Research Report. The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7

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 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 antisocial 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 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 4

Executive summary 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). 5

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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 6

Executive summary 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 antisocial 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 antisocial 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). 7

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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 antisocial 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 8

Executive summary 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). 9

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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% 10

Introduction The level of statistical significance on an observed statistic of 50% between subgroups 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. 11

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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) 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 52% 56% 61% 54% 36% 46% 44% 44% 34% 40% 40% 40% 32% 41% 45% 34% 22% 26% 28% 24% 20% 22% 19% 25% 19% 32% 33% 30% 14% 22% 26% 19% 6% 9% 8% 10% 6% 9% 9% 8% 6% 9% 9% 7% 6% 8% 7% 8% 2% 3% 3% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% RSLs All LA ALMOS Retained LAs Unweighted sample bases = RSLs 469; All LAs 617; ALMOs 256; Retained LAs 289 12

Views on anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood 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: 13

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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). 14

Views on anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood 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 857 469-15

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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) Police Your housing association / landlord Local Council Local residents Parents Everyone Other Don't know Not provided 2% 3% 1% 4% 2% 1% 3% *% 1% 1% *% *% 2% 1% 3% *% *% 0% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 12% 11% 19% 18% 20% 11% 14% 16% 12% 59% 58% 59% 58% RSL's All LA's ALMO's Retained LA's 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Unweighted sample bases = RSLs 469; All LAs 617; ALMOs 256; Retained LAs - 289 *denotes <0.5% 16

Views on anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood 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 857 469-17

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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) Police Your housing association / landlord Local Council Local residents Parents Everyone Other Don't know Not provided 13% 4% 3% 5% 9% 25% 22% 28% 5% 5% 6% 5% *% 1% 1% 1% *% 2% 1% 3% *% *% *% *% 3% 2% 1% 2% 15% 17% 19% 15% 53% 44% 48% 41% RSL's All LA ALMO's Retained LA's 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Unweighted sample bases = RSLs 469; All LAs 617; ALMOs 256; Retained LAs - 289 *denotes <0.5% 18

Views on anti-social behaviour in the neighbourhood 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 857 469-19

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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. 20

Experience of anti-social behaviour 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) 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 41% 30% 40% 37% 41% 27% 30% 33% 28% 26% 32% 34% 29% 26% 30% 32% 30% 25% 33% 36% 32% 13% 15% 19% 14% 6% 12% 10% 14% 3% 6% 6% 7% 3% 8% 6% 9% 3% 5% 5% 5% 1% *% 0% *% 1% 2% 2% *% 15% 11% 9% 14% 4% 3% 2% 4% 55% 60% 66% 58% 54% 56% 51% RSL's All LA's ALMO's Retained LA's 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Unweighted sample bases = RSLs 469; All LAs 617; ALMOs 256; Retained LAs - 289 *denotes <0.5% 21

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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 22

Experience of anti-social behaviour 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 neighbourhood 2 (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. 23

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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 600 388-24

Experience of anti-social behaviour 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) Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1% 11% 18% 23% 10% 27% 20% 31% 16% 21% 19% 25% 18% 14% 11% 13% 20% 20% 6% 36% RSL's All LA's ALMO's Retained LA's Satisfied Dissatisfied Not provided 2% 7% 11% 19% 18% 38% 38% 26% 34% 31% 37% 53% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Unweighted sample base = RSLs 147; All LAs 78; ALMOs 34; Retained LAs - 38 25

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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 214 147-26

4.5 Way in which the landlord dealt with the problem Experience of anti-social behaviour 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%). 27

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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) 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 25% 40% 45% 43% 25% 32% 22% 24% 29% 14% 45% 24% 38% 33% 24% 41% 44% 41% 10% 15% 26% 10% 5% 4% 6% 4% 3% 14% 6% 22% 3% 13% 20% 11% 7% 8% 2% 4% 10% 7% 0% 10% 54% 53% RSL's All LA's ALMO's Retained LA's 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Unweighted sample bases = RSLs 147; All LAs 78; ALMOs 34; Retained LAs - 38 28

Experience of anti-social behaviour 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 29

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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 30

Experience of anti-social behaviour 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 landlord 8 (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. 31

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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 32

4.8 Effectively dealing with anti-social behaviour Experience of 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) Noisy neighbours or loud parties Rubbish or litter lying around Nuisance neighbours or problem families Vandalism, graffiti & other deliberate damage to property or vehicles Teenagers hanging around on the street People using or dealing drugs People being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin, religion People being drunk or rowdy in public places Abandoned or burnt out cars People being attacked or harassed because of a disability People being insulted, pestered or intimidated in the street People being attacked or harassed because of their gender or sexual orientation Unweighted sample base = 469 Strongly agree Tend to agree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree Agree Neither Disagree Balance score 9 Not provided 10% 14% 31% 10% 6% 24% 16% +8% 29% 7% 15% 27% 13% 12% 22% 25% -3% 26% 10% 13% 31% 10% 9% 22% 20% +2% 27% 6% 12% 32% 13% 10% 18% 23% -5% 27% 7% 8% 36% 12% 10% 15% 23% -8% 27% 6% 9% 33% 13% 10% 15% 23% -8% 29% 8% 7% 40% 6% 6% 15% 12% +3% 33% 6% 8% 35% 11% 9% 14% 21% -7% 31% 8% 7% 38% 7% 8% 14% 15% -1% 33% 7% 7% 40% 6% 7% 14% 13% +1% 33% 7% 6% 37% 9% 8% 13% 17% -4% 33% 7% 6% 40% 6% 7% 13% 13% - 34% 9 Balance scores are calculated by subtracting the negative from the positive proportions i.e. 24% satisfied 21% dissatisfied = +3% 33

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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: 34

Experience of anti-social behaviour 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%). 35

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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) Rubbish or litter lying around Vandalism, graffiti & other deliberate damage to property or vehicles Abandoned or burnt out cars Nuisance neighbours or problem families People being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnic origin, religion Noisy neighbours or loud parties People being attacked or harassed because of a disability People using or dealing drugs People being attacked or harassed because of their gender or sexual orientation Teenagers hanging around on the street People being drunk or rowdy in public places People being insulted, pestered or intimidated in the street Unweighted sample base = 617 Strongly agree Tend to agree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree Agree Neither Disagree Balance score 10 Not provided 14% 22% 18% 16% 13% 35% 28% +7% 18% 11% 19% 24% 13% 10% 30% 23% +7% 23% 9% 17% 33% 8% 6% 27% 14% +13% 26% 10% 16% 29% 14% 10% 26% 24% +2% 21% 12% 12% 38% 6% 6% 25% 12% +13% 25% 10% 14% 28% 14% 10% 24% 24% - 24% 12% 12% 39% 6% 6% 24% 13% +11% 25% 10% 13% 27% 14% 13% 23% 27% -4% 23% 11% 12% 39% 6% 6% 23% 12% +11% 26% 9% 12% 29% 19% 12% 21% 31% -10% 19% 9% 11% 34% 14% 9% 20% 23% -3% 23% 7% 12% 37% 11% 7% 20% 18% +2% 25% 10 Balance scores are calculated by subtracting the negative from the positive proportions i.e. 24% satisfied 21% dissatisfied = +3% 36

Experience of anti-social behaviour 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). 37

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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 People being insulted, pestered or intimidated in the street People being attacked or harassed because of their gender or sexual orientation 12% 14% +2% 10% 13% +3% 11% 13% +2% Unweighted sample bases 857 469-38

Experience of anti-social behaviour 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%). 39

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 Table 15 Experience of ASB by dealing effectively with ASB (RSL tenants) (Q3 by Q8) Tenants who have had experience of... Teenagers hanging around on the street [192] People using or dealing drugs [120] Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property [141] Rubbish or litter lying around [259] People being drunk or rowdy in public places [128] Nuisance neighbours or problem families [117] People being insulted pestered or intimidated in the street [59] Noisy neighbours or loud parties [124] Abandoned/burnt out cars [28] People being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnicity or religion [16] People being attacked or harassed because of a disability [13] People being attacked or harassed because of their gender or sexual orientation [12] Strongly agree Level of agreement that landlord deals effectively with various types of ASB Tend to agree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree Agree Neither Disagree Balance score 11 Not provided 8% 6% 37% 19% 16% 14% 35% -21% 14% 8% 6% 28% 28% 21% 15% 49% -34% 8% 5% 12% 25% 24% 21% 18% 45% -27% 13% 7% 14% 25% 19% 18% 21% 37% -16% 17% 4% 7% 35% 18% 19% 11% 37% -26% 17% 16% 13% 24% 20% 20% 29% 40% -11% 8% 7% 7% 26% 21% 23% 14% 44% -30% 16% 13% 18% 22% 23% 16% 31% 39% -8% 8% 6% 4% 26% 10% 29% 10% 39% -29% 25% 10% 6% 24% 35% 12% 16% 47% -31% 12% 5% 11% 40% 4% 12% 16% 16% 0% 28% 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% 40

Experience of anti-social behaviour 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%). 41

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 Table 16 Experience of ASB by dealing effectively with ASB (all LA tenants) (Q3 by Q8) Tenants who have had experience of... Teenagers hanging around on the street [332] People using or dealing drugs [198] Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property [248] Rubbish or litter lying around [373] People being drunk or rowdy in public places [184] Nuisance neighbours or problem families [204] People being insulted pestered or intimidated in the street [95] Noisy neighbours or loud parties [188] Abandoned/burnt out cars [75] People being attacked or harassed because of their skin colour, ethnicity or religion [38] People being attacked or harassed because of a disability [51] People being attacked or harassed because of their gender or sexual orientation [33] Strongly agree Level of agreement that landlord deals effectively with various types of ASB Tend to agree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree Agree Neither Disagree Balance score 12 Not provided 11% 9% 24% 27% 19% 20% 45% -25% 11% 11% 8% 19% 22% 29% 19% 51% -32% 11% 8% 17% 19% 21% 20% 25% 41% -16% 15% 14% 19% 18% 22% 16% 33% 37% -4% 12% 8% 5% 29% 26% 18% 13% 44% -31% 13% 14% 10% 21% 22% 24% 24% 46% -22% 10% 15% 3% 22% 24% 21% 18% 45% -27% 15% 11% 13% 16% 24% 25% 24% 49% -25% 11% 13% 16% 29% 18% 6% 29% 24% +5% 17% 22% 17% 21% 8% 14% 39% 22% +17% 18% 12% 15% 10% 26% 12% 27% 38% -11% 26% 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% 42

Experience of anti-social behaviour 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) Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 14% 10% 12% 8% 16% 26% 27% 28% 24% 25% 22% 13% 16% 16% 17% 9% 12% 10% 14% 35% RSL's All LA's ALMO's Retained LA's Satisfied Dissatisfied Not provided 13% 12% 10% 12% 30% 36% 39% 35% 22% 28% 26% 31% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Unweighted sample bases = RSLs 469; All LAs 617; ALMOs 256; Retained LAs 289 43

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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 857 469-44

Experience of anti-social behaviour 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 Very little / no anti-social behaviour in the area 24% 16% 16% 17% 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 Residents and organisations all work together on this issue It is a police matter - not their responsibility 7% 3% 4% 3% 5% 2% 1% 3% 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 45

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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 Residents and organisations all work together on this issue 5% 7% +2% 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 289 146-46

Experience of anti-social behaviour 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 Tenants should be vetted before being allowed to move in Troublesome tenants are treated better than law-abiders 1% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% *% 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%). 47

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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 282 109-48

Experience of anti-social behaviour 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) 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%); Evict problem families or neighbours (7%) Provide more activities and facilities for young people (5%) Need more police wardens/patrols (10%); Provide more activities and facilities for young people (6%); Take a stronger stance on offenders (7%) 49

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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) Yes, landlord has a policy 43% 47% 52% 46% No, landlord does not have a policy Don't know 14% 13% 14% 12% 36% 34% 28% 35% RSL's All LA's ALMO's Retained LA's Not provided 7% 6% 6% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Unweighted sample bases = RSLs 469; All LAs 617; ALMOs 256; Retained LAs 289 50

Policies to tackle ASB problems 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 857 469-51

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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) Residents were involved / consulted 35% 39% 46% 32% Residents were not involved / consulted Don't know 16% 24% 20% 27% 35% 32% 38% 49% RSL's All LA's ALMO's Retained LA's Not provided 1% 3% 3% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 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%). 52

Policies to tackle ASB problems 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 362 200-53

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 5.4 Rating of ASB policy All tenants aware of their landlord s ASB policy were then asked to rate it on a fivepoint 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) Very good Fairly good Neither good nor poor Fairly poor Very poor 29% 16% 21% 11% 28% 38% 34% 43% 28% 25% 29% 22% 7% 10% 10% 10% 5% 9% 3% 13% RSL's All LA's ALMO's Retained LA's Good Poor Not provided 3% 2% 3% 1% 12% 13% 19% 22% 57% 54% 55% 54% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 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 54

Policies to tackle ASB problems 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 362 200-55

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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) Completely Partly Not at all Don't know Not provided 1% 2% 2% 1% 7% 8% 17% 16% 17% 15% 19% 15% 15% 16% 25% 33% 35% 46% 51% 59% RSL's All LA's ALMO's Retained LA's 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 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%); 56

Policies to tackle ASB problems 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 57

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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 58

Appendix profile 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 59

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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 60

Appendix profile 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 61

The Housing Corporation and Communities and Local Government Panel Survey 7 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 No, no-one in the household has a long-standing illness, disability or infirmity Marital status Married/Living Together with Children 206 Married/Living Together without Children 197 Single with Children 299 Single without Children 472 # # # # 522 692 62

Appendix profile 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 63

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. 64