants

significantly more likely to be aware of an ASB policy are:

Older tenants (54% of over 65’s; and 51% of 45 – 64’s; in comparison with just 32% of

those 25 – 44 years old);


(40%); and

Tenants who reported the incident to their landlord (64%) in comparison with those who

did not report the incident to anyone (33%).





over time

Yes, landlord has a policy 44% 43% -1%

No, landlord does not have a policy 11% 14% +3%

Don't know 41% 36% -5%




52

5.3 Level of resident involvement and consultation in drawing up an

ASB policy

All tenants who indicated that they are aware of an ASB policy by their landlord were

then asked whether or not, to their knowledge, residents were involved or consulted

when the policy was developed.

For RSL tenants, over one in three (35%) indicated that residents were indeed

involved, which compares with around two in five (39%) for all LA tenants.

When reviewing all LA responses by organisation type, however, a marked difference

can be seen, with approaching half (46%) of ALMO tenants stating that residents were

involved, which is a significantly greater proportion then for retained tenants (32%).

Relatively high proportions did not know, with around half (49%) RSL tenants

indicating this was the case.

Figure 9 Whether or not residents were involved/consulted in developing ASB policy (Q13)



likely to indicate that residents were involved are:

Older tenants (47% of over 65’s, in comparison with 31% of 45 – 64’s and 23% of those

25 – 44 years old);

Tenants who are satisfied that with the way their landlord manages and deals with ASB

(51%), in comparison with those who are not satisfied (15%);

Tenants who agree that their landlord is acting completely in agreement with their ASB

policy (56%) in comparison with those who only think their landlord is acting only partly

in agreement (34%); and

Tenants who rate their ASB policy as good (51%), in comparison with those who think

their ASB policy is poor (9%).

35%

16%

49%

1%

39%

24%

35%

3%

46%

20%

32%

3%

32%

27%

38%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Residents were involved / consulted

Residents were not involved / consulted

Don't know

Not provided

RSL's

All LA's

ALMO's

Retained LA's


53


significantly more likely to indicate that residents were involved are:

Older tenants (49% of over 65’s, in comparison with just 28% of those 25 – 44 years

old);


(59%), in comparison with those who are not satisfied (48%);

Tenants who agree that their landlord is acting completely in agreement with their ASB

policy (62%) in comparison with those who only think their landlord is not acting in

agreement (20%); and

Tenants who rate their ASB policy as good (53%), in comparison with those who rate

their policy as poor (22%).





Residents were involved / consulted 26% 35% +9%

Residents were not involved / consulted 20% 16% -4%

Don't know 52% 49% -3%




54

5.4 Rating of ASB policy

All tenants aware of their landlord’s ASB policy were then asked to rate it on a five-

point scale.

Satisfaction with ASB policies are at similar levels for RSL tenants (57%) and all LA

tenants (54%), although RSL tenants are more likely to say the policy is very good

when compared to all LA tenants (28% and 16% respectively).

Responses for ALMOs and retained LAs are also similar, with over half of both ALMO

(55%) and retained LA (54%) tenants satisfied. Looking at the results for very satisfied

however, it can be seen that a higher proportion of ALMO tenants (21%) are ‘very’

satisfied than retained LAs (11%), and vice versa when examining dissatisfaction.

Figure 10 Rating of ASB policy (Q14)



likely to indicate the policy is poor (very/fairly) are:


(5%); and

29%

28%

28%

7%

5%

57%

12%

3%

16%

38%

25%

10%

9%

54%

19%

2%

21%

34%

29%

10%

3%

55%

13%

3%

11%

43%

22%

10%

13%

54%

22%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Very good

Fairly good

Neither good nor poor

Fairly poor

Very poor

Good

Poor

Not provided

RSL's

All LA's

ALMO's

Retained LA's


55

Tenants who do not think residents were involved in the development of an ASB policy

(39%), in comparison with those who think residents were involved (3%).


significantly more likely to think the ASB policy is poor are:

Older tenants (49% of over 65’s, in comparison with just 28% of those 25 – 44 years

old);


(59%), in comparison with those who are not satisfied (48%); and

Retained LA tenants (22%) in comparison with ALMO tenants (13%).





over time

Very good 24% 29% +5%

Fairly good 40% 28% -12%

Neither good nor poor 23% 28% +5%

Fairly poor 7% 7% 0%

Very poor 3% 5% +2%

Good 64% 57% -7%

Poor 10% 12% +2%




56

5.5 Whether or not landlord is compliant with own ASB policy

All tenants aware of their landlord’s ASB policy were then asked to identify to what

extent they think their landlord is doing what it set out in its ASB policy.

Responses are similar, with over two in three (68%) RSL tenants believing that their

landlord is compliant (33% completely, 35% partly) with their ASB policy, and the same

proportion of all LA tenants who believe this is the case (68% overall; 17% completely,

51% partly).

In terms of tenants who do not believe that their landlord complies at all, this is lower

for RSL tenants (7%), than for all LA tenants (15%). Breaking all LA tenants down, it

can be seen that approaching one in five (19%) of retained LA tenants do not believe

their landlord is doing what it set out in the ASB policy at all, which is significantly

higher than for ALMO tenants (8%).

A relatively high proportion of RSL tenants do not know (25%).

Figure 11 Whether or not landlord is doing what is set out in ASB policy (Q15)


Looking at demographic variations, it can be seen those RSL tenants significantly

more likely to indicate that their landlord is not acting in compliance with their ASB

policy at all are:

Tenants aged 45 – 64 years (12%) in comparison with tenants aged 25 – 44 years (1%)

and 65+ years (2%).

Looking at demographic variations, it can be seen all LA tenants significantly more

likely to indicate that their landlord is not acting in compliance with their ASB policy at

all are:

Males (19%), in comparison with females (7%);

33%

35%

7%

25%

1%

17%

51%

15%

15%

2%

16%

59%

8%

15%

2%

17%

46%

19%

16%

1%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Completely

Partly

Not at all

Don't know

Not provided

RSL's

All LA's

ALMO's

Retained LA's


57

Retained LA tenants (19%) in comparison with ALMO tenants (8%).





over time

Completely 28% 33% +5%

Partly 36% 35% -1%

Not at all 8% 7% -1%

Don't know 25% 25% 0%



Removing those who did not provide a response and do not know does not yield

variations that are significant. There are no significant differences when comparing

panel 1 with panel 7.

Table 27 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q42; Panel 7 – Q15) Where provided a valid response


over time

Completely 39% 44% +5%

Partly 50% 47% -3%

Not at all 11% 9% -2%

Unweighted sample bases 271 150


58

6 Appendix – profile

Table 28 Housing Corporation panel members profile

Age Count

16-24 32

25-34 189

35-44 274

45-54 195

55-59 78

60-64 81

65-74 152

75-84 127

85+ 35

Disability #

Yes, someone in the household has a long-standing illness, disability or infirmity 575

Provide Email Address #

No 508

Yes 565

Employment #

Carer 17

Employed Full Time 200

Employed Part Time 110

Full Time Education 14

Government Training 4

Long Term Sick / Disabled 157

Looking After Home Or Family 183

Other 10

Retired 328

Self Employed 23

Something Else 3

Unemployed 68

Unemployed Seeking Work 5

Appendix – profile

59

Ethnicity #

Afghanistan 2

African 58

Asian British - Bangladeshi 2

Asian British - Indian 4

Asian British - Pakistani 8

Asian Other 1

Bangladeshi 23

Black - Caribbean 1

Black British - African 5

Black British - Caribbean 13

Black/Black British 1

British 662

Caribbean 89

Chinese 19

Filipino 1

Indian 33

Iranian 3

Iraqi 3

Irish 12

Kurdish 1

Mixed Other 4

Other 3

Pakistani 44

Somali 3

Sri Lankan Tamil 2

Turkish/Turkish Cypriot 2

Vietnamese 6

White - British 77

White - Irish 2

White And Asian 7

White And Black - African 5

White And Black - Caribbean 20

White Other 3

Yemeni 2

Gender #

Female 720

Male 435


60

Marital Status #

Married/Living Together with Children 214

Married/Living Together without Children 149

Not Provided 24

Single with Children 330

Single without Children 446

Number of adults #

1 736

2 344

Number of children #

Do not have Children Under Age 18 691

Have Children Under Age 18 438

Vehicles #

No 565

Yes 579

Geography number

East Midlands 113

East of England 102

London 236

North East 83

North West 145

South East 73

South West 161

West Midlands 105

Yorkshire and The Humber 144

SIC #

C 5

D 6

E 8

G 1

I 7

K 4

O 7


61

SOC #

Managers And Senior Officials 23

Professional Occupations 28

Associate Professional And Technical Occupations 31

Administrative And Secretarial Occupations 44

Skilled Trades Occupations 12

Personal Service Occupations 55

Sales And Customer Service Occupations 29

Process, Plant And Machine Operatives 20

Elementary Occupations 37

Time in area #

0-1 Year 74

1-2 Years 93

3-5 Years 212

6-10 Years 247

10-20 Years 217

20+ Years 315


62

Table 29 Communities and Local Government panel members profile

Gender #

Male 355

Female 578

Age #

16-24 41

25-34 140

35-44 205

45-54 206

55-59 95

60-64 147

65-74 244

75-84 109

85+ 55

Ethnicity #

White - British 910

White - Irish 13

White And Asian 5

White And Black - African 5

White And Black - Caribbean 7

White Other 24

Asian British - Bangladeshi 18

Asian British - Indian 41

Asian British - Pakistani 73

Asian Other 16

Black - African 41

Black - Caribbean 36

Black Other 12

Other 12

Mixed Other 5

Chinese 1

Disability #

Yes, someone in the household has a long-standing illness, disability or infirmity

522

No, no-one in the household has a long-standing illness, disability or infirmity

692

Marital status #

Married/Living Together with Children 206

Married/Living Together without Children 197

Single with Children 299

Single without Children 472


63

Employment #

Employed Full Time 148

Employed Part Time 58

Full Time Education 12

Government Training 1

Long Term Sick / Disabled 152

Looking After Home Or Family 118

Carer 24

Retired 280

Self Employed 16

Unemployed Seeking Work 64

Something Else 17

SOC #

Managers And Senior Officials 22

Professional Occupations 18

Associate Professional And Technical Occupations 31

Administrative And Secretarial Occupations 26

Skilled Trades Occupations 14

Personal Service Occupations 24

Sales And Customer Service Occupations 21

Process, Plant And Machine Operatives 30

Elementary Occupations 70

64

Because people matter, we listen.

With some 20 years’ experience, BMG Research has established a strong reputation for delivering high quality research and consultancy.

Our business is about understanding people; because they matter. Finding out what they really need; from the type of information they use to the type of services they require. In short, finding out about the kind of world people want to live in tomorrow.

BMG serves both the social public sector and the commercial private sector, providing market and customer insight which is vital in the development of plans, the support of campaigns and the evaluation of performance.

Innovation and development is very much at the heart of our business, and considerable attention is paid to the utilisation of technologies such as portals and information systems to ensure that market and customer intelligence is widely shared.

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local ... panel... · Government Panel Survey 7 Prepared for: The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Prepared by:

Documents