Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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
3.3.4 Tracking over time ......................................................................................... 17
3.3.5 Anti-social behaviour near the home .............................................................. 18
3.3.6 Tracking over time ......................................................................................... 19
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
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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 6 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q31; Panel 7 – Q4) .................. 24
Table 7 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q32; Panel 7 – Q5) .................. 26
Table 8 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q33; Panel 7 – Q6) .................. 29
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 21 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q37; Panel 7 – Q10) .............. 48
Table 22 What should be done to prevent ASB (top three) (Panel 1 – Q38; Panel 7 – Q11) 49
Table 23 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q39; Panel 7 – Q12) .............. 51
Table 24 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q40; Panel 7 – Q13) .............. 53
Table 25 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q41; Panel 7 – Q14) .............. 55
Table 26 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q42; Panel 7 – Q15) .............. 57
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
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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
1.2.1 Anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood
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).
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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).
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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).
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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.
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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%);
Tenants with children in the household, compared with adult-only families (54% and
32% respectively); and
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:
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
14
Tenants with children in the household, compared with adult-only families (45% and
31% respectively); and
BME tenants (50%), compared with Non-BME tenants (31%).
RSL tenants significantly more likely to say that people using or dealing drugs is a
problem are:
Tenants with children in the household, compared with adult-only families (47% and
28% respectively); and
BME tenants (47%), compared with Non-BME tenants (30%).
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).
Views on anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood
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%
Vandalism, graffiti & other deliberate damage to property or vehicles
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%
People being insulted, pestered or intimidated in the street
13% 14% +1%
Abandoned or burnt out cars 9% 6% -3%
People being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin, religion
6% 6% 0%
People being attacked or harassed because of a disability 5% 6% +1%
People being attacked or harassed because of their gender or sexual orientation
5% 6% +1%
Other 3% 2% -1%
Unweighted sample bases 857 469 -
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
16
3.3 Responsibility for dealing with types of anti-social behaviour
3.3.1 Anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood
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
Views on anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood
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%).
3.3.4 Tracking over time
The following table (2) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in
2006. There are no significant differences when comparing panel 1 with panel 7.
Table 2 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q29a; Panel 7 – Q2a)
RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change
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%
Unweighted sample bases 857 469 -
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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)
Unweighted sample bases = RSLs – 469; All LAs – 617; ALMOs – 256; Retained LAs - 289 *denotes <0.5%
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
Views on anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood
19
3.3.6 Tracking over time
The following table (3) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in
2006. There are no significant differences when comparing panel 1 with panel 7.
Table 3 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q29b; Panel 7 – Q2b)
RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change
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%
Unweighted sample bases 857 469 -
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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)
Unweighted sample bases = RSLs – 469; All LAs – 617; ALMOs – 256; Retained LAs - 289 *denotes <0.5%
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%
Rubbish or litter lying around
Teenagers hanging around on the street
Vandalism, graffiti & other deliberate damage to property or vehicles
People being drunk or rowdy in public places
People using or dealing drugs
Nosiy 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/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
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
22
The following table (4) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in
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%
People using or dealing drugs 20% 26% +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%
Unweighted sample bases 857 469 -
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
Experience of anti-social behaviour
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.
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
24
The following table (6) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in
2006. There are no significant differences when comparing panel 1 with panel 7.
Table 6 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q31; Panel 7 – Q4)
RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change
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%
Unweighted sample bases 600 388 -
Experience of anti-social behaviour
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
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
26
The following table (7) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in
2006. There are no significant differences when comparing panel 1 with panel 7.
Table 7 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q32; Panel 7 – Q5)
RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change
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%
Not provided 2% 7% +5%
Unweighted sample bases 214 147 -
Experience of anti-social behaviour
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%).
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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
Experience of anti-social behaviour
29
The following table (8) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in
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.
Table 8 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q33; Panel 7 – Q6)
RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change
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%
Not provided 8% 10% +2%
Unweighted sample bases 214 147 -
3 *This variation is significant at the 99.9% level
4 *This variation is significant at the 99.9% level
5 *This variation is significant at the 98.0% level
6 *This variation is significant at the 99.9% level
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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%
Don't know / can't remember 5% 10% 3% 18%
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
Experience of anti-social behaviour
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%
Don't know / can't remember 10% 9% 6% 13%
Not provided 33% 55% 52% 56%
Unweighted sample bases 241 432 186 191
8 Top three have been shaded.
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
32
The following table (11) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in
2006. There are no significant differences when comparing panel 1 with panel 7.
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.
Table 11 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q34; Panel 7 – Q7)
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%
Don't know / can't remember 11% 10% -1%
Not provided 36% 33% -3%
Unweighted sample bases 386 241
Experience of anti-social behaviour
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
Noisy neighbours or loud parties
10% 14% 31% 10% 6% 24% 16% +8% 29%
Rubbish or litter lying around
7% 15% 27% 13% 12% 22% 25% -3% 26%
Nuisance neighbours or problem families
10% 13% 31% 10% 9% 22% 20% +2% 27%
Vandalism, graffiti & other deliberate damage to property or vehicles
6% 12% 32% 13% 10% 18% 23% -5% 27%
Teenagers hanging around on the street
7% 8% 36% 12% 10% 15% 23% -8% 27%
People using or dealing drugs
6% 9% 33% 13% 10% 15% 23% -8% 29%
People being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin, religion
8% 7% 40% 6% 6% 15% 12% +3% 33%
People being drunk or rowdy in public places
6% 8% 35% 11% 9% 14% 21% -7% 31%
Abandoned or burnt out cars
8% 7% 38% 7% 8% 14% 15% -1% 33%
People being attacked or harassed because of a disability
7% 7% 40% 6% 7% 14% 13% +1% 33%
People being insulted, pestered or intimidated in the street
7% 6% 37% 9% 8% 13% 17% -4% 33%
People being attacked or harassed because of their gender or sexual orientation
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%
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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
Tenants significantly more likely to disagree their landlord is successful in tackling
people using or dealing drugs are:
Tenants who are dissatisfied with the way in which their landlord dealt with their ASB
report, than those who are satisfied (41% and 20% respectively); and
Tenants who are unaware if their landlord has an ASB policy (34%), in comparison with
those who are aware of an ASB policy (21%).
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
Tenants significantly more likely to disagree their landlord is successful in tackling
people being drunk or rowdy in public places are:
Experience of anti-social behaviour
35
Tenants who are dissatisfied with the way in which their landlord dealt with their ASB
report, than those who are satisfied (35% and 17% respectively); and
Tenants who are unaware if their landlord has an ASB policy (36%), in comparison with
those who are aware of an ASB policy (16%).
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%).
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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
Strongly disagree Agree
Dis-agree
Balance score10
Not provided
Rubbish or litter lying around
14% 22% 18% 16% 13% 35% 28% +7% 18%
Vandalism, graffiti & other deliberate damage to property or vehicles
11% 19% 24% 13% 10% 30% 23% +7% 23%
Abandoned or burnt out cars
9% 17% 33% 8% 6% 27% 14% +13% 26%
Nuisance neighbours or problem families
10% 16% 29% 14% 10% 26% 24% +2% 21%
People being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin, religion
12% 12% 38% 6% 6% 25% 12% +13% 25%
Noisy neighbours or loud parties
10% 14% 28% 14% 10% 24% 24% - 24%
People being attacked or harassed because of a disability
12% 12% 39% 6% 6% 24% 13% +11% 25%
People using or dealing drugs
10% 13% 27% 14% 13% 23% 27% -4% 23%
People being attacked or harassed because of their gender or sexual orientation
11% 12% 39% 6% 6% 23% 12% +11% 26%
Teenagers hanging around on the street
9% 12% 29% 19% 12% 21% 31% -10% 19%
People being drunk or rowdy in public places
9% 11% 34% 14% 9% 20% 23% -3% 23%
People being insulted, pestered or intimidated in the street
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%
Experience of anti-social behaviour
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:
Tenants who are dissatisfied with the way in which their landlord dealt with their ASB
report, than those who are satisfied (67% and 17% respectively); and
Tenants who are unaware if their landlord has an ASB policy (36%), in comparison with
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);
Retained LA tenants are significantly more likely than ALMO tenants to disagree that
their landlord is effective at dealing with vandalism and graffiti (29% and 19%
respectively); and
Retained LA tenants are significantly more likely than ALMO tenants to disagree that
their landlord is effective at dealing with nuisance neighbours or problem families (27%
and 19% respectively).
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
38
The following table (14) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in
2006. There are no significant differences when comparing panel 1 with panel 7.
Table 14 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (% agree) (Panel 1 – Q35; Panel 7 – Q8)
RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change
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%
Vandalism, graffiti & other deliberate damage to property or vehicles
18% 18% 0%
Teenagers hanging around on the street 12% 15% +3%
People using or dealing drugs 13% 15% +2%
People being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin, religion
12% 15% +3%
People being drunk or rowdy in public places 11% 14% +3%
Abandoned or burnt out cars 14% 14% 0%
People being attacked or harassed because of a disability
12% 14% +2%
People being insulted, pestered or intimidated in the street
10% 13% +3%
People being attacked or harassed because of their gender or sexual orientation
11% 13% +2%
Unweighted sample bases 857 469 -
Experience of anti-social behaviour
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%).
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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
Strongly disagree Agree
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
Balance scores are calculated by subtracting the negative from the positive proportions i.e. 24% satisfied – 21% dissatisfied = +3%
Experience of anti-social behaviour
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%).
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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
Strongly disagree Agree
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
Balance scores are calculated by subtracting the negative from the positive proportions i.e. 24% satisfied – 21% dissatisfied = +3%
Experience of anti-social behaviour
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%
and 26% respectively).
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)
Unweighted sample bases = RSLs – 469; All LAs – 617; ALMOs – 256; Retained LAs – 289
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
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
44
The following table (17) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in
2006. There are no significant differences when comparing panel 1 with panel 7.
Table 17 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q36; Panel 7 – Q9)
RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change
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%
Not provided 11% 13% +2%
Unweighted sample bases 857 469 -
Experience of anti-social behaviour
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)
RSLs All LAs ALMOs Retained LAs
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%
Don't know / can't remember 5% 7% 8% 4%
Not provided 21% 31% 33% 32%
Unweighted sample base 146 226 103 96
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
46
The following table (19) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in
2006. There are no significant differences when comparing panel 1 with panel 7.
Table 19 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q37; Panel 7 – Q10)
RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change over time
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%
Don't know / can't remember 16% 5% -11%
Not provided 20% 21% +1%
Unweighted sample bases 289 146 -
Experience of anti-social behaviour
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)
RSLs All LAs ALMOs Retained LAs
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%
Don't know / can't remember 2% 3% 3% 4%
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%).
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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%).
The following table (21) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in
2006. There are no significant differences when comparing panel 1 with panel 7.
Table 21 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q37; Panel 7 – Q10)
RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change
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 - *% -
Unweighted sample bases 282 109 -
Experience of anti-social behaviour
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)
Need more police wardens/patrols (11%);
Evict problem families or neighbours (9%);
Install CCTV cameras (5%).
Need more police wardens/patrols (10%);
Provide more activities and facilities for young people (6%);
Take a stronger stance on offenders (7%)
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 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)
Unweighted sample bases = RSLs – 469; All LAs – 617; ALMOs – 256; Retained LAs – 289
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);
Tenants with a disability (51%), in comparison with those who do not have a disability
(40%); and
Tenants who reported the incident to their landlord (64%) in comparison with those who
did not report the incident to anyone (33%).
The following table (23) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in
2006. There are no significant differences when comparing panel 1 with panel 7.
Table 23 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q39; Panel 7 – Q12)
RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change
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%
Not provided 3% 7% +4%
Unweighted sample bases 857 469 -
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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)
Unweighted sample bases = RSLs – 200; All LAs – 288; ALMOs – 136; Retained LAs – 122
Looking at demographic variations, it can be seen that RSL tenants significantly more
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
Policies to tackle ASB problems
53
Looking at further demographic variations, it can be seen that all LA tenants
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);
Tenants who are satisfied that with the way their landlord manages and deals with ASB
(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%).
The following table (24) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in
2006. There are no significant differences when comparing panel 1 with panel 7.
Table 24 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q40; Panel 7 – Q13)
RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change over time
Residents were involved / consulted 26% 35% +9%
Residents were not involved / consulted 20% 16% -4%
Don't know 52% 49% -3%
Not provided 2% 1% -1%
Unweighted sample bases 362 200 -
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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)
Unweighted sample bases = RSLs – 200; All LAs – 288; ALMOs – 136; Retained LAs – 122
Looking at demographic variations, it can be seen that RSL tenants significantly more
likely to indicate the policy is poor (very/fairly) are:
Tenants with a disability (17%), in comparison with those who do not have a disability
(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
Policies to tackle ASB problems
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%).
Looking at further demographic variations, it can be seen that all LA tenants
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);
Tenants who are satisfied that with the way their landlord manages and deals with ASB
(59%), in comparison with those who are not satisfied (48%); and
Retained LA tenants (22%) in comparison with ALMO tenants (13%).
The following table (25) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in
2006. There are no significant differences when comparing panel 1 with panel 7.
Table 25 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q41; Panel 7 – Q14)
RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change
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%
Not provided 4% 3% -1%
Unweighted sample bases 362 200 -
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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)
Unweighted sample bases = RSLs – 200; All LAs – 288; ALMOs – 136; Retained LAs – 122
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
Policies to tackle ASB problems
57
Retained LA tenants (19%) in comparison with ALMO tenants (8%).
The following table (26) shows comparisons with the panel survey 1 undertaken in
2006. There are no significant differences when comparing panel 1 with panel 7.
Table 26 RSLs comparison with Panel Survey 1 (Panel 1 – Q42; Panel 7 – Q15)
RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change
over time
Completely 28% 33% +5%
Partly 36% 35% -1%
Not at all 8% 7% -1%
Don't know 25% 25% 0%
Not provided 4% 1% -3%
Unweighted sample bases 362 200 -
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
RSLs 2006 RSLs 2008 Change
over time
Completely 39% 44% +5%
Partly 50% 47% -3%
Not at all 11% 9% -2%
Unweighted sample bases 271 150
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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
Appendix – profile
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
The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7
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
Appendix – profile
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.