Taff Survey 2011 Report

Taff Housing Association

Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2011

Report by Adam Payne adam.payne@arp-research.co.uk (t) 0844 272 6004

(w) www.arp-research.co.uk

Contents Page 1.

Introduction

1

2.

Summary of main findings

2

3.

Respondent profile

6

4.

Overall satisfaction

11

5.

The home and neighbourhood

14

6.

Repairs and maintenance

19

7.

Customer service

24

8.

Communication and information

29

9.

Anti-social behaviour

34

10.

Financial and other services

36

11.

Future priorities

38

Appendices A. Methodology and data analysis

44

B. Example questionnaire

46

C. Data summary

63

1. Introduction This report details the results of the 2011 Taff Housing Association tenant satisfaction survey, delivered by ARP Research.

The survey questionnaire was based on the standard STATUS/STAR model, which allows the results to be benchmarked against other similar housing providers.

The results of this year’s survey are also compared against the equivalent survey in 2008 to monitor tenants’ satisfaction with Taff, and to help determine how those services should be improved in the future.

Prior to the survey a separate consultation exercise was carried out with tenants to help inform the questionnaire, in particular the section on future priorities.

This involved focus groups and doorstep interviews in April 2011 asking “Taff are working hard to provide you with the best possible service, please tell us what more you would like us to do?”

A separate report details the full findings of this exercise.

Methodology The survey has a theoretical sampling error of +/- 3.2% at the 95% level.

Sampling error is the amount by which a result might vary due to chance.

The survey was conducted in July and August 2011. Paper self completion questionnaires were distributed to all tenants, and it was also available for completion online.

Two reminder questionnaires, a free prize draw, and active staff participation across the organisation were all used to encourage the response rate.

The total survey sample of 487 represents a response rate

of 50%, which is considerably higher than the 37% achieved in 2008.

Comparisons between groups have been subject to statistical tests to identify only those that are statistically significant, which means they cannot be accounted for by chance variations in the results. These calculations rely on a number of factors such as the sample size and the pattern of responses across a rating scale, thereby taking into account more than just the simple percentage difference. This means that some results are significant despite appearing superficially similar to others that are not.

For detailed information on the survey methodology and data analysis, please see appendix A. 1

2. Summary of main findings Overall satisfaction 1.

The survey results in 2011 were extremely positive, with tenants sending a clear message that in most cases Taff was either meeting or exceeding their expectations. This is typified by the headline overall satisfaction rating of 91%, including around half of the sample who were very satisfied (52%). In contrast, only 1% of respondents were very dissatisfied. This rating was 8% higher than the equivalent question three years before, and was now almost as high as it could realistically go (section 4).

2.

Many other survey results had higher rating scores than before, and in most other instances maintained satisfaction at the 2008 level. This included substantial increases in satisfaction with the repairs service overall (section 6), showers and bathrooms (section 5), various aspects of the way enquires were handled (section 7) and the general way in which tenants were informed and involved (section 8).

3.

After a key driver analysis (regression), the main factors most closely associated with overall satisfaction were, in descending order of strength: ♦

Value for money of the rent (84% satisfied, section 4)

♦

The general condition of properties (88%, section 4)

♦

The final outcome of queries (85% , section 7).

Future priorities 4.

Survey respondents were asked what more they would like Taff do to provide them with the best possible service. This question included ideas gathered during earlier qualitative research, and used the unique Priority Search methodology to rank 10 different improvements in priority order (section 11). The results showed that there was one top priority, followed by three more that were closely bunched together:

2

♦

Help with reducing energy bills

♦

Better information on when improvement such as kitchens and bathrooms will be done

♦

Improved system for making repair appointments

♦

Make it easier to get help with money/benefits

3. Summary of main findings

Value for money 5.

In the current economic climate it is unsurprising that value for money was so closely associated with overall satisfaction, and it can probably be viewed as a good sign that this rating has remained unchanged since the previous survey (84%). Indeed, the importance of maintain value for money was shown by the fact that reducing energy bills was the single highest priority for tenants, whilst easier access to help with money and benefits was placed fourth on the list (section 11).

6.

In contrast to the rent levels, there was a degree of dissatisfaction with the value for money of the service charge (17% dissatisfied), which meant that only two thirds of the sample gave a positive response to this question. Indeed, whilst not a statistically significant margin, it is still worth noting that this was one of the few scores where the score was lower than it had been in 2008 (65% v 70%).

The home and neighbourhood 7.

The general impression from this section of the survey results was that, with the exception of clear improvements in showers and bathrooms, for the most part tenant’s opinions on the features of their home were very consistent with the 2008 survey (section 5).

8.

The overall ratings for quality and condition of the home bear this out, with both rated satisfactory by 88% of the sample (section 4). Both of these ratings remained higher than the benchmark averages, with the condition of the home showing a small increase since 2008, albeit not statistically significant (88% v 85%).

9.

When analysed by area, a number of features of the home were rated significantly lower than average in Riverside, but higher than average in Canton.

10.

Better information about when improvement work would be carried out was the second highest priority for the future amongst sample respondents, with 30% placing it in the top three of their wish list.

Furthermore, this was a higher priority than average for those living in Riverside (section 11).

11.

Although rising fuel costs were clearly a concern, three quarters of the sample were still satisfied with the running costs of their heating and hot water (73%), which whilst lower than the equivalent score in 2008 (77%) had not yet changed enough to be considered statistically significant.

12.

People’s perceptions of their neighbourhood overall are typically one of the more stable measures in tenant surveys, and so it transpired with a similar proportion of tenants satisfied as in the previous survey, and no significant variation by neighbourhood (80%, section 4).

Repairs and maintenance 13.

Overall satisfaction with Taff’s repairs and maintenance service had been on the rise since 2005, but by 2011 the improvements had accelerated to the extent that the 90% satisfaction score achieved by Taff was ten percentage points higher than one might normally expect, and twelve points higher than it had been in 2008 (section 6).

3

3. Summary of main findings 14.

The detailed questions that were then asked of those respondents who had recently received a repair revealed that both the speed of completion (91% v 84%) and quality of work (91% v 83%) had improved significantly since 2008, with non-significant increases observed in the remainder of the questions.

15.

In particular, it is notable that the fact that 88% rated Taff as good in both the time taken before work started, and being told when workers would call, meant that these ratings were clearly higher than the comparable benchmarks.

16.

Nevertheless, improvements to the repairs appointment system were the third highest priority for the future amongst tenants, being in the top three for just under a third of the sample (29%, see section 11).

Customer Service 17.

One of the key drivers of satisfaction overall with Taff, and hence one of the reasons why that score may have gone up, was the level of satisfaction felt with the final outcome when respondents made contact with Taff. This rating was previously perfectly acceptable in comparison to the benchmark scores, but had nevertheless improved by 10% since 2008. This meant that 85% said that they were satisfied, including 59% who gave the most positive score (section 7).

18.

Indeed, when asked about the most recent contact tenants had with the Association, six out of the eight questions demonstrated significant improvements since the previous survey, with the greatest change of 13% seen in the two ratings which had been the poorest in 2008 – staff getting back when they said they would (now 81% agreed) and being dealt with in a reasonable amount of time (now 85%).

19.

Virtually everybody who commented said that the staff were polite (97%) and helpful (95%), including around two thirds in each case who strongly agreed. Furthermore, the helpfulness of the staff was the main key driver most closely associated with satisfactory outcomes, although it is also interesting that the reliability with which staff get back to people if they said they would was also an important factor.

Communication and information 20.

A number of satisfaction scores had increased substantially since previous surveys, but it was still striking to observe the steep upward path of the chart tracking ratings for how well informed tenants felt they were kept. In 2005, 79% of tenants rated Taff as good on this measure, climbing to 86% in 2008 and now 94% in the current survey (section 8).

21.

The tenant’s handbook was clearly an important source of information, as this was main key driver for information overall (90% were satisfied. In additional, the clarity of Taff’s written communications appeared to have improved since 2008, with both letters and the rent statement being rated significantly better than before (96% and 93% respectively),

22.

Indeed, despite the reasonably high levels of internet access, only a quarter of the sample said that they would be happy to use e-mail to communicate with the Association (22%). Similarly, 15% would be happy to use text/sms and only 5% cited social networking such as Twitter or Facebook.

4

3. Summary of main findings 23.

In addition to the simple provision of information, questions were also asked of tenants to determine their satisfaction levels with Taff’s tenant participation activities. On this topic the results were again very strong, with significant improvements since 2008 in both opportunities for participation (81% v 69% satisfied), and the general feeling that tenants views were listened to and acted upon (84% v 75%).

Anti-social behaviour 24.

A third of the survey sample had experienced problems with anti-social behaviour or neighbour nuisance in the previous 12 months period (33%), which was slightly fewer than during the equivalent period prior to the last survey (36%). It was good to see that around half of these problems had been reported to Taff, which was higher than both the 2008 total and the typical figure normally seen for this question (section 9).

25.

Furthermore, it was very positive that the majority of those who reported ASB to Taff were satisfied with the speed that their report was dealt with (71%) and how well they were kept informed (68%), which is around 20% more than both the benchmark averages and the 2008 scores.

5

3. Respondent profile 2011

3.1 Area

32

2008

35

33 28

24

4

3 Canton

39

Fairwater

2 Gr angetown

Riverside

0 NR % Base 487

3.2 Property type House 55

House 49

Flat 50

6

NR 1

Flat 43

NR 3

% Base 487

3. Respondent profile 2011

3.3 Property size 41

2008

39 27

25

20

20 13

11 3

2 1 bed/bedsit

2 bed

3 bed

4+ bed

NR

% Base 487

3.4 Vehicles parked at property 48

44

46

42

7 None

One

4 Two

5

3

2

1 Three+

NR % Base 487

3.5 Receive housing benefit No 22

No 19

Yes 76

Don't know NR 5

Yes 70

Don't know NR 8

% Base 487

7

3. Respondent profile 3.6 Gender

2011 2008

Male 40

Female 57

Male 41

Female 57

NR 3

NR 2 % Base 487

3.7Age 22 12

26

25

23

15 9

4

4

8

6

9

11 11 6

4 1

16-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-59

60-64

65-74

75-84

1

85+

1

1 NR

% Base 487

3.8 Children under 16 in household Yes 31

Yes 30

No 67 NR 3

8

NR 2

No 67 % Base 487

3. Respondent profile 3.9 Ethnic background

2011 Base: 487

% 2011

% 2008

70 0.2 0 1.4

72 2.0 2.0

2008

White Welsh/English/Scottish/Northern Irish/British

Irish Gypsy or Traveller Any other White background Mixed White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Asian Any other Mixed background

2.7 1.2 1.2 1

0.6 0.6 0.9 2.3

0.6 1.6 2.1 0.4 1.0

0.3 0.6 1.7 0 2.0

0.8 5.5 2.7 1.0

0.3 3.2 0.3 3.2

3.5 0.4 2.3

1.2 7.0

NR 2 BME 28

White British 70

Asian or Asian British Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Chinese Any other Asian background

NR 7

Black or Black British Caribbean African Somali African (not Somali) Any other Black background

BME 21

White British 72

Other Arab Other No response

% Base 487

3.10 Main language 81 84

− English − Arabic − No response − Somali − Other − Welsh − Polish − Bengali − Urdu − Mandarin − Cantonese − Gujarati − Hindi − Punjabi

4.7 1.7 4.7 3.8 2.7 3.5 2.1 1.5 1.4 2.3 1.4 1.2 2.0 0.4 0.9 0.4 0 0.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

% Base 487

9

3. Respondent profile 2011

3.11 Disability or long term illness in household Yes 50

2008

Yes 46

Don't know NR 3

Don't know NR 11

No 47

3.12 Home adapted

No 44

3.13 Wheelchair user

%

%

%

%

2011

2008

2011

2008

Yes

29

22

Yes

10

13

No

71

78

No

90

87 Households with disability or long term illness | % Base 241

3.14 Sexual orientation 66

59 32

26 1.6 Heterosexual

2.3

Gay man

0.8

0.8

0.6

Lesbian

0.3

Bisexual

4.9

5.8

Other

Prefer not to say / NR % Base 487

3.15 Religion 44 24

43

25 18 0.4 0.3

No religion

Christian

Buddhist

0.4

3

Hindu

0.2

13.1

0

Jewish

Muslim

10 0.2 0.6

2.7 3.2

Sikh

Other

15

Prefer not to say / NR % Base 487

10

4. Overall satisfaction The survey results in 2011 were extremely positive, with tenants sending a clear message that in most cases Taff was either meeting or exceeding their expectations. Furthermore, in many cases there were substantial

The main rating statement results also include charts showing the pattern of results since 2005.

improvements when compared against the strong 2008 survey results.

This observation is true for many of the individual questions throughout the survey, but is typified by the headline overall satisfaction rating of 91%, including around half of the sample who were very satisfied (52%).

In contrast, only 1% of respondents were very dissatisfied. Many of the additional comments given by respondents reflected this high level of satisfaction (see sidebars).

This rating was 8% higher than the equivalent question three years before, and was now almost as high as it could realistically go. It was therefore also above the average score of 84% calculated from recent ARP Research/Priority Research surveys of general needs tenants of smaller associations.

Many other survey results had higher rating scores than before, and in most other instances maintained satisfaction at the 2008 level. This included substantial increases in satisfaction with the repairs service overall (section 6), showers and bathrooms (section 5), various aspects of the way enquires were handled (section 7) and the general way in which tenants were informed and involved (section 8).

4.1 Overall satisfaction

84 −

Overall service from Taff

% satisfied 2011

14 4

39

% satisfied confidence 2008 (95%)

91

52

83

+/- 2.6

significantly higher than 2008 very dissatisfied

no significant difference significantly lower than 2008

fairly dissatisfied

See appendix A for further

neither

fairly satisfied

very satisfied

Benchmark Excludes non respondents | % Base 473

information on statistical tests and

100 90

91 83

83

2005

2008

80 70 2011

11

4. Overall satisfaction 4.2 Satisfaction on key measures

86 −

Overall quality of home

83 −

General condition of

25 5

Value for money for rent

84 −

Neighbourhood as a place

charge significantly higher than 2008 no significant difference

44

27 8

43

6 6 8

to live − Value for money for service

42

26 4

property

83 −

% % satisfied satisfied confidence 2011 2008 (95%)

9

8

18

88

89

+/- 3.0

44

88

85

+/- 2.9

84

84

+/- 3.4

80

81

+/- 3.6

65

70

+/- 5.5

41

44

36

38

very dissatisfied

46

28

fairly dissatisfied

neither

fairly satisfied

very satisfied

significantly lower than 2008 See appendix A for further information on statistical tests and confidence levels

Benchmark

Excludes non respondents | % Bases (descending) 469,473,461,467,293

However. the reader will note that in some cases apparent changes are not highlighted as being statistically significant. This is because the significance threshold is dependent on sample size, and also that the statistical tests look at the pattern of results across every point in the scale.

Throughout the report the results are also comprehensively analysed by sub group in order to identify those tenants who might differ from the norm in how they felt about Taff’s services. The only caveat here is that with such positive results on many questions, there were in many cases fewer such differences than might otherwise be the case. On the overall rating, the main distinction was that younger tenants (aged 25 -44) and/or

A ‘key driver’ analysis uses a regression test to check which other results in the survey which are best at predicting overall satisfaction

those who had experienced ASB were a little less satisfied, although at 85% both of these groups were still very positive.

To learn more about the overall satisfaction scores key driver analyses were also carried out, using a stepwise linear regression, in order to determine which opinion rating statements in the questionnaires were most closely associated with overall satisfaction. This test does not necessarily suggest a causal link (although there may be one), but it does highlight the combination of opinion rating statements that are the best predictors of overall satisfaction. The analysis identified three key drivers, in descending order of strength:

12

♦

Value for money of the rent (84% satisfied)

♦

The general condition of properties (88%)

♦

The final outcome of queries (85% , section 7).

4. Overall satisfaction Value for money and the property had also been key drivers in 2008, but customer service was new to the list. Indeed, the final outcome of queries was rated much higher than it had been previously (85% v 75% positive, chart 7.2), so it is reasonable to propose that the observed improvements in customer service had

“Having been a tenant for several years, I have seen Taff make fantastic progress in all areas of services on offer, along with their staff's attitude towards tenants - making them more approachable and helpful.”

positively influenced overall satisfaction.

“Just keep up the good work, one and all.”

What is also notable from this list is one item that is

“Taff Housing Association is an honest, open

not present, nor was it present in 2008. The repairs

organisation that practises what it preaches.”

and maintenance service is typically central to tenant’s

“Since we changed from Council property to Taff, I

perceptions of the service they receive from their landlord, and it reasonably uncommon for this not be reflected in the key drivers. This is not to say the repairs and maintenance service was problematic, in fact quite the contrary. This service had actually seen a stunning increase in satisfaction (90% v 78% in 2008, section 6), which common sense would also attribute as factor in the overall survey results. In this case, it

have been pleasantly surprised by the real care shown of our welfare and the prompt attention to requested for repairs etc. I have been even more pleased by the pleasant helpfulness shown when visiting your office for help or advice.”

“Taff is doing a very good job, ten out of ten.”

“Excellent, best I've experienced.”

reasonable to postulate that the standard of the repairs service has been sufficiently high for long enough that Taff tenants have historically not had it dominate how they view the Association overall.

Turning back to the most prominent key driver, value for money, in the current poor economic climate it can probably be viewed as a good sign that this rating has remained unchanged since the previous survey.

Indeed, the importance of maintaining value for money was shown by the fact that reducing energy bills was the single highest priority for tenants (section 11). As had previously been the case, those respondents who did not receive housing benefit were only a little less likely to be positive than the rest of the sample (80% satisfied). By age, 35-44 year olds gave significantly lower ratings (75% satisfied), with the lowest score unsurprisingly given by those renting four bedroom houses (67% satisfied).

In contrast to the rent levels, there was a degree of dissatisfaction with the value for money of the service charge (17% dissatisfied), which meant that only two thirds of the sample gave a positive response to this question. Indeed, whilst not a statistically significant margin, it is still worth noting that this was one of the few scores where the score was lower than it had been in 2008 (65% v 70%). Other than 25-34 year olds (37% positive), there were no other groups who stood as being less satisfied than the norm on this question, although it should be noted that over 80% of tenants aged 60 or more were positive on this measure.

Regarding the other overall questions on chart 4.2, it is unsurprising that the condition of the home would play a role in how residents rated the Association overall, and it should be pointed out that the satisfaction score of 88% was a number of points higher than the benchmark average, even if the majority of ratings on the home itself had remained static since 2008 (see section 5 for further analysis).

Similarly, neighbourhood satisfaction is typically a very stable measure in tenant surveys and this remained the case for Taff (80% satisfied).

“I do feel that the service charge is extremely high and considering the garden and communal area maintenance, I think there should be better plants and generally cleaner. To a higher standard for the amount charged.”

“The service charge is disproportionate to other residential properties.”

13

5. The home and neighbourhood The general impression from this section of the survey results was that, with the exception of clear improvement in showers and bathrooms, for the most part tenant’s opinions on the features of their home were very consistent with the 2008 survey.

The overall ratings for quality and condition of the home bear this out, with both rated satisfactory by 88% of the sample (see chart 4.2). Both of these ratings remained higher than the benchmark averages, with the condition of the home showing a small increase since 2008, albeit not statistically significant (88% v 85%). When analysed by area, both measures were scored significantly lower by residents in Riverside (85%

Green, grey and purple arrow icons denote whether a rating score has changed significantly since the last survey.

and 86% respectively), which was mainly due to the lower proportion who claimed to be ‘very satisfied’ (both 38%).

When moving on to consider the detailed questions about the property, this analysis by area was repeated with the complete breakdown shown on table 5.2. This revealed a number of features that were rated significantly lower than average in Riverside including: ♦

Windows and damp

♦

Fire protection

♦

Storage space

♦

Fencing

♦

Communal areas

In contrast, seven of the twelve features of the home were rated significantly higher than average by respondents in Canton.

There were four key drivers of satisfaction with the condition of the property, which were those satisfaction ratings that most closely mirrored the overall rating. In this instance, the most closely associated question had a very similar score to the overall ratings, with 87% of the sample claiming to be satisfied with locks and security. This is consistent with tenants surveys generally where home security often very important, although it was not highlighted as a key driver in 2008.

Two groups of tenants were less satisfied overall with security, although in both cases the great majority were still positive. One of these groups was to be expected, being those who had experienced ASB (78%). The other group was less obvious, being those aged 55-59% (80% satisfied).

14

5. The home and neighbourhood 5.1 Features of the home

% % satisfied satisfied confidence 2011 2008 (95%)

− Fire protection

23 6

− Locks and Security

27 4

35

54

89

85

+/- 2.8

48

87

81

+/- 3.0

39

− Shower or Bathroom

5 9 4

34

48

82

69

+/- 3.5

− Kitchen

6 10 3

33

47

81

79

+/- 3.6

42

76

77

+/- 3.9

− Windows

5 13

6

34

− Freedom from dampness

8 10 7

33

43

76

78

+/- 3.9

6 12 10

39

34

73

77

+/- 4.1

− Paving / Garden

9

11 11

39

32

70

68

+/- 4.5

− Storage space

9

11 11

39

30

69

68

+/- 4.2

− Fencing

8

9

35

34

69

64

+/- 4.9

− Communal areas

5 7

36

32

68

70

+/- 5.6

61

60

+/- 4.4

− Running costs of heating /

hot water

− Soundproofing

significantly higher than 2008 no significant difference

12

15

14

20

13

very dissatisfied

34

27

fairly dissatisfied

neither

fairly satisfied

very satisfied

significantly lower than 2008 See appendix A for further information on statistical tests and confidence levels

Excludes non respondents | % Bases (descending) 464,473,472,471,468,466,462,390,468,351,266,462

15

5. The home and neighbourhood 5.2 Satisfaction with the home - by area % satisfied

Kitchen

Shower or Bathroom

Windows

Running costs of heating / hot water

Locks and Security

Fire protection

Soundproofing

Storage space

Freedom from dampness

Paving / garden

Fencing

Communal areas

81

82

76

73

87

89

61

69

76

70

69

68

Sample size

Overall

Canton

158

86

84

78

78

90

91

64

67

77

73

74

70

Fairwater

14

57

64

54

57

86

93

57

69

64

69

69

50

Grangetown

138

78

79

81

71

89

92

63

75

79

68

68

72

Riverside

169

80

83

72

71

82

85

59

65

73

69

64

64

Care should be taken interpreting these figures due the small sample sizes in some areas. Please note that areas with under 5 respondents have been removed.

Significantly lower than average

Significantly higher than average

(95% confidence*)

(95% confidence*)

* See appendix A for further information on statistical tests and confidence levels

Two other of the main features of the home, showers/bathrooms and kitchens were also identified as key drivers, in additional to the properties freedom from dampness. Kitchens and dampness were also influential in 2008, but the appearance of showers and bathrooms in this list is probably due to the fact that this was the only question where results had significantly improved since 2008. Indeed, having been one of the poorer rated features of the home in 2008 (69%), improvement works had resulted in a 13 point increase in this score. It was, however, rated slightly lower than average by 25-44 year olds (74% satisfied).

Similarly, younger tenants were also less positive on the other key drivers; kitchens (70% v 80% overall) and the freedom form dampness (63% v 76%). The other major component, windows, showed a similar pattern (69% satisfied v 76% overall).

At this point it is worth noting that just because the major components of the home received high ratings did not mean that tenants were not still focussed on home improvements as a topic. Indeed, better information about when improvement work would be carried out was the second highest priority for the future amongst sample respondents, with 30% placing it in the top three of their wish list. Furthermore, this was a higher priority than average for those living in Riverside (48% in the top three), which is presumably linked to their poorer satisfaction ratings for the home (see section 11).

”I have had a new kitchen, bathroom upgrade both were done to outstanding spec.

Workers were top notch in all aspects.”

“Although the newly built houses are lovely, it would be nice if the old houses were brought up to scratch and not forgotten about. As we pay our rent just the same.”

16

5. The home and neighbourhood Whilst information on home improvements was important for many respondents, it was eclipsed by the issue of affordable fuel, as the clear top priority for the sample was help with reducing energy bills (chart 11.1).

Rising fuel costs is a topical issue which will clearly have an impact on many tenants, although in terms of the satisfaction ratings this impact was only just becoming visible. Indeed, three quarters of the sample were still satisfied with the running costs of their heating and hot water (73%), which whilst lower than the equivalent score in 2008 (77%) had not changed enough to be considered statistically significant. However, it is very likely that this finding is an indication of a future trend, particularly with the coming winter.

Of the other questions in this section, the lowest rated aspect of the home was the most difficult to improve in the existing housing stock, with 27% claiming to be dissatisfied with soundproofing. There was no significant difference by property type, although the rating fell as low as 42% for respondents who had experienced ASB. The only other finding of note across these questions was a lower than average satisfaction with paving/garden amongst 55-59 year olds (50% v 70% overall).

In addition to the property, respondents were also asked a small number of questions about the neighbourhood they lived in. People’s perceptions of their neighbourhood overall are typically one of the more stable measures in tenant surveys, and so it transpired with a similar proportion of tenants satisfied as in the previous survey, and no significant variation by neighbourhood (80%, chart 4.2). Unsurprisingly, the rating for neighbourhood satisfaction was particularly low for respondents who had recently experienced anti -social behaviour or neighbour nuisance (59%).

When asked how likely it would be that they would be living in the same neighbourhood in five years’ time, 39% of the sample were definitive they would, whilst 31% said it was a possibility and 20% simply did not know. These figures had not changed significantly since 2008, which meant only 9% of the sample explicitly said no. The proportion who said no was greatest amongst 25-34 year olds (20%), presumably as this group are more likely to need to foresee the need to move compared to older residents.

As was also the case in 2008, the proximity to shops was a particularly strong factor in favour of people’s neighbourhoods (74%), although around half of the sample also said that they liked the fact that there was little trouble in their area, followed by around 40% who praised their neighbours and the quietness or perceived safety of the area (chart 5.5).

When these results were analysed by area, respondents in Riverside were less positive on most of these, including for example their neighbours (36%), safety (29% and attractiveness (9%). However, they were most positive than average about the proximity to shops 83%.

In contrast, Canton led the way on a number of positive features of the neighbourhood, in particular regarding safety (52%) and quietness (56%).

17

5. The home and neighbourhood 5.3 Have home contents insurance

2011 2008

Yes 28

Yes 28

No 69

NR 3

No 68

NR 5

% Base 487

5.4 Still living in neighbourhood in 5 years?

39

40 31

31 20

16

10

9

3

2 Definitely

Possibly

No

Don't know

N.R. % Base 487

5.5 Like about the neighbourhood?

74 73

− Near to shops − There is not much trouble − The neighbours − It is safe

32

− Close to family

− It is attractive − Sense of community − Good children's play areas − Close to work 18

52

39 33 36

− It is quiet

− Local schools

43 44 42 40

26 23 21 20 19 20

14 17 16

33

More than one answer allowed | % Base 487

6. Repairs and maintenance Overall satisfaction with Taff’s repairs and maintenance service had been on the rise since 2005, but by 2011 the improvements had accelerated to the extent that the 90% satisfaction score achieved by Taff was ten percentage points higher than one might normally expect, and twelve points higher than it had been in 2008.

This is a remarkable improvement, and must be considered as one of the reasons why satisfaction with the Association overall had also improved (section 4).

The high satisfaction rating meant there were few significant differences by sub group, although due to the higher expectation typically observed amongst younger tenants, those aged 25-34 were less satisfied than average (80%).

The detailed questions that were then asked of those respondents who had recently received a repair revealed that both the speed of completion (91% v 84%) and quality of work (91% v 83% had improved significantly since 2008, with non-significant increases observed in the remainder of the questions.

In particular, it is notable that the fact that 88% rated Taff

Please note that some 2008 results may

as good in both the time taken before work started, and

vary slightly from those previously

being told when workers would call, meant that these

published, which is due to minor changes in

ratings were clearly higher than the comparable

how these questions are calculated.

benchmarks.

6.1 Overall repairs satisfaction

80 −

% satisfied 2011

The way repairs and 4 24 maintenance is dealt with

42

% satisfied confidence 2008 (95%)

90

47

78

+/- 2.8

significantly higher than 2008 very dissatisfied

no significant difference significantly lower than 2008

fairly dissatisfied

See appendix A for further information on statistical tests and

neither

fairly satisfied

very satisfied

Benchmark Excludes non respondents | % Base 465

100

90 90 80

78 73

70 2005

2008

2011

19

6. Repairs and maintenance Interestingly, a key driver analysis comparing the last experience of the repair with the overall satisfaction rating highlighted being told when workers would call as the most influential factor. This was supported by the fact that improvements to the repairs appointment system were the third highest priority for the future amongst tenants, being in the top three for just under a third of the sample (29%, see section 11). This was a particular issue for families, although it appeared to be lower on the agenda for tenants with recent experience of the service (see chart 11.4).

Furthermore, when asked specifically whether evening and weekend repairs would be helpful, three quarters of the sample agreed (77%), including 38% who strongly agreed (chart 6.3). This was also more popular amongst families with children (82%), and also in those households which did not receive housing benefit and were therefore likely to include a high proportion of tenants in employment (85%).

A new question in this year’s survey asked how satisfied people were with their last completed repair, and this received positive ratings (89% satisfied), including half of those who answered stating that they were very satisfied (54%). On intriguing aspect of this was that a second key driver analysis could be conducted to see whether the results for this question differed from that for the repairs service overall, and indeed they did.

Whilst appointments seemed to have the strongest relationship with perceptions of the service overall, in more specific terms people’s perceptions of their last repair were influenced most by whether they felt the repair was done ‘right first time’.

Whether repairs were done correctly straight away was another new question, therefore there are no equivalent previous scores or benchmark comparisons. However, it is likely that the score would have been lower if asked in the previous survey, as significantly fewer respondents in 2011 felt that they had to follow up about their last completed repair (21% v 28% in 2008).

Nevertheless, 84% of the sample were positive about their last repair being completed ‘right first time’ and this was the lowest rated question in chart 6.5, which means that if Taff wish to further improve the service this is probably one area in which that goal could be achieved. Notably, residents in the Grangetown area rated this question somewhat lower than other tenants in the sample (78% satisfied).

Finally in this section, the results were also analysed with regards to the contractor that completed the repair (table 6.7). It should be noted that a number of these categories were very small, so one should take care interpreting the figures. However, although only 12 respondents commented about a Taff Electrical Team repair, it is still worth noting that every aspect of these repairs received a 100% score. Other observations from this analysis were that: ♦

Peter O’Neill was rated very positively for the time taken before work started (95% positive)

♦

Whilst a small sample, 100% of those who had a repair from GKR were happy about the quality

♦

Fewer than average respondents were positive about being told when workers would call if the work was being done by SMK, although the vast majority still gave a good rating (80%).

20

6. Repairs and maintenance 6.2 Satisfaction with last repair % satisfied confidence 2011 (95%)

− Last completed repair

23 6

35

89

54

very dissatisfied

fairly dissatisfied

neither

+/- 2.9

fairly satisfied

very satisfied

Excludes non respondents | % Base 454

6.3 Evening & weekend repairs % satisfied confidence 2011 (95%)

− Evening and weekend

appointments would be 2 7 helpful

14

39

strongly disagree

77

38

tend to disagree

neither

+/- 3.9

tend to agree

strongly agree

Excludes non respondents | % Base 446

6.3 Repair completed in last 12 months

2011 2008

No 17

No 24

Can't remember / NR 6

Yes 69

Can't remember / NR 9

Yes 75

% Base 487

6.4 Contractor on last repair 31

30

17 7

Taff Kitchen

4 Taff Electrical

SMK

Peter O'Neill

5

4

3

GKR

Heatforce

Other

Don't know / NR

Repair in last 12 mths. | % Base 338

21

6. Repairs and maintenance 6.5 Last completed repair

% good 2008

confidence (95%)

96

93

+/- 2.1

93

89

+/- 2.8

93 −

Attitude of workers

1 12

22

89 −

Keeping dirt and mess to a minimum

223

24

89 −

Speed of completion

33 4

26

65

91

84

+/- 3.1

87 −

Overall quality of work

22 5

27

64

91

83

+/- 3.2

81 −

Time taken before work started

15 5

32

57

88

81

+/- 3.6

84 −

Being told when workers would call

354

29

59

88

82

+/- 3.5

− The repair being done

‘right first time’

4 5 7

significantly higher than 2008

significantly lower than 2008 See appendix A for further information on statistical tests and confidence levels

74

69

22

62

very poor

no significant difference

fairly poor

neither

+/- 4.0

fairly good

very good

Repair in last 12 mths. Excludes non respondents | % Bases (descending) 325,328,325,327,314,331,328

2011 2008

Yes 28

Yes 21

Can't remembe r / NR 7

84

Benchmark

6.6 Had to follow up about last repair

22

% good 2011

No 72

Can't remember / NR 12

No 60

Repair in last 12 mths. | % Base 338

6. Repairs and maintenance 6.7 Last completed repair - by contractor % good

The repair being done

‘right first time’

Keeping dirt and mess

to a minimum

Overall quality of

repair work

Attitude of workers

Speed with which work

was completed

Time taken before

work started

Being told when

workers would call

Sample size

Overall

88

88

91

96

91

93

84

Taff Kitchen Team

22

95

90

100

95

86

96

86

Taff Electrical Team

12

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

SMK

56

80

85

93

93

91

88

86

Peter O'Neill

105

92

95

91

97

92

95

86

GKR

18

78

94

94

94

100

84

78

Heatforce

13

92

92

100

100

92

85

92

Other

9

89

89

78

100

89

100

78

Care should be taken interpreting these figures due the small sample sizes in some groups.

Significantly lower than average

Significantly higher than average

(95% confidence*)

(95% confidence*)

* See appendix A for further information on statistical tests and confidence levels

23

7. Customer service ne of the key drivers of satisfaction overall with Taff, and hence one of the reasons why that score may have gone up, was the level of satisfaction felt with the final outcome when respondents made contact with Taff.

This rating was previously perfectly acceptable in comparison to the benchmark scores, but had nevertheless improved by 10% since 2008. This meant that 85% said that they were satisfied, including 59% who gave the most positive score.

Indeed, when asked about the most recent contact tenants had with the Association, six out of the eight questions demonstrated significant improvements since the previous survey, with the greatest change of 13% seen in the two ratings which had been the poorest in 2008 – staff getting back when they said they would (now 81% agreed) and being dealt with in a reasonable amount of time (now 85%).

The only two questions which had not improved by significant margins were also those at the top of the list, and therefore had less room for improvement. Indeed, virtually everybody who commented said that the staff were polite (97%) and helpful (95%), including around two thirds in each case who strongly agreed. Furthermore, the helpfulness of the staff was the main key driver most closely associated with satisfactory

“Staff at Taff are always helpful in solving your problems/complaints, I am always satisfied with the outcome. The staff are also very friendly and have respect for you.”

“It would be a lot easier if the office opened at different times. For me, I'd find it useful if the office opened late only once a fortnight, or the odd weekend day.”

outcomes, although it is also interesting that the reliability with which staff get back to people if they said they would was also an important factor.

2011

7.1 Contacted in last 12 months No 10

Yes 84

Can't remember / NR 6

2008

No 13 Can't remember / NR 9 Yes 79

% Base 487

24

7. Customer service Secondary drivers which emerged from the regression analysis were whether the query was dealt with in a reasonable amount of time (85% positive), and how easy it was to get hold of the right person (79%). Both statements had increased by over 10% when compared to the 2008 results, with two thirds of queries being dealt with by the first member of staff contacted.

The majority of contacts will have been via telephone, but respondents were also asked a number of questions about the Association’s offices if they needed to visit in person. On all three questions, regarding the reception area, convenience of location and opening hours, the vast majority of the sample (at least 94%) gave positive answers. The only caveat was that the proportion of the sample who strongly agreed that the office was conveniently located had actually decreased significantly since 2008 (54% v 66%).

There was understandably some difference in the convenience of the office for those living in different areas, being rated highest in Fairwater (100%) and Canton (96%), and lowest in Grangetown (88%). There were, however, no other notable sub group differences in this section of the results.

The final question on the topic of contact was regarding the complaints procedure, which one in ten respondents claimed to have use (having been asked to exclude any repair or ASB issue other than specific complaints on Taff’s handling of them). There was no particular pattern in this by age, but by area those living in Canton were more likely to have complained compared to those in other areas (15% v 8%).

It was positive to see that in two thirds of cases those who had complained were satisfied with how it was handled by Taff, although this did mean that 22% were actively dissatisfied.

A difference between two groups is usually considered statistically significant if chance could explain it only 5% of the time or less.

25

7. Customer service 7.2 Customer service - last contact

− Staff were polite

86 −

Staff were helpful

− Dealt with promptly

12

27

1 23

28

2 6 4

% agree 2011

% agree 2008

confidence (95%)

97

96

+/- 1.7

67

95

88

+/- 2.1

58

90

81

+/- 3.0

88

80

+/- 3.1

88

79

+/- 3.2

70

32

81 −

Staff were able to deal with query

34 4

75 −

Easy to get hold of the right person

26 5

75 −

Dealt with in a reasonable amount of time

44 8

27

58

85

72

+/- 3.5

72 −

Satisfied with final outcome

45 7

26

59

85

75

+/- 3.5

51

81

68

+/- 4.0

− Got back to me when

they said they would

information on statistical tests

56

30

strongly disagree

no significant difference

See appendix A for further

62

32

5 7 8

significantly higher than 2008

significantly lower than 2008

26

tend to disagree

neither

tend to agree

Benchmark Contact in last 12 mths. Excludes non respondents | % Bases (descending) 402,401,399,397,399,393,398,382

and confidence levels

7.3 Satisfied with outcome 100

85

90 80

74

75

2005

2008

70

26

strongly agree

2011

7. Customer service 7.4 Number of people passed to 64

2008

65

20 0.2

2011

17

Voicemail

3

2

0.4 1

2

3

3

2 4+

8

9

Can't remember

4

3 NR

Contact in last 12 mths | % Base 407

7.5 Taff’s offices

− Welcoming reception

area

− Office conveniently

24

located

− Satisfied with opening

hours

significantly higher than 2008 no significant difference

<1 3

<1 2 4

34

40

34

strongly disagree

% agree 2011

% agree 2008

confidence (95%)

63

97

96

+/- 1.6

54

94 * 91

+/- 2.2

94

+/- 2.2

60

tend to disagree

neither

tend to agree

91

strongly agree

significantly lower than 2008 See appendix A for further information on statistical tests

* Significant reduction in % ‘strongly agree’. Excludes non respondents | % Bases (descending) 472,464,467

and confidence levels

27

7. Customer service 7.6 Made complaint in last 12 months

Yes 10 Can't remember / NR 7

No 83

% Base 487

7.7 Satisfaction with complaints % satisfied confidence 2011 (95%)

â&#x2C6;&#x2019; How complaint was

handled

10

12

10

very dissatisfied

33

fairly dissatisfied

35

neither

67

fairly satisfied

+/- 13.1

very satisfied

Those who made a complaint. Excludes non respondents | % Base 49

28

8. Communication & information A number of satisfaction scores had increased substantially since previous surveys, but it was still striking to observe the steep upward path of the chart tracking ratings for how well informed tenants felt they were kept. In 2005, 79% of tenants rated Taff as good on this measure, climbing to 86% in 2008 and now 94% in the current survey. This compared to a benchmark target of 83%, and was sufficiently positive for the rating to remain strong across the different demographic groups.

The high general rating for information was reflected in the observation that over 80% of respondents were positive about every aspect of communication and information in chart 8.3, with the exception of the website which many were equivocal about (see below).

The tenant’s handbook was clearly an important source of information, as this was main key driver for information overall (90% were satisfied). The other rating highlighted by the key driver analysis was the clarity of Taff’s letters, although the connection here was not as strong.

In fact, the clarity of Taff’s written communications appeared to have improved since 2008, with both letters and the rent statement being rated significantly better than before (96% and 93% respectively), including increases in the proportion who strongly agreed with the statements.

It should be noted that fewer respondents were positive when asked about the clarity of the service charge information, but the 84% who agreed with this statement far outweighed the 7% who disagreed.

The one area of information provision that was rated lower than others was the website, as 74% of those who responded said that it was informative. However, only 3% actually disagreed, whilst almost a quarter ticked the ‘neither’ option in the middle of the scale. Many respondents will not have actually visited the website, therefore it is probable that some or more of those who ticked the middle point on the scale did so through to simple lack of knowledge. Nevertheless, when the results are re-analysed to only include the 66% of the sample who regularly access the internet the rating remained unchanged.

Indeed, despite the reasonably high levels of internet access, only a quarter of the sample said that they would be happy to use e-mail to communicate with the Association (22%). Similarly, 15% would be happy to use text/sms and only 5% cited social networking such as Twitter or Facebook (chart 8.4).

Please note that some 2008 results may vary slightly from those previously published, which is due to minor changes in how these questions are calculated.

29

8. Communication and information 8.1 Information 83 −

Being kept informed about things that affect <1 2 4 you as a tenant

37

57

% good 2011

% good 2008

confidence (95%)

94

86

+/- 2.1

significantly higher than 2008 very poor

no significant difference significantly lower than 2008

fairly poor

neither

See appendix A for further

fairly good

very good

Benchmark Excludes non respondents | % Base 473

information on statistical tests and

94

100

86

90

79

80 70 2005

2008

2011

8.2 Communication 68 −

We listen to your views and act upon them

− Given opportunity to take

part in decision making significantly higher than 2008 no significant difference

% % satisfied satisfied confidence 2011 2008 (95%)

2 5 10

13

15

38

46

35

very dissatisfied

45

fairly dissatisfied

neither

84

75

+/- 3.4

81

69

+/- 3.7

fairly satisfied

very satisfied

significantly lower than 2008 See appendix A for further information on statistical tests and confidence levels

Benchmark

Excludes non respondents | % Bases (descending) 455,438

Furthermore, when asked elsewhere in the questionnaire to prioritise various improvements to the services Taff provides, text messaging, expanded online services and computer training were rated lower than any of the other included topics (section 11). However, this is not to say that for some people they were still important. For example: ♦

Using text messaging to remind or confirm appointments was amongst the top three priorities for 25% of 35-44 year olds, including 7% placing it first on the list (chart 11.7)

♦

Respondents living in Riverside more positive about computer training and help with accessing the internet than those living in Grangetown (chart 11.8).

30

8. Communication and information 8.3 Written information

− Letters are easy to

22

understand

36

61

− Satisfied with

communication in language of choice

<14

− Understand tenancy

understand

67

24

39

1 24

36

agreement

− Rent statement is easy to

28

55

57

% agree 2011

% agree 2008

confidence (95%)

96

94

+/- 1.8

95

95

+/- 2.0

94

92

+/- 2.1

93

89

+/- 2.3

− Handbook is useful

<1 8

42

49

90

88

+/- 2.7

− Newsletter is informative

<1 9

42

47

89

85

+/- 2.8

84

-

+/- 3.7

74

68

+/- 5.0

− Clear service charge

25 9

information

− Website is informative

significantly higher than 2008 no significant difference

<1 3

22

36

48

38

strongly disagree

37

tend to disagree

neither

tend to agree

strongly agree

significantly lower than 2008 See appendix A for further information on statistical tests

Contact in last 12 mths. Excludes non respondents | % Bases (descending) 471,444,467,473,446,456,382,293

and confidence levels

However, expanding online services remained a low priority for the majority of the sample, remaining at the bottom of the list even for tenants who had internet access, or who would be willing to communicate with the Association electronically.

In addition to the simple provision of information, questions were also asked of tenants to determine their satisfaction levels with Taff’s tenant participation activities. On this topic the results were again very strong, with significant improvements since 2008 in both opportunities for participation (81% v 69% satisfied), and the general feeling that tenants views were listened to and acted upon (84% v 75%). In both cases, the only groups of tenants who were significantly less satisfied than average were those aged under 45 (76% and 80% respectively) and/or respondents who had experienced ASB (both 69% and 72%).

31

10. Communication and information 8.4 Happy to use − Telephone

64

− In writing

63

− Visit to the office

43

− Newsletter

29

− Visit to your home by staff

25

− Email

22

− Text/SMS

15

− Open meetings

9

− Social networking e.g. Twitter, Facebook

5 More than one answer allowed | % Base 487

8.5Methods of internet access − From a home computer

48

− Don't access the internet / NR

34

− From your mobile phone

14

− Library

14

− From friends/family's computer

12

− At work

8

− Other − Community facility

4 2 More than one answer allowed | % Base 487

32

10. Communication and information 8.6 Have home computer Without internet 6

With internet 54

No 40

NR 1 % Base 487

8.7 Why computer is without internet 78

7 Not interested

Can't afford it

7

7

7

Don't know how to

Computer/ phone line technical problems

Other

Have computer without internet access. More than one answer allowed | % Base 27

33

9. Anti-social behaviour A third of the survey sample had experienced problems with anti-social behaviour or neighbour nuisance in the previous 12 months period (33%), which was slightly fewer than during the equivalent period prior to the last survey (36%). There was no significant difference in this between the four areas, although it was higher than average for 25-34 year olds (42%).

It was good to see that around half of these problems had been reported to Taff, which was higher than both the 2008 total and the typical figure normally seen for this question (43% and 45% respectively).

Those who had made a report to Taff were asked about their experience when doing so, as seen in chart 9.3.

At this point it should be noted by the reader that due to the complexities of dealing with ASB, questions that ask how reports are handled typically receive lower ratings than many others in tenant surveys.

Nevertheless, what is immediately striking is how many respondents were satisfied with the speed that their report was dealt with (71%) and how well they were kept informed (68%), which is around 20% more than both the benchmark averages and the 2008 scores. Because of the smaller sample sizes for these questions, the threshold before which any differences are considered statistically significant are greater, therefore only the speed can be said to have definitely improved. However, the rating for being kept informed was close to the threshold, so when taken together it is fair to presume that there had been a real improvement in how reports of ASB were handled.

The lowest rated item in chart 9.3 was the one that Taff have the least control over, namely the final outcome of the complaint. In this instance around half of respondents were satisfied, compared to over a third who were dissatisfied (35%), although this is still a little better than the experiences of other social housing tenants in the comparator database.

In many cases this is likely to be a consequence of the limits on the powers that Taff can exercise.

The size of the sample, and the spread of the results (variance) effects whether or not observed differences are statistically significant. Sometimes the test covers the full range of a scale, and others simply compare positive versus negative. This is decided on a question by question basis.

9.1 Experienced ASB in last 12 months 2011 Yes 33

No 65 NR 3

34

2008

Yes 36

NR 5

No 59

% Base 487

9. Anti-social behaviour 9.2 ASB reported to: 52 43 33

32

29

26 16 8

Did not report it

Taff

45

3

Local Council

Police

6

2

Someone else

1 NR

Benchmark Experienced ASB in last 12 mths. More than one answer allowed| % Base 159

9.3 Last ASB report

% % satisfied satisfied confidence 2011 2008 (95%)

− 50

Speed dealt with

48 −

Being kept informed

6 10

61 −

Advice provided by staff

9

5

− Response overall

41 −

10

Final outcome

15

significantly higher than 2008

14

15

14

20

9

15

9

17

17

very dissatisfied

no significant difference significantly lower than 2008

30

42

71

52

+/- 10.1

32

36

68

51

+/- 10.4

33

33

67

69

+/- 10.5

59

51

+/- 10.9

48

-

+/- 11.0

26

18

33

30

fairly dissatisfied

neither

fairly satisfied

very satisfied

Benchmark

See appendix A for further information on statistical tests and confidence levels

Experienced ASB in last 12 mths. Excludes non respondents | % Bases (descending) 77,78,78,78,79

“It doesn't make a difference. 7 years of reporting neighbourhood nuisance, doesn't get resolved, the system doesn't work.”

“I do not like to complain about neighbours, as neighbours can find out who complained. Increases tension and makes life worse.”

35

10. Financial and other services Taff provides, or facilitates access to, a number of support services to help people maintain their tenancy.

When asked, three quarters of the sample had heard of at least one of these services (77%), with the most well-known being the Taff Tenant Support Service (61%) and housing benefit surgeries (52%).

Fewer tenants were aware of the Taff Welfare Benefits Advice Service (35%), or other financial services such as the Credit Union and Moneyline Cymru. These lower levels of awareness are in contrast to the finding that the fourth placed priority for the future, out of a list of 10, was easier access to help with money and benefits (see section 11). This was in the top three priorities for a quarter of the sample (26%), and was particularly appealing for residents in Grangetown (chart 11.5).

Indeed, these services are particularly relevant in the current uncertain economic climate, which is reinforced by the fact that value for money was a key driver of overall satisfaction (section 4) and help with reducing energy bills was the highest priority for the future (section 11).

Nevertheless, it was good to see that there had been a decrease since 2008 in the proportion of respondents who used doorstep money lenders from 12% to 4% of the sample, although it should be noted that the question in 2011 limited the time period to the preceding 2 years.

Just under half of the sample said that they had current credit or borrowings (45%), with the most common being bank overdrafts (17%) and credit card debt (14%). In contrast, 3% had a Moneyline Cymru loan and 1% used a Credit Union. Only 1% said that they currently had a loan with an unlicensed money lender.

10.1 Used doorstep money lender in last 2 years?

2011 2008

Yes 4 Prefer not to say NR 3

Yes 12

No 91

Prefer not to say NR 8

No 80

% Base 487

36

10. Additional services 10.2 Current credit or borrowings − No response

55

− Overdraft with bank

17

− Credit card not paid off

14

− Family/friends

12

− Catalogues

12

− Loan from bank/building society

6

− Licensed finance company such as

5

Provident

− Store card not paid off

4

− Moneyline Cymru loan

3

− Other private individuals

3

− Student loan

2

− Pawnbrokers

2

− Credit union loan

1

− Interest free loan from store

1

− Loan from unlicensed money lender

1

More than one answer allowed | % Base 487

10.3 Aware of following services? − Taff Tenant Support Service

61

− Housing benefit surgery

52

− Taff Welfare Benefits Advice Service

35

− Credit Union

30

− None of these − Moneyline Cymru

23 20 More than one answer allowed | % Base 487

37

11. Future priorities Survey respondents were asked which of a series of 10 improvements, all intended to make a difference to tenants and their communities were most important to them. To enable them to give a comprehensive answer to this question, they were asked to prioritise these possible improvements in comparison with one another. As this is typically a difficult task for survey respondents to complete, the list was broken down into a series of pairs with

Prior to the survey a separate consultation exercise was carried out with tenants to help inform the questionnaire, in particular the section on future priorities.

respondents only being required to compare two items together at a time (see appendix B for a sample questionnaire).

This technique uses the Priority Search methodology to ensure that the list in chart 11.1 opposite is a genuine reflection of tenantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; priorities, relative to one another, across all 10 items (for additional information on the Priority Search see appendix A).

Crucially, unlike other methods of prioritisation the results are

This involved focus groups and doorstep interviews in April 2011 asking â&#x20AC;&#x153;Taff are working hard to provide you with the best possible service, please tell us what more you would like us to do?â&#x20AC;?

reliable for all of the ranked items, rather than simply those at the very top and very bottom of the list.

The results are presented as a list ranked using a weighting figure, a technique which is often used for prioritisation questions in order to cope with their inherent variability. What this means is that a single respondent will give slightly different responses if they are asked to repeat a prioritisation task, but this variation is not typically enough to move a high ranking item out of the top third of the list, nor to promote a poorly ranked one out of the bottom third etc. Accordingly, the weighting figure takes the percentage who placed an item in the top third of their list, minus the percentage who placed it in the bottom third. The resulting weighted score is a much more stable measure, that would show little variation if the same sample group were asked the question again.

When comparing weighted scores, the reader should be aware that for every item on the list, the difference between it and any other items in the priority order should equal or exceed the 95% confidence interval for this difference to be considered statistically significant (in the case of any analyses based upon the full sample, this would be a difference in the weighted figure of 7.2).

In addition to the weighted score, the raw results used to calculate it are displayed in chart 11.2, colour coded to indicate the tertiles.

38

11. Future priorities 11.1 Future priorities

Less of a priority

More of a priority

1st

− Help with reducing energy bills − Better information on when improvement such as kitchens and bathrooms will be done − Improved system for making repair appointments

3rd

− Make it easier to get help with money/benefits

4th

− Do more to support our local community

5th 5.2

-0.6

-11.2

-23.5

-28.9

-50.7

2nd

7th 8th 9th 10th

49.9 24.1

21.5

20.1

− Provide more activities for children and young people to do − Help with training and jobs − Use text messaging to reminded/confirm appointments − Help tenants get online with computer training and accessing the internet − Provide more services online, for example rent statements

Least significant difference at the 95% confidence level = 7.2 | Base 348

39

11. Future priorities Turning back to the list of priorities itself, it is obvious that above all of the other ideas presented, Taff tenants would welcome any help they could get in reducing energy bills. A substantial proportion (40%) placed this item in their top three, with 16% claiming that it was their number one priority. It was also notable that these findings were consistent across the different sub groups in the sample.

Behind the top priority item, the next three improvements in the list were clustered closely together to the extent that whilst they are possibly in that order, this cannot be stated with statistical certainty. This is because the threshold between which the weighted score of two items must vary by 7.2 before we can say with confidence that one is definitely above the other.

All three were consistent with other important survey results, with two of the three related to the key drivers of satisfaction. One of these was the condition of homes, and respondents in the Riverside area were less satisfied overall than other groups (section 5). The same group were particularly interested in receiving better information on improvement work, as were respondents with a disability (chart 11.3).

Another key driver was value for money, and the inclusion of easier access to help with money and benefits in fourth position, as well as the aforementioned energy bills, cemented this topic as a running theme across the survey results.

Repairs and maintenance was not a statistical key driver, but is obviously a major part of the service tenants receive. The fact that 29% of the sample placed an improved appointments system in their top three priorities is therefore relevant, with other results elsewhere in the survey suggesting that being told when workers would call was linked to overall satisfaction with the service (see section 6).

Because this was a prioritised list, it is important to remember that even those items not at the top were not necessarily considered bad ideas by respondents, merely that the others in the list were more important to the majority of tenants. The best way to understand these items is therefore in terms of the specific groups to which they appeal most, which in summary included: â&#x2122;Ś

Older tenants aged 60-64, for whom supporting the local community was the second highest priority (chart 11.6)

â&#x2122;Ś

A quarter of 35-44 year olds who placed text message confirmation of repairs appointments in their top three priorities (also see chart 11.7)

40

11. Future priorities 11.2 Future priorities - detailed response % priority rankings

Provide more services online, for example rent statements

Improved system for making repair appointments

Use text messaging to remind/confirm appointments

Provide more activities for children and young people to do

Help tenants get online with computer training and accessing the internet

Make it easier to get help with money/ benefits

Help with reducing energy bills

Better information on when improvements such as kitchens and bathrooms will be done

Do more to support our local community

Help with training and jobs

Priority 1

0.6

8.2

2.3

8.2

2.5

8.4

16.2

9.4

4.3

5.3

Priority 1.5

0.2

1.4

0

1.0

0.6

0.2

2.5

1.6

1.4

0.4

Priority 2

0.6

10.1

3.5

5.3

1.2

9.2

12.9

9.9

4.3

4.9

0

1.0

0.2

1.0

0.8

0.8

1.8

1.4

1.2

1.4

Priority 3

1.0

7.8

4.9

6.4

3.9

7.6

7.0

8.0

7.6

4.7

Priority 3.5

0.6

1.2

1.0

1.6

1.8

2.5

1.0

1.6

0.6

1.0

Priority 4

3.3

4.3

5.5

5.1

3.9

7.6

7.8

8.4

7.0

4.1

Priority 4.5

1.0

1.4

1.6

0.8

0.8

1.0

1.6

0.6

2.5

2.5

Priority 5

5.3

7.4

5.7

5.3

5.7

6.6

6.6

3.5

8.2

4.7

Priority 5.5

1.2

0.8

1.0

0.4

0.6

1.4

1.2

1.4

1.4

1.0

Priority 6

7.4

5.7

5.5

5.1

8.4

6.4

3.5

4.7

9.0

6.0

Priority 6.5

2.1

1.6

2.3

1.2

1.4

2.1

0.8

1.0

1.8

2.1

Priority 7

7.6

5.1

7.8

4.9

8.6

4.1

2.7

4.7

5.5

5.3

Priority 7.5

1.4

1.8

2.1

2.3

1.0

1.4

0.8

1.6

1.0

2.9

Priority 8

8.6

3.9

8.4

7.4

7.4

3.5

1.4

5.7

6.0

4.7

Priority 8.5

2.7

1.4

2.3

2.1

2.1

0.6

0.2

0.8

0.8

1.8

Priority 9

10.3

3.9

8.2

6.0

10.7

1.6

1.4

5.1

3.3

8.0

Priority 9.5

2.1

0.6

1.0

0.6

1.4

1.0

0.2

0.4

0.8

1.2

Priority 10

15.4

3.5

8.0

6.6

8.4

5.3

1.6

1.2

4.5

9.2

Priority 2.5

Bottom third

Middle third

Top third

Note: Priority 1 is the highest, 10 is the lowest. Decimals indicate tied rankings | Base 348

41

11. Future priorities The following charts show how different demographic groups relate to the items in the Priority Search about possible future improvements. The information displayed is calculated as for the overall chart, and shows how different groups relate to each item. The average value for the population overall is shown in green. Groups which attach a higher importance to this item to a statistically significant extent are shown above it, while those who rate the item as significantly less important are shown below Note that charts display differences which are statistically significant. If a group does not appear in a chart (those in a certain age group, for example) it is because the importance they attached to the item did not differ significantly from average.

Figures in grey represent the total number of respondents who gave each particular answer.

11.3 Better information on improvement work − Riverside

123

− Disability

163

− Average

348

− Canton

109

35.0 30.1 24.1 13.7

11.4 Improved repairs appointments − Children in household

120

− Average

348

− No children

226

− Repairs in last 12 mths

80

-12.0

42

33.3

21.4 14.6 7.5 25

− Aged 60-64

11. Future priorities 11.5 Help with money/benefits − Grangetown

101

− Average

348

− Riverside

123

34.6 20.1 8.1

11.6 Do more to support community − Aged 60-64

25

− Average

348

36.0 5.1

11.7 Use text messaging for appointment reminders

0.0 -23.5 -68.0

87

− Aged 35-44

348

− Average

25

− Aged 60-64

123

− Riverside

348

− Average

101

− Grangetown

11.8 Help tenants get online

-22.0 -28.9 -38.7

43

Appendix A. Methodology & data analysis Questionnaire The questionnaire was based on the most recent version of the National Housing Federationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s STATUS survey (Version 4NA) and the draft recommendations for the new Housemark STAR surveys, with additional questions specific to Taff. It was fundamentally the same as that used in 2008.

Fieldwork The survey was conducted in July and August 2011. Paper self completion questionnaires were distributed to all tenants, and it was also available for completion online. Two reminder questionnaires, a free prize draw, and active staff participation across the organisation were all used to encourage the response rate.

The total survey sample of 487 represents a response rate of 50%, which is considerably higher than the 37% achieved in 2008.

Data analysis Unless otherwise stated, all statistically significant differences are reported at the 95% confidence level. Tests used were the WilcoxonMann-Whitney test, Fischer Exact Probability test and the Pearson Chi Square test as appropriate for the data being examined.

These calculations rely on a number of factors such as the base figure

The survey has a theoretical sampling error of +/- 3.2% at the 95% level.

Sampling error is the amount by which a result might vary due to chance.

and the level of variance, both within and between sample groups, thereby taking into account more than just the simple percentage difference. This means that some results are reported as significant despite being superficially similar to others that are not.

Readers should also take care when considering percentage results from some of the sub groups within the main sample, as the base figures may sometimes be small. Due to rounding some graphs may not add up to 100%.

A difference between two groups is usually considered statistically significant if chance could explain it only 5% of the time or less.

The comparator group against which the results are benchmarked is drawn from ARP Research and Priority Research clients who have carried out surveys in the last 2-3 years using the STATUS questionnaire. Approximately 10 of the most similar associations are included in the group (taking into account stock size and age distribution)

44

Appendix A. Methodology and data analysis

The Priority Search question Question 40 on the survey (see section 11) asked tenants which were most important to them from a list of ten improvements Taff could make to their services. This list had been generated in part through earlier consultation with tenants.

This question used the unique Priority Search methodology, which is more reliable than other methods of prioritisation. In this question, respondents were asked to read each of the paired statements and to indicate their relative preference for the two items. Each item appeared three times, each time paired with a different item. The Priority Search then ranked all the items for each individual, and the preferences of the whole population, or subgroups of it, was thereby established.

The Priority Search algorithm in detail The use of paired comparison as an aid to prioritisation is relatively well known. However, dichotomous choice is usually used, which requires the comparison of all possible pairs.

The Priority Search process allows respondents to compare each pair not dichotomously but using a Likert scale. This tool is commonly used to measure subjective phenomena, for example pain or mood. The addition of this scale gives more information per pair, and as a result the number of pairings needed is reduced considerably: A uniquely ranked list of n items comprises log2(n!) bits of information. A set of 3 pairings per item on a scale of P points comprises log2(P1.5n)bits, and for even small values of P the value of P1.5n exceeds n! over a usable range of items.

In order to extract a rank order from the resulting partial set of all possible pairings it is necessary to be able to relate each item to all the others. Consider a set of ten items paired as follows: A

—

F

B

—

G

In this case, we know how A relates to F, B to G, etc, but we have no

C

—

H

information about how A relates to any item other than F, or B to any

D

—

I

item other than G, etc.

E

—

J

A

—

F

B

—

F

B

—

G

C

—

G

If the order of the pairings is altered

C

—

H

D

—

H

and replicated, the following

D

—

I

E

—

I

arrangement can be reached:

E

—

J

A

—

J

By creating a second set of pairings with the left hand column frame shifted, a chain results: On the left, A is compared with F, which on the right is compared with B; B is compared with G, which is compared with C, and so on. In this way the position of any item relative to any other can be determined.

Such a design is known as a reduced subset cyclic design. Two sets of pairings arranged as above will allow a perfect rank order to be calculated if the input to the system comprises mathematically precise data. The Priority Search process adds a third, different set of pairings; this allows more information to be extracted and is sufficient to cope with the imprecision which is inherent in subjective ratings.

45

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

46

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

47

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

If you need any part of this information in Braille, on audio tape or explained in your own language, please contact us on the number below.

Os oes angen unrhyw gwybodaeth yn Braille, neu tâp sain neu wedi’i egluro mewn iaith eich hŪn, cysylltwch gyda ni ar y rhif ffôn isod.

English

Welsh

Arabic

Bengali

Gujurati

Somali

029 2025 9122

* No alternative prize will be offered. The draw will be conducted independently by ARP Research on the survey close date and the prizes distributed thereafter.

48

page 2

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

About you and your household Building up a picture of each household allows us to assess which groups of tenants are satisfied with their home and the services we provide. tick one only 5

Q1) Are you?

Female Male

tick one only 5

Q2) Which age group do you belong to?

16 - 24

60 - 64

25 - 34

65 - 74

35 - 44

75 - 84

45 - 54

85 years and over

55 - 59 Q3) Which of these groups do you consider you belong to?

White Welsh/English/Scottish /Northern Irish/British Irish Gypsy or Traveller Any other White background (tick and write in)

Asian or Asian British Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Chinese Any other Asian background (tick and write in)

Mixed White & Black Caribbean White & Black African White & Asian Any other Mixed background (tick and write in)

Black or Black British Caribbean African Somali African (not Somali) Any other Black background (tick and write in) Other ethnic group Arab Any other ethnic group (tick and write in)

page 3

49

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

tick one only 5

Q4) Do you have any children aged under 16 in your household?

Yes No

tick one only 5

Q5) What is the main language spoken in your home?

English

Mandarin

Welsh

Polish

Arabic

Punjabi

Bengali

Somali

Cantonese

Urdu

Gujarati

Other (write in)

Hindi Q6) Does anyone in your household have any long-term illness, health problems or disability which limits their daily activities or the work they can do, including any problems which are due to old age?

Yes

go to Q7

No

go to Q8

Don’t know

go to Q8

Q7) Thinking about your home:

Yes

No

tick one only 5

tick all that apply 5 55

a. Has it been specially adapted for this person? b. Does anyone in the household use a wheelchair?

Your home and neighbourhood Understanding how you feel about your home and the services you receive is important to us Q8) Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service we provide?

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither

Fairly dissatisfied

tick one only 5

Very dissatisfied

page 4

50

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

Q9) Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following?

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

tick one per row 5

Fairly Very Neither dissatisfied dissatisfied

No opinion

a. The overall quality of your home b. The general condition of this property c. This neighbourhood as a place to live d. Your rent as value for money e. Your service charge as value for money (if you pay one)

Q10) Thinking about your home, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following?

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

tick one per row 5

Fairly Very Neither dissatisfied dissatisfied

No opinion

a. Kitchen b. Shower or Bathroom c. Windows d. Running costs of heating / hot water e. Locks and Security f. Fire protection g. Soundproofing h. Storage space i. Freedom from dampness j. Paving / Garden (if applicable) k. Fencing (if applicable) l. Communal areas (if applicable)

page 5

51

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

Q11) How many vehicles does your household regularly park at or near your property?

None

Two

One

Three or more

tick one only 5

tick one only 5

Q12) Do you have insurance for the contents of your home?

Yes No Q13) Do you think you will still be living in this neighbourhood in 5 years time?

Definitely

No

Possibly

Don’t know

tick one only 5

tick all that apply 5 55

Q14) What do you like about your neighbourhood?

The neighbours

Good children’s play areas

It is safe

Near to shops

It is quiet

Local schools

It is attractive

Close to work

There is not much trouble

Close to family Sense of community

Contact with us Knowing about your experience when contacting us helps us to improve the service we provide Q15) Please tell us if you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly agree

Tend to agree

Neither

Tend to disagree

tick one per row 5 Strongly disagree

No opinion

a. Taff’s office is conveniently located b. The reception at Taff’s office is welcoming c. I am satisfied with the current opening hours of 9 – 5 Monday to Thursday, 9 - 4 Friday Q16) Have you contacted us within the last 12 months?

Yes

go to Q17

No

go to Q19

Can’t remember

go to Q19

tick one only 5

page 6

52

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

Q17) How many people were you passed to before your query was dealt with? tick one only 5

Voicemail

3 people

1 person

More than 3 people

2 people

Can’t remember

Q18) Thinking about the last time you contacted us, please tell us if you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly agree

Tend to agree

Neither

Tend to disagree

tick one per row 5 Strongly disagree

No opinion

a. I was dealt with promptly b. It was easy to get hold of the right person c. The staff who dealt with me were polite d. The staff who dealt with me were helpful e. The staff were able to deal with my query f. My query was dealt with in a reasonable amount of time g. If someone needed to get back to me, they made contact when they said they would h. Overall, I was satisfied with the final outcome of my query

Q19) Have you made a complaint to us in the last 12 months about the service you have received?

tick one only 5

Please do not include repairs and anti-social behaviour, unless you have complained to us about how we handled it.

Yes

go to Q20

No

go to Q21

Can’t remember

go to Q21

Q20) Generally, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way we handled your complaint?

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither

Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

tick one only 5 No opinion

page 7

53

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

Repairs and maintenance Information about repairs and maintenance helps us improve the service we provide Q21) Generally, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way we deal with repairs and maintenance?

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither

Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Q22) Have you had any repairs completed in the last 12 months?

Yes

go to Q23

No

go to Q26

Can’t remember

go to Q26

tick one only 5 No opinion

tick one only 5

tick one only 5

Q23) Which contractor completed your last repair?

Taff Kitchen Team

GKR

Taff Electrical Team

Heatforce

SMK

Other (write in)

Peter O’Neill

Don’t know / can’t remember

Q24) Thinking about your last completed repair, how would you rate it in terms of: Very good

Fairly good

Neither

Fairly poor

tick one per row 5 Very poor

No opinion

a. Being told when contractors would call (e.g. appointment time) b. Time taken before work started c. Speed with which work was completed d. Attitude of workers e. Overall quality of repair work f. Keeping dirt and mess to a minimum g. The repair being done ‘right first time’

Q25) Did you have to contact us again about your last repair after you reported it?

tick one only 5

Yes No Can’t remember page 8

54

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

Q26) Generally, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way we dealt with your last completed repair?

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither

Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Tend to agree

Neither

Tend to disagree

No opinion

tick one only 5

Q27) Do you agree or disagree that it would be helpful if we offered appointments for repairs at evenings and weekends?

Strongly agree

tick one only 5

Strongly disagree

No opinion

Communication and information It is important to us that we communicate clearly with you in ways that suit you best.

Q28) How good or poor do you feel we are at keeping you informed about things that might affect you as a tenant?

Very good

Fairly good

Neither

Fairly poor

Very poor

Q29) How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that we listen to your views and act upon them?

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither

Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Q30) How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that we give you the opportunity to take part in decision making?

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither

Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

tick one only 5 No opinion

tick one only 5 No opinion

tick one only 5 No opinion

page 9

55

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

Q31) Please tell us whether you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly agree

Tend to agree

Neither

tick one per row 5 Tend to disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

a. The tenants’ newsletter is informative b. The tenants’ handbook is useful c. The website is informative d. I understand my tenancy agreement e. Letters from us are easy to understand f. The rent statement is easy to understand g. Information about the service charge is clear h. I am satisfied with Taff’s ability to communicate with me in my language of choice tick one only 5

Q32) Do you have a home computer?

No

go to Q34

Yes (with internet access)

go to Q34

Yes (without internet access)

go to Q33

Q33) Why is your home computer not connected to the internet?

Not interested

Computer/phone line technical problems

Can’t afford it

Other (write in)

Don’t know how Q34) Do you regularly use the internet in any of the following ways?

Don’t access the internet

At work

From a home computer

Library

From friends/family’s computer

Community facility

From your mobile phone

Other (write in)

tick all that apply 5 55

page 10

56

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

Q35) Which of the following methods of being kept informed and getting in touch with us are you happy to use?

tick all that apply 5 55

Email

Visit to the office

Social networking (e.g. Twitter, Facebook)

Visit to your home by staff

Telephone

Open meetings

Text/SMS

Newsletter

In writing

Anti-social behaviour Gathering information about anti-social behaviour complaints will help us to deal appropriately with them Q36) Have you had any problems with anti-social behaviour or neighbour nuisance at or near your home in the last 12 months?

Yes

go to Q37

No

go to Q39

tick one only 5

tick all that apply 5 55

Q37) Who did you report this to?

Did not report it

go to Q39

Local Council

go to Q39

Taff

go to Q38

Police

go to Q39

Someone else (write in) go to Q39

Q38) How satisfied or dissatisfied were you with how we handled your last complaint of anti-social behaviour: Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither

tick one per row 5 Fairly Very dissatisfied dissatisfied

a. Advice provided by staff b. Being kept informed c. Speed with which your complaint was dealt with d. Our response overall e. The final outcome of your complaint

page 11

57

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

Other services It is important to use that our tenants can get the help and support they might need Q39) Did you know about the following services?

tick all that apply 5 55

Taff Tenant Support Service

Moneyline Cymru

Housing Benefit surgery

Credit Union

Taff Welfare Benefits Advice Service

What more would you like us to do?

Taff are working hard to provide you with the best possible service, and we have recently spoken to many residents to ask what more you would like us to do. Some of your answers are included in the question overleaf.

Each idea appears more than once in the question. This allows us to get a really good idea of how important things are to you. The examples below show you how the question on the next page should be answered.

This side is much more important

I feel the same about both sides

This side is much more important

In this example:

Right!

• I like or dislike apples and oranges equally • I prefer bananas to plums • I love apples, and really dislike pears

Apples

Oranges

Bananas

Plums

Pears

Apples

Wrong!

Apples Bananas Pears

What I got wrong:

• I put more than one cross in a row • I missed out a row Oranges Plums Apples

page 12

58

Appendix B. Example questionnaire Q40) For each row, which is most important to you?

This side is much more important

I feel the same about both sides

This side is much more important

Remember to fill in every row with a single cross!

Help with training and jobs Provide more activities for children and young people to do Help with reducing energy bills Improved system for making repair appointments Better information on when improvements such as kitchens and bathrooms will be done Use text messaging to remind/ confirm appointments Make it easier to get help with money/benefits Improved system for making repair appointments Do more to support our local community Use text messaging to remind/ confirm appointments Make it easier to get help with money/benefits Help tenants get online with computer training and accessing the internet Better information on when improvements such as kitchens and bathrooms will be done Provide more services online, for example rent statements Do more to support our local community

Help tenants get online with computer training and accessing the internet Do more to support our local community Use text messaging to remind/ confirm appointments Make it easier to get help with money/benefits Provide more services online, for example rent statements Help with training and jobs Provide more activities for children and young people to do Help with reducing energy bills Help tenants get online with computer training and accessing the internet Better information on when improvements such as kitchens and bathrooms will be done Provide more services online, for example rent statements Help with reducing energy bills Provide more activities for children and young people to do Help with training and jobs Improved system for making repair appointments page 13

59

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

Background information This information is optional, but by answering these questions you will help us make sure that we are not discriminating against you or anyone else. tick one only 5

Q41) How would you describe your sexual orientation Heterosexual

Bisexual

Gay man

Other

Lesbian

Prefer not to say tick one only 5

Q42) What is your religion?

No religion

Muslim

Christian (all denominations)

Sikh

Buddhist

Any other religion (write in)

Hindu Jewish

Prefer not to say

Q43) In the last 2 years, have you borrowed money from a doorstep money lender?

tick one only 5

Yes No Prefer not to say Q44) Does your household currently receive housing benefit (either paid to you, or directly to Taff)?

tick one only 5

Yes No Don’t know Q45) Do you have any of the following types of credit or borrowings at the moment?

Overdraft with bank Interest free loan from store Credit card not paid off Store card not paid off Loan from bank/building society Student loan Credit union loan

tick all that apply 5 55

Moneyline Cymru loan Licensed finance company such as Provident Loan from unlicensed money lender Catalogues Pawnbrokers Family/friends Other private individuals

page 14

60

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

Any other comments We are interested in anything else you have to say about the services we provide. If you want Taff to know you have made these comments, for example if you want a response, you can give your consent by also ticking the box below. All of your other answers remain anonymous.

Q46) Is there anything else you would like to say about the services we provide?

If you would like Taff to know who you are for this question only then tick this box:

Thank you for taking part!

Please now return in the supplied freepost

envelope for your chance to win up to ÂŁ250!

Freepost RSLZ-LAKR-SGTS A R P Research 1 Dickenson Court Chapeltown SHEFFIELD S35 2ZS

page 15

61

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

62

Appendix C. Data summary

Please note that throughout the report the quoted results typically refer to the ‘valid’ column of the data summary if it appears.

The ‘valid’ column contains data that has been rebased, normally because nonrespondents were excluded and/or question routing applied.

63

64

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

1: 2:

Q1 Are you?

Female Male N/R

3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11:

Q2 Which age group do you belong to?

16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75-84 85+ N/R

12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19: 20: 21: 22: 23: 24: 25: 26: 27: 28: 29: 30:

Q3 Which of these groups do you consider you belong to?

Welsh/English/Scottish/Northern Irish/British Irish Gypsy or Traveller Any other White background White & Black Caribbean White & Black African White & Asian Any other Mixed background Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Chinese Any other Asian background Caribbean African Somali African (not Somali) Any other Black background Arab Any other ethnic group N/R

Q4 Do you have any children aged under 16 in your household?

31: Yes 32: No N/R

33: 34: 35: 36: 37: 38: 39: 40:

Q5 What is the main language spoken in your home?

English Welsh Arabic Bengali Cantonese Gujarati Hindi Mandarin

Frequency

% overall

Base: 487 277 193

56.9 39.6

17

3.5

Base: 487 18 59 109 127 42 40 54 27 4

3.7 12.1 22.4 26.1 8.6 8.2 11.1 5.5 0.8

7

1.4

Base: 487 342 1 0 7 13 6 6 5 3 8 10 2 5 4 27 13 5 17 2

70.2 0.2 0.0 1.4 2.7 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.6 1.6 2.1 0.4 1.0 0.8 5.5 2.7 1.0 3.5 0.4

11

2.3

Base: 487 148 325

30.4 66.7

14

2.9

Base: 487 393 7 10 7 2 1 0 0

80.7 1.4 2.1 1.4 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0

% valid

65

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

41: 42: 43: 44: 45:

Frequency

% overall

Polish Punjabi Somali Urdu Other

2 0 23 6 13

0.4 0.0 4.7 1.2 2.7

N/R

23

4.7

Base: 487 241 231 2

49.5 47.4 0.4

13

2.7

Base: 241 70 152

14.4 31.2

29.0 63.1

265

54.4

7.9

Base: 241 25 167

5.1 34.3

10.4 69.3

295

60.6

20.3

Base: 487 244 186 20 17 6

50.1 38.2 4.1 3.5 1.2

51.6 39.3 4.2 3.6 1.3

14

2.9

Base: 487 218 197 23 24 11 2

44.8 40.5 4.7 4.9 2.3 0.4

12

2.5

Q6 Does anyone in your household have any long-term illness, health problems or disability?

46: Yes 47: No 48: Don't know N/R Q7a Has your home been specially adapted for this person?

49: Yes 50: No N/R Q7b Does anyone in your household use a wheelchair?

51: Yes 52: No N/R

53: 54: 55: 56: 57:

Q8 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service we provide?

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied N/R

58: 59: 60: 61: 62: 63:

Q9a The overall quality of your home Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

64: 65: 66: 67: 68: 69:

Q9b The general condition of this property Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

66

Base: 487 206 208 18 27 2

42.3 42.7 3.7 5.5 10.0 0.4

16

3.3

% valid

46.1 41.6 4.9 5.1 2.3

43.9 44.3 3.8 5.8 2.1

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

70: 71: 72: 73: 74: 75:

Q9c This neighbourhood as a place to live Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

76: 77: 78: 79: 80: 81:

Q9d Your rent as value for money Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

82: 83: 84: 85: 86: 87:

Q9e Your service charge as value for money (if you pay one) Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

88: 89: 90: 91: 92: 93:

Q10a Kitchen Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

94: 95: 96: 97: 98: 99:

Q10b Shower or Bathroom Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

100: 101: 102: 103: 104: 105:

Q10c Windows Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion

Frequency

% overall

% valid

Base: 487 166 207 39 28 27 4

34.1 42.5 8.0 5.7 5.5 0.8

35.5 44.3 8.4 6.0 5.8

16

3.3

Base: 487 189 198 35 30 9 9

38.8 40.7 7.2 6.2 1.8 1.8

17

3.5

Base: 487 81 110 53 24 25 90

16.6 22.6 10.9 4.9 5.1 18.5

104

21.4

Base: 487 223 157 16 45 30 2

45.8 32.2 3.3 9.2 6.2 0.4

14

2.9

Base: 487 227 159 21 40 25 2

46.6 32.6 4.3 8.2 5.1 0.4

13

2.7

Base: 487 198 158 30 61 21 0

40.7 32.4 6.2 12.5 4.3 0.0

41.0 43.0 7.6 6.5 2.0

27.6 37.5 18.1 8.2 8.5

47.3 33.3 3.4 9.6 6.4

48.1 33.7 4.4 8.5 5.3

42.3 33.8 6.4 13.0 4.5

67

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

N/R

106: 107: 108: 109: 110: 111:

Q10d Running costs of heating / hot water Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

112: 113: 114: 115: 116: 117:

Q10e Locks and Security Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

118: 119: 120: 121: 122: 123:

Q10f Fire protection Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

124: 125: 126: 127: 128: 129:

Q10g Soundproofing Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

130: 131: 132: 133: 134: 135:

Q10h Storage space Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

Q10i Freedom from dampness 136: Very satisfied 137: Fairly satisfied 138: Neither 68

Frequency

% overall

19

3.9

Base: 487 158 178 45 53 28 6

32.4 36.6 9.2 10.9 5.7 1.2

19

3.9

Base: 487 226 185 17 34 11 2

46.4 38.0 3.5 7.0 2.3 0.4

12

2.5

Base: 487 251 164 26 14 9 7

51.5 33.7 5.3 2.9 1.8 1.4

16

3.3

Base: 487 126 157 58 67 54 8

25.9 32.2 11.9 13.8 11.1 1.6

17

3.5

Base: 487 140 182 52 51 43 3

28.7 37.4 10.7 10.5 8.8 0.6

16

3.3

Base: 487 200 153 33

41.1 31.4 6.8

% valid

34.2 38.5 9.7 11.5 6.1

47.8 39.1 3.6 7.2 2.3

54.1 35.3 5.6 3.0 1.9

27.3 34.0 12.6 14.5 11.7

29.9 38.9 11.1 10.9 9.2

42.9 32.8 7.1

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

139: Fairly dissatisfied 140: Very dissatisfied 141: No opinion N/R

142: 143: 144: 145: 146: 147:

Q10j Paving / Garden (if applicable) Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

148: 149: 150: 151: 152: 153:

Q10k Fencing (if applicable) Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

154: 155: 156: 157: 158: 159:

Q10l Communal areas (if applicable) Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

160: 161: 162: 163:

Q11 How many vehicles does your household regularly park at or near your property?

None One Two Three or more N/R

Q12 Do you have insurance for the contents of your home?

164: Yes 165: No N/R

166: 167: 168: 169:

Q13 Do you think you will still be living in this neighbourhood in 5 years time?

Definitely Possibly No Don't know

Frequency

% overall

% valid

45 35 5

9.2 7.2 1.0

9.7 7.5

16

3.3

Base: 487 123 150 41 41 35 45

25.3 30.8 8.4 8.4 7.2 9.2

52

10.7

Base: 487 120 121 49 32 29 57

24.6 24.8 10.1 6.6 6.0 11.7

79

16.2

Base: 487 85 96 52 19 14 95

17.5 19.7 10.7 3.9 2.9 19.5

126

25.9

Base: 487 214 204 32 26

43.9 41.9 6.6 5.3

11

2.3

Base: 487 136 335

27.9 68.8

16

3.3

Base: 487 190 149 42 96

39.0 30.6 8.6 19.7

31.5 38.5 10.5 10.5 9.0

34.2 34.5 14.0 9.1 8.3

32.0 36.1 19.5 7.1 5.3

69

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

N/R

170: 171: 172: 173: 174: 175: 176: 177: 178: 179: 180:

Q14 What do you like about your neighbourhood?

The neighbours It is safe It is quiet It is attractive There is not much trouble Good children's play areas Near to shops Local schools Close to work Close to family Sense of community N/R

181: 182: 183: 184: 185: 186:

Q15a Taff's office is conveniently located Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

187: 188: 189: 190: 191: 192:

Q15b The reception area at Taff's office is welcoming Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

193: 194: 195: 196: 197: 198:

Q15c I am satisfied with the current opening hours of 9-5 Monday to Friday Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

Q16 Have you contacted us within the last 12 months?

199: Yes 200: No 201: Can't remember

Frequency

% overall

10

2.1

Base: 487 212 196 192 111 251 95 360 160 84 175 97

43.5 40.2 39.4 22.8 51.5 19.5 73.9 32.9 17.2 35.9 19.9

14

2.9

Base: 487 254 188 20 10 0 5

52.2 38.6 4.1 2.1 0.0 1.0

10

2.1

Base: 487 294 156 13 1 0 11

60.4 32.0 2.7 0.2 0.0 2.3

12

2.5

Base: 487 278 159 17 10 3 10

57.1 32.6 3.5 2.1 0.6 2.1

10

2.1

Base: 487 407 50 21

83.6 10.3 4.3

9

1.8

1 259

0.2 53.2

N/R Q17 How many people were you passed to before your query was dealt with?

202: Voicemail 203: 1 person 70

% valid

53.8 39.8 4.2 2.1 0.0

63.4 33.6 2.8 0.2 0.0

59.5 34.0 3.6 2.1 0.6

Base: 407 0.2 63.6

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

204: 205: 206: 207:

208: 209: 210: 211: 212: 213:

Frequency

% overall

% valid

2 people 3 people More than 3 people Can't remember

82 7 10 34

16.8 1.4 2.1 7.0

20.1 1.7 2.5 8.4

N/R

94

19.3

3.4

Base: 407 230 127 14 22 6 3

47.2 26.1 2.9 4.5 1.2 0.6

57.6 31.8 3.5 5.5 1.5

85

17.5

1.2

Base: 407 222 127 21 22 7 2

45.6 26.1 4.3 4.5 1.4 0.4

55.6 31.8 5.3 5.5 1.8

86

17.7

1.5

Base: 407 280 109 9 1 3 0

57.5 22.4 1.8 0.2 0.6 0.0

69.7 27.1 2.2 0.2 0.7

85

17.5

1.2

Base: 407 269 112 12 6 2 0

55.2 23.0 2.5 1.2 0.4 0.0

67.1 27.9 3.0 1.5 0.5

86

17.7

1.5

Base: 407 247 104 17 17 12 0

50.7 21.4 3.5 3.5 2.5 0.0

62.2 26.2 4.3 4.3 3.0

90

18.5

2.5

Q18a I was dealt with promptly Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

214: 215: 216: 217: 218: 219:

Q18b It was easy to get hold of the right person Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

220: 221: 222: 223: 224: 225:

Q18c The staff who dealt with me were polite Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

226: 227: 228: 229: 230: 231:

Q18d The staff who dealt with me were helpful Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

232: 233: 234: 235: 236: 237:

Q18e The staff were able to deal with my query Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

71

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

238: 239: 240: 241: 242: 243:

Frequency

% overall

% valid

Base: 407 229 105 30 14 15 3

47.0 21.6 6.2 2.9 3.1 0.6

58.3 26.7 7.6 3.6 3.8

91

18.7

2.7

Base: 407 194 114 29 26 19 10

39.8 23.4 6.0 5.3 3.9 2.1

50.8 29.8 7.6 6.8 5.0

95

19.5

3.7

Base: 407 236 102 26 18 16 3

48.5 20.9 5.3 3.7 3.3 0.6

59.3 25.6 6.5 4.5 4.0

86

17.7

1.5

Base: 487 50 403 14

10.3 82.8 2.9

20

4.1

17 16 5 6 5 1

3.5 3.3 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.2

34.7 32.7 10.2 12.2 10.2

437

89.7

0.0

Q21 Generally, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way we deal with repairs and maintenance?

Base: 487 Very satisfied 220 Fairly satisfied 197 Neither 17 Fairly dissatisfied 11 Very dissatisfied 20

45.2 40.5 3.5 2.3 4.1

47.3 42.4 3.7 2.4 4.3

Q18f My query was dealt with in a reasonable amount of time Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

244: 245: 246: 247: 248: 249:

Q18g If someone needed to get back to me, they made contact when they said they would Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

250: 251: 252: 253: 254: 255:

Q18h Overall, I was satisfied with the final outcome of my query Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

Q19 Have you made a complaint to us in the last 12 months about the service you have received?

256: Yes 257: No 258: Can't remember N/R

259: 260: 261: 262: 263: 264:

Q20 Generally, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way we handled your complaint?

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

265: 266: 267: 268: 269: 72

Base: 50

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

270: No opinion N/R Q22 Have you had any repairs completed in the last 12 months?

271: Yes 272: No 273: Can't remember N/R

274: 275: 276: 277: 278: 279: 280: 281:

Q23 Which contractor completed your last repair?

Taff Kitchen Team Taff Electrical Team SMK Peter O'Neill GKR Heatforce Other Don't know/can't remember N/R

282: 283: 284: 285: 286: 287:

Q24a Being told when contractors would call (e.g. appointment time) Very good Fairly good Neither Fairly poor Very poor No opinion N/R

288: 289: 290: 291: 292: 293:

Q24b Time taken before work started Very good Fairly good Neither Fairly poor Very poor No opinion N/R

294: 295: 296: 297: 298: 299:

Q24c Speed with which work was completed Very good Fairly good Neither Fairly poor Very poor No opinion N/R

Q24d Attitude of workers 300: Very good 301: Fairly good 302: Neither

Frequency

% overall

% valid

9

1.8

13

2.7

Base: 487 338 119 20

69.4 24.4 4.1

10

2.1

Base: 338 22 12 56 105 18 13 9 41

4.5 2.5 11.5 21.6 3.7 2.7 1.8 8.4

6.5 3.6 16.6 31.1 5.3 3.8 2.7 12.1

211

43.3

18.3

Base: 338 194 97 14 15 11 0

39.8 19.9 2.9 3.1 2.3 0.0

58.6 29.3 4.2 4.5 3.3

156

32.0

2.1

Base: 338 178 99 16 17 4 6

36.6 20.3 3.3 3.5 0.8 1.2

56.7 31.5 5.1 5.4 1.3

167

34.3

5.3

Base: 338 210 85 13 9 8 1

43.1 17.5 2.7 1.8 1.6 0.2

64.6 26.2 4.0 2.8 2.5

161

33.1

3.6

Base: 338 240 72 7

49.3 14.8 1.4

73.8 22.2 2.2 73

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

303: Fairly poor 304: Very poor 305: No opinion N/R

306: 307: 308: 309: 310: 311:

Q24e Overall quality of repair work Very good Fairly good Neither Fairly poor Very poor No opinion N/R

312: 313: 314: 315: 316: 317:

Q24f Keeping dirt and mess to a minimum Very good Fairly good Neither Fairly poor Very poor No opinion N/R

318: 319: 320: 321: 322: 323:

Q24g The repair being done 'right first time' Very good Fairly good Neither Fairly poor Very poor No opinion N/R

Q25 Did you have to follow up with us about your last repair?

324: Yes 325: No 326: Can't remember N/R

327: 328: 329: 330: 331: 332:

Q26 Generally, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way we dealt with your last completed repair?

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

Q27 It would be helpful is offered appointments for repairs at evenings and weekends 333: Strongly agree 74

Frequency

% overall

% valid

4 2 2

0.8 0.4 0.4

1.2 0.6

160

32.9

3.3

Base: 338 208 88 16 8 7 2

42.7 18.1 3.3 1.6 1.4 0.4

63.6 26.9 4.9 2.4 2.1

158

32.4

2.7

Base: 338 226 78 10 8 6 2

46.4 16.0 2.1 1.6 1.2 0.4

68.9 23.8 3.0 2.4 1.8

157

32.2

2.4

Base: 338 202 73 22 17 14 3

41.5 15.0 4.5 3.5 2.9 0.6

61.6 22.3 6.7 5.2 4.3

156

32.0

2.1

Base: 338 71 244 10

14.6 50.1 2.1

21.0 72.2 3.0

162

33.3

3.8

Base: 487 243 159 28 15 9 16

49.9 32.6 5.7 3.1 1.8 3.3

53.5 35.0 6.2 3.3 2.0

17

3.5

Base: 487 171

35.1

38.3

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

334: 335: 336: 337: 338:

Frequency

% overall

% valid

174 62 32 7 33

35.7 12.7 6.6 1.4 6.8

39.0 13.9 7.2 1.6

8

1.6

Q28 How good or poor do you feel we are at keeping you informed about things that might affect you as a tenant?

Base: 487 Very good 270 Fairly good 175 Neither 18 Fairly poor 8 Very poor 2 No opinion 9

55.4 35.9 3.7 1.6 0.4 1.8

Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

339: 340: 341: 342: 343: 344:

N/R

345: 346: 347: 348: 349: 350:

Q29 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that we listen to your views and act upon them?

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

351: 352: 353: 354: 355: 356:

Q30 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that we give you the opportunity to take part in decision making?

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion N/R

357: 358: 359: 360: 361: 362:

Q31a The tenants' newsletter is informative Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

363: 364: 365: 366: 367:

Q31b The tenants' handbook is useful Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree

5

Base: 487 207 174 45 21 8

57.1 37.0 3.8 1.7 0.4

1.0

42.5 35.7 9.2 4.3 1.6 24.0

8

1.6

Base: 487 198 155 67 12 6 39

40.7 31.8 13.8 2.5 1.2 8.0

10

2.1

Base: 487 215 192 43 4 2 23

44.1 39.4 8.8 0.8 0.4 4.7

8

1.6

Base: 487 217 186 37 3 3

44.6 38.2 7.6 0.6 0.6

45.5 38.2 9.9 4.6 1.8 4.9

45.2 35.4 15.3 2.7 1.4

47.1 42.1 9.4 0.9 0.4

48.7 41.7 8.3 0.7 0.7 75

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

368: No opinion N/R

369: 370: 371: 372: 373: 374:

Q31c The website is informative Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

375: 376: 377: 378: 379: 380:

Q31d I understand my tenancy agreement Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

381: 382: 383: 384: 385: 386:

Q31e Letters from us are easy to understand Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

387: 388: 389: 390: 391: 392:

Q31f The rent statement is easy to understand Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

393: 394: 395: 396: 397: 398:

Q31g Information about the service charge is clear Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion N/R

Q31h I am satisfied with Taff's ability to communicate with me in my language of choice 399: Strongly agree 76

Frequency

% overall

28

5.7

13

2.7

Base: 487 107 111 65 9 1 134

22.0 22.8 13.3 1.8 0.2 27.5

60

12.3

Base: 487 258 182 17 10 0 8

53.0 37.4 3.5 2.1 0.0 1.6

12

2.5

Base: 487 285 167 10 8 1 7

58.5 34.3 2.1 1.6 0.2 1.4

9

1.8

Base: 487 271 169 21 8 4 7

55.6 34.7 4.3 1.6 0.8 1.4

7

1.4

Base: 487 185 136 36 18 7 62

38.0 27.9 7.4 3.7 1.4 12.7

43

8.8

Base: 487 297

61.0

% valid

36.5 37.9 22.2 3.1 0.3

55.2 39.0 3.6 2.1 0.0

60.5 35.5 2.1 1.7 0.2

57.3 35.7 4.4 1.7 0.8

48.4 35.6 9.4 4.7 1.8

66.9

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

400: 401: 402: 403: 404:

Tend to agree Neither Tend to disagree Strongly disagree No opinion

Frequency

% overall

% valid

125 17 3 2 25

25.7 3.5 0.6 0.4 5.1

28.2 3.8 0.7 0.5

18

3.7

Base: 487 194 261 27

39.8 53.6 5.5

5

1.0

2 21 2 2 2

0.4 4.3 0.4 0.4 0.4

7.4 77.8 7.4 7.4 7.4

460

94.5

0.0

Base: 487 115 233 58 70 41 67 9 18

23.6 47.8 11.9 14.4 8.4 13.8 1.8 3.7

51

10.5

Base: 487 109 25 311 74 307 210 120 43 139

22.4 5.1 63.9 15.2 63.0 43.1 24.6 8.8 28.5

5

1.0

Base: 487 159 316

32.6 64.9

12

2.5

N/R Q32 Do you have a home computer?

405: No 406: Yes (with internet access) 407: Yes (without internet access) N/R

408: 409: 410: 411: 412:

Q33 Why is your home computer not connected to the internet?

Not interested Can't afford it Don't know how Computer/phone line technical problems Other N/R

413: 414: 415: 416: 417: 418: 419: 420:

Q34 Do you regularly use the internet in any of the following ways?

Don't access the internet From a home computer From friends/family's computer From your mobile phone At work Library Community facility Other N/R

421: 422: 423: 424: 425: 426: 427: 428: 429:

Q35 Which of the following methods of being kept informed and getting in touch with us are you happy to use?

Email Social networking (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) Telephone Text/SMS In writing Visit to the office Visit to your home by staff Open meetings Newsletter N/R

Q36 Have you had any problems with ASB or neighbour nuisance at or near your home in the last 12 months?

430: Yes 431: No N/R

Base: 27

77

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

432: 433: 434: 435: 436:

Q37 Who did you report this to?

Did not report it Taff Local Council Police Someone else N/R

437: 438: 439: 440: 441:

Q38a Advice provided by staff Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied N/R

442: 443: 444: 445: 446:

Q38b Being kept informed Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied N/R

447: 448: 449: 450: 451:

Q38c Speed with which your report was dealt with Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied N/R

452: 453: 454: 455: 456:

Q38d Our response overall Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied N/R

457: 458: 459: 460: 461:

Q38e The final outcome of your report Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied N/R

Q39 Did you know about the following services?

462: Taff Tenant Support Service 463: Housing benefit surgery 78

Frequency

% overall

% valid

Base: 159 53 83 13 41 5

10.9 17.0 2.7 8.4 1.0

33.3 52.2 8.2 25.8 3.1

331

68.0

1.9

26 26 7 12 7

5.3 5.3 1.4 2.5 1.4

33.3 33.3 9.0 15.4 9.0

409

84.0

6.0

28 25 12 8 5

5.7 5.1 2.5 1.6 1.0

35.9 32.1 15.4 10.3 6.4

409

84.0

6.0

32 23 7 11 4

6.6 4.7 1.4 2.3 0.8

41.6 29.9 9.1 14.3 5.2

410

84.2

7.2

26 20 13 11 8

5.3 4.1 2.7 2.3 1.6

33.3 25.6 16.7 14.1 10.3

409

84.0

6.0

24 14 13 16 12

4.9 2.9 2.7 3.3 2.5

30.4 17.7 16.5 20.3 15.2

408

83.8

4.8

Base: 487 295 255

60.6 52.4

Base: 83

Base: 83

Base: 83

Base: 83

Base: 83

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

464: Taff Welfare Benefits Advice Service 465: Moneyline Cymru 466: Credit Union N/R

a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.

Frequency

% overall

169 96 144

34.7 19.7 29.6

113

23.2

% valid

Q40 Taff are working hard to provide you with the best possible service, please tell us Weighted Average Rank what more you would like us to do? (348 respondents) score rank Provide more services online, for example rent statements -50.7 7.5 10.0 Improved system for making repair appointments 21.5 4.8 3.0 Use text messaging to remind/confirm appointments -23.5 6.4 8.0 Provide more activities for children and young people to do -0.6 5.5 6.0 Help tenants get online with computer training and accessing the internet -28.9 6.7 9.0 Make it easier to get help with money/benefits 20.1 4.7 4.0 Help with reducing energy bills 49.9 3.5 1.0 Better information on when improvements such as kitchens and bathrooms will be done 24.1 4.5 2.0 Do more to support our local community 5.2 5.3 5.0 Help with training and jobs -11.2 6.0 7.0 Q40a Provide more services online, for example rent statements Priority 1 - HIGHEST Priority 1.5 (Tie) Priority 2 Priority 2.5 (Tie) Priority 3 Priority 3.5 (Tie) Priority 4 Priority 4.5 (Tie) Priority 5 Priority 5.5 (Tie) Priority 6 Priority 6.5 (Tie) Priority 7 Priority 7.5 (Tie) Priority 8 Priority 8.5 (Tie) Priority 9 Priority 9.5 (Tie) Priority 10 - LOWEST N/R Q40b Improved system for making repair appointments Priority 1 - HIGHEST Priority 1.5 (Tie) Priority 2 Priority 2.5 (Tie) Priority 3 Priority 3.5 (Tie) Priority 4 Priority 4.5 (Tie) Priority 5 Priority 5.5 (Tie) Priority 6 Priority 6.5 (Tie) Priority 7

Base:348 3 1 3 0 5 3 16 5 26 6 36 10 37 7 42 13 50 10 75

0.6 0.2 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.6 3.3 1.0 5.3 1.2 7.4 2.1 7.6 1.4 8.6 2.7 10.3 2.1 15.4

139

28.5

0.9 0.3 0.9 0.0 1.4 0.9 4.6 1.4 7.5 1.7 10.3 2.9 10.6 2.0 12.1 3.7 14.4 2.9 21.6

Base:348 40 7 49 5 38 6 21 7 36 4 28 8 25

8.2 1.4 10.1 1.0 7.8 1.2 4.3 1.4 7.4 0.8 5.7 1.6 5.1

11.5 2.0 14.1 1.4 10.9 1.7 6.0 2.0 10.3 1.1 8.0 2.3 7.2 79

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary Frequency

% overall

% valid

9 19 7 19 3 17

1.8 3.9 1.4 3.9 0.6 3.5

2.6 5.5 2.0 5.5 0.9 4.9

139

28.5

Priority 7.5 (Tie) Priority 8 Priority 8.5 (Tie) Priority 9 Priority 9.5 (Tie) Priority 10 - LOWEST N/R Q40c Use text messaging to remind/confirm appointments Priority 1 - HIGHEST Priority 1.5 (Tie) Priority 2 Priority 2.5 (Tie) Priority 3 Priority 3.5 (Tie) Priority 4 Priority 4.5 (Tie) Priority 5 Priority 5.5 (Tie) Priority 6 Priority 6.5 (Tie) Priority 7 Priority 7.5 (Tie) Priority 8 Priority 8.5 (Tie) Priority 9 Priority 9.5 (Tie) Priority 10 - LOWEST N/R Q40d Provide more activities for children and young people to do Priority 1 - HIGHEST Priority 1.5 (Tie) Priority 2 Priority 2.5 (Tie) Priority 3 Priority 3.5 (Tie) Priority 4 Priority 4.5 (Tie) Priority 5 Priority 5.5 (Tie) Priority 6 Priority 6.5 (Tie) Priority 7 Priority 7.5 (Tie) Priority 8 Priority 8.5 (Tie) Priority 9 Priority 9.5 (Tie) Priority 10 - LOWEST N/R Q40e Help tenants get online with computer training and accessing the internet Priority 1 - HIGHEST 80

Base:348 11 0 17 1 24 5 27 8 28 5 27 11 38 10 41 11 40 5 39

2.3 0.0 3.5 0.2 4.9 1.0 5.5 1.6 5.7 1.0 5.5 2.3 7.8 2.1 8.4 2.3 8.2 1.0 8.0

139

28.5

3.2 0.0 4.9 0.3 6.9 1.4 7.8 2.3 8.0 1.4 7.8 3.2 10.9 2.9 11.8 3.2 11.5 1.4 11.2

Base:348 40 5 26 5 31 8 25 4 26 2 25 6 24 11 36 10 29 3 32

8.2 1.0 5.3 1.0 6.4 1.6 5.1 0.8 5.3 0.4 5.1 1.2 4.9 2.3 7.4 2.1 6.0 0.6 6.6

139

28.5

11.5 1.4 7.5 1.4 8.9 2.3 7.2 1.1 7.5 0.6 7.2 1.7 6.9 3.2 10.3 2.9 8.3 0.9 9.2

Base:348 12

2.5

3.4

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary Frequency

% overall

% valid

3 6 4 19 9 19 4 28 3 41 7 42 5 36 10 52 7 41

0.6 1.2 0.8 3.9 1.8 3.9 0.8 5.7 0.6 8.4 1.4 8.6 1.0 7.4 2.1 10.7 1.4 8.4

0.9 1.7 1.1 5.5 2.6 5.5 1.1 8.0 0.9 11.8 2.0 12.1 1.4 10.3 2.9 14.9 2.0 11.8

139

28.5

Priority 1.5 (Tie) Priority 2 Priority 2.5 (Tie) Priority 3 Priority 3.5 (Tie) Priority 4 Priority 4.5 (Tie) Priority 5 Priority 5.5 (Tie) Priority 6 Priority 6.5 (Tie) Priority 7 Priority 7.5 (Tie) Priority 8 Priority 8.5 (Tie) Priority 9 Priority 9.5 (Tie) Priority 10 - LOWEST N/R Q40f Make it easier to get help with money/benefits Priority 1 - HIGHEST Priority 1.5 (Tie) Priority 2 Priority 2.5 (Tie) Priority 3 Priority 3.5 (Tie) Priority 4 Priority 4.5 (Tie) Priority 5 Priority 5.5 (Tie) Priority 6 Priority 6.5 (Tie) Priority 7 Priority 7.5 (Tie) Priority 8 Priority 8.5 (Tie) Priority 9 Priority 9.5 (Tie) Priority 10 - LOWEST N/R Q40g Help with reducing energy bills Priority 1 - HIGHEST Priority 1.5 (Tie) Priority 2 Priority 2.5 (Tie) Priority 3 Priority 3.5 (Tie) Priority 4 Priority 4.5 (Tie) Priority 5 Priority 5.5 (Tie) Priority 6 Priority 6.5 (Tie)

Base:348 41 1 45 4 37 12 37 5 32 7 31 10 20 7 17 3 8 5 26

8.4 0.2 9.2 0.8 7.6 2.5 7.6 1.0 6.6 1.4 6.4 2.1 4.1 1.4 3.5 0.6 1.6 1.0 5.3

139

28.5

11.8 0.3 12.9 1.1 10.6 3.4 10.6 1.4 9.2 2.0 8.9 2.9 5.7 2.0 4.9 0.9 2.3 1.4 7.5

Base:348 79 12 63 9 34 5 38 8 32 6 17 4

16.2 2.5 12.9 1.8 7.0 1.0 7.8 1.6 6.6 1.2 3.5 0.8

22.7 3.4 18.1 2.6 9.8 1.4 10.9 2.3 9.2 1.7 4.9 1.1 81

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary Frequency

% overall

% valid

13 4 7 1 7 1 8

2.7 0.8 1.4 0.2 1.4 0.2 1.6

3.7 1.1 2.0 0.3 2.0 0.3 2.3

139

28.5

Q40h Better information on when improvements such as kitchens and bathrooms will be done Base:348 46 Priority 1 - HIGHEST Priority 1.5 (Tie) 8 Priority 2 48 Priority 2.5 (Tie) 7 Priority 3 39 Priority 3.5 (Tie) 8 Priority 4 41 Priority 4.5 (Tie) 3 Priority 5 17 Priority 5.5 (Tie) 7 Priority 6 23 Priority 6.5 (Tie) 5 Priority 7 23 Priority 7.5 (Tie) 8 Priority 8 28 Priority 8.5 (Tie) 4 Priority 9 25 Priority 9.5 (Tie) 2 Priority 10 - LOWEST 6

9.4 1.6 9.9 1.4 8.0 1.6 8.4 0.6 3.5 1.4 4.7 1.0 4.7 1.6 5.7 0.8 5.1 0.4 1.2

Priority 7 Priority 7.5 (Tie) Priority 8 Priority 8.5 (Tie) Priority 9 Priority 9.5 (Tie) Priority 10 - LOWEST N/R

N/R Q40i Do more to support our local community Priority 1 - HIGHEST Priority 1.5 (Tie) Priority 2 Priority 2.5 (Tie) Priority 3 Priority 3.5 (Tie) Priority 4 Priority 4.5 (Tie) Priority 5 Priority 5.5 (Tie) Priority 6 Priority 6.5 (Tie) Priority 7 Priority 7.5 (Tie) Priority 8 Priority 8.5 (Tie) Priority 9 Priority 9.5 (Tie) Priority 10 - LOWEST N/R

82

139

13.2 2.3 13.8 2.0 11.2 2.3 11.8 0.9 4.9 2.0 6.6 1.4 6.6 2.3 8.0 1.1 7.2 0.6 1.7

28.5

Base:348 21 7 21 6 37 3 34 12 40 7 44 9 27 5 29 4 16 4 22

4.3 1.4 4.3 1.2 7.6 0.6 7.0 2.5 8.2 1.4 9.0 1.8 5.5 1.0 6.0 0.8 3.3 0.8 4.5

139

28.5

6.0 2.0 6.0 1.7 10.6 0.9 9.8 3.4 11.5 2.0 12.6 2.6 7.8 1.4 8.3 1.1 4.6 1.1 6.3

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary Frequency Q40j Help with training and jobs Priority 1 - HIGHEST Priority 1.5 (Tie) Priority 2 Priority 2.5 (Tie) Priority 3 Priority 3.5 (Tie) Priority 4 Priority 4.5 (Tie) Priority 5 Priority 5.5 (Tie) Priority 6 Priority 6.5 (Tie) Priority 7 Priority 7.5 (Tie) Priority 8 Priority 8.5 (Tie) Priority 9 Priority 9.5 (Tie) Priority 10 - LOWEST N/R

467: 468: 469: 470: 471: 472:

Q41 How would you describe your sexual orientation?

Heterosexual Gay man Lesbian Bisexual Other Prefer not to say N/R

473: 474: 475: 476: 477: 478: 479: 480: 481:

Q42 What is your religion?

No religion Christian (all denominations) Buddhist Hindu Jewish Muslim Sikh Any other religion Prefer not to say N/R

Q43 In the last 2 years, have you borrowed money off a doorstep money lender?

482: Yes 483: No 484: Prefer not to say N/R Q44 Does your household currently receive housing benefit (either paid to you, or directly to Taff)?

485: Yes

% overall

% valid

26 2 24 7 23 5 20 12 23 5 29 10 26 14 23 9 39 6 45

5.3 0.4 4.9 1.4 4.7 1.0 4.1 2.5 4.7 1.0 6.0 2.1 5.3 2.9 4.7 1.8 8.0 1.2 9.2

7.5 0.6 6.9 2.0 6.6 1.4 5.7 3.4 6.6 1.4 8.3 2.9 7.5 4.0 6.6 2.6 11.2 1.7 12.9

139

28.5

Base: 487 321 8 4 4 24 52

65.9 1.6 0.8 0.8 4.9 10.7

74

15.2

Base: 487 117 212 2 2 1 89 1 13 23

24.0 43.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 18.3 0.2 2.7 4.7

27

5.5

Base: 487 18 441 11

3.7 90.6 2.3

17

3.5

Base: 487 369

75.8

Base:348

83

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

486: No 487: Don't know N/R

488: 489: 490: 491: 492: 493: 494: 495: 496: 497: 498: 499: 500: 501:

Q45 Do you have any of the following types of credit or borrowings at the moment?

Overdraft with bank Interest free loan from store Credit card not paid off Store card not paid off Loan from bank/building society Student loan Credit union loan Moneyline Cymru loan Licensed finance company such as Provident Loan from unlicensed money lender Catalogues Pawnbrokers Family/friends Other private individuals N/R

502: 503: 504: 506:

D1 Area Canton Fairwater Grangetown Riverside

Frequency

% overall

93 7

19.1 1.4

18

3.7

Base: 487 83 6 68 17 31 10 7 15 25 5 58 9 59 15

17.0 1.2 14.0 3.5 6.4 2.1 1.4 3.1 5.1 1.0 11.9 1.8 12.1 3.1

267

54.8

Base: 487 158 14 138 169

32.4 2.9 28.3 34.7

8

1.6

Base: 487 241 238

49.5 48.9

8

1.6

6 192 122 96 50 13

1.2 39.4 25.1 19.7 10.3 2.7

8

1.6

N/R D2 Property type 507: Flat 508: House N/R

509: 510: 511: 512: 513: 514:

D3 Bedrooms Bedsit One bed Two bed Three bed Four bed Five bed+ N/R

84

Base: 487

% valid

85

(t) 0844 272 6004 (w) www.arp-research.co.uk ARP Research Ltd 1 Dickenson Court, Sheffield, S35 2ZS Registered in England and Wales, No. 07342249.