Taff Survey 2011 Report

Taff Housing Association

Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2011

(t) 0844 272 6004 (w) www.arp-research.co.uk

Report by Adam Payne [email protected]

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

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.

Methodology 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. Introduction

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.

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.

2

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:

♦ 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

2. Summary of main findings

3

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).


4

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.


5

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.


6

Flat50

House49

NR1

Flat43

House55

NR3

3. Respondent profile

32

3

2835

2

33

4

24

39

0

Canton Fairwater Grangetown Riverside NR

3.1 Area

% Base 487

3.2 Property type

% Base 487

2011

2008

7

Yes70

No22

Don't know

NR8

Yes76

No19

Don't know

NR5

41

2520

13

2

39

2720

113

1 bed/bedsit 2 bed 3 bed 4+ bed NR

3.3 Property size

% Base 487

2008

2011


44 42

7 5 2

48 46

4 1 3

None One Two Three+ NR

3.4 Vehicles parked at property

% Base 487

3.5 Receive housing benefit

% Base 487

8

Yes31

No67NR

2

Yes30

No67

NR3

Female57

Male41

NR2

Female57

Male40

NR3


3.6 Gender

% Base 487

4

12

2226

9 811

61 1

4

15

25 23

69 11

41 1

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

3.7Age

% Base 487

3.8 Children under 16 in household

% Base 487

2008

2011

9

White British

72

BME21

NR7

White British

70

BME28

NR2


2008

2011

Base: 487 %

2011 %

2008 White Welsh/English/Scottish/Northern Irish/British 70 72 Irish 0.2 2.0

Any other White background 1.4 2.0 Mixed White and Black Caribbean 2.7 0.6 White and Black African 1.2 0.6 White and Asian 1.2 0.9 Any other Mixed background 1 2.3 Asian or Asian British Indian 0.6 0.3 Pakistani 1.6 0.6 Bangladeshi 2.1 1.7 Chinese 0.4 0 Any other Asian background 1.0 2.0 Black or Black British Caribbean 0.8 0.3 African Somali 5.5 3.2

Any other Black background 1.0 3.2 Other

Other 0.4 1.2 No response 2.3 7.0

Gypsy or Traveller 0 -

Arab 3.5 -

African (not Somali) 2.7 0.3

3.9 Ethnic background

% Base 487

− English

− Arabic

− No response

− Somali

− Other

− Welsh

− Polish

− Bengali

− Urdu

− Mandarin

− Cantonese

− Gujarati

− Hindi

− Punjabi

81

4.7

4.7

2.7

2.1

1.4

1.4

1.2

0.4

0.4

0.2

0

0

0

84

1.7

3.8

3.5

1.5

2.3

2.0

0.9

0

0

0

0

0

3.10 Main language

% Base 487

10

Yes50

No47

Don't know

NR3

Yes46

No44

Don't know

NR11


2008

2011 3.11 Disability or long term illness in household

66

1.6 0.8 0.8 4.9

26

59

2.3 0.6 0.3 5.8

32

Heterosexual Gay man Lesbian Bisexual Other Prefer not tosay / NR

3.14 Sexual orientation

% Base 487

24

44

0.4 0.4 0.2

18

0.2 2.710

25

43

0.3 3 0

13.1

0.6 3.2

15

No religion Christian Buddhist Hindu Jewish Muslim Sikh Other Prefer not tosay / NR

3.15 Religion

% Base 487

%

2011

%

2008

Yes 29 22

No 71 78

%

2011

%

2008

Yes 10 13

No 90 87

3.12 Home adapted 3.13 Wheelchair user

Households with disability or long term illness | % Base 241

11

83 83

91

70

80

90

100

2005 2008 2011

Benchmark

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

%

satisfied 2011

% satisfied

2008

− Overall service from Taff 91 83

confidence (95%)

+/- 2.6

4.1 Overall satisfaction

very dissatisfied

fairly dissatisfied

neither

fairly satisfied

very satisfied

significantly higher than 2008

no significant difference

significantly lower than 2008

52

See appendix A for further information on statistical tests and

39 4 4 1 84

Excludes non respondents | % Base 473

12

4. Overall satisfaction

4.2 Satisfaction on key measures

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

very dissatisfied

fairly dissatisfied

neither

fairly satisfied

very satisfied




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

Benchmark

%

satisfied 2011

% satisfied

2008 confidence

(95%)

− Overall quality of home 88 89 +/- 3.0

− General condition of property

88 85 +/- 2.9

− Value for money for rent 84 84 +/- 3.4

− Neighbourhood as a place to live

80 81 +/- 3.6

− Value for money for service charge

65 70 +/- 5.5

44 44 4

46 42 5 2 5

41 43 8 2 7

36 44 8 6 6

2 6

28 38 18 9 8

83

83

86

84

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 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:

♦ Value for money of the rent (84% satisfied)

♦ The general condition of properties (88%)

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

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

13

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 positively influenced overall satisfaction.

What is also notable from this list is one item that is not present, nor was it present in 2008. The repairs and maintenance service is typically central to tenant’s 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 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).

“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.”

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

“Taff Housing Association is an honest, open organisation that practises what it preaches.”

“Since we changed from Council property to Taff, I 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.”

“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.”

14

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% 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).

5. The home and neighbourhood

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

15


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

very dissatisfied

fairly dissatisfied

neither

fairly satisfied

very satisfied




%

satisfied 2011

% satisfied

2008 confidence

(95%)

− Fire protection 89 85 +/- 2.8

− Locks and Security 87 81 +/- 3.0

− Shower or Bathroom 82 69 +/- 3.5

− Windows 76 77 +/- 3.9

− Freedom from dampness 76 78 +/- 3.9

− Kitchen 81 79 +/- 3.6

− Running costs of heating / hot water

73 77 +/- 4.1

− Paving / Garden 70 68 +/- 4.5

− Storage space 69 68 +/- 4.2

− Fencing 69 64 +/- 4.9

− Communal areas 68 70 +/- 5.6

− Soundproofing 61 60 +/- 4.4

5.1 Features of the home

54 35 6

48 39 4 2 7

48 34 4 5 9

47 33 3 6 10


2 3

42 34 6 5 13

43 33 7 8 10

34 39 10

32 39 11 9 11

30 39 11 9 11

34 35 14 8 9

6 12

32 36 20 5 7

27 34 13 12 15

16


% satisfied

Sample size

Kitchen

Shower or Bathroom

Window

s

Running costs of heating / hot w

ater

Locks and Security

Fire protection

Soundproofing

Storage space

Freedom from

dam

pness

Paving / garden

Fencing

Comm

unal areas

Overall 81 82 76 73 87 89 61 69 76 70 69 68

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

5.2 Satisfaction with the home - by area

Significantly lower than average (95% confidence*)

Significantly higher than average (95% confidence*)

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

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.

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.”

17


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%).

18

Yes28

No69NR

3

Yes28

No68NR

5


5.3 Have home contents insurance

2008

2011

% Base 487

3931

9

20

2

4031

1016

3

Definitely Possibly No Don't know N.R.

5.4 Still living in neighbourhood in 5 years?

% Base 487

74

52

44

40

39

36

33

23

20

20

17

73

43

42

32

33

26

21

19

14

16More than one answer allowed | % Base 487

− Near to shops

− There is not much trouble

− The neighbours

− It is safe

− It is quiet

− Close to family

− Local schools

− It is attractive

− Sense of community

− Good children's play areas

− Close to work

5.5 Like about the neighbourhood?

19

7378

90

70

80

90

100

2005 2008 2011

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 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.

6. Repairs and maintenance

6.1 Overall repairs satisfaction

% satisfied

2011

% satisfied

2008

− The way repairs and maintenance is dealt with

90 78

confidence (95%)

+/- 2.8

very dissatisfied

fairly dissatisfied

neither

fairly satisfied

very satisfied




47


42 4 2 4 80

Excludes non respondents | % Base 465 Benchmark

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.

20


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%).

21

Yes69

No24

Can'tremember

/ NR6

Yes75

No17

Can'tremember

/ NR9


2008

2011 6.3 Repair completed in last 12 months

% Base 487

6.2 Satisfaction with last repair

% satisfied

2011 confidence

(95%)

− Last completed repair 89 +/- 2.9

very dissatisfied

fairly dissatisfied

neither

fairly satisfied

very satisfied

54 35 6 3 2


6.3 Evening & weekend repairs

% satisfied

2011 confidence

(95%)

− Evening and weekend appointments would be helpful

77 +/- 3.9

strongly disagree

tend to disagree

neither

tend to agree

strongly agree

38 39 14 7 2


74

17

31

5 4 3

30

Taff Kitchen TaffElectrical

SMK Peter O'Neill GKR Heatforce Other Don't know/ NR

6.4 Contractor on last repair

Repair in last 12 mths. | % Base 338

22

Yes28

No60Can't

remember/ NR12

Yes21

No72

Can'tremembe

r/ NR

7

%

good 2011

% good 2008

− Attitude of workers 96 93

confidence (95%)

+/- 2.1

− Keeping dirt and mess to a minimum

93 89 +/- 2.8

− Speed of completion 91 84 +/- 3.1

− Overall quality of work 91 83 +/- 3.2

− Time taken before work started

88 81 +/- 3.6

− Being told when workers would call

88 82 +/- 3.5

− The repair being done ‘right first time’

84 +/- 4.0


2008

2011 6.6 Had to follow up about last repair

Repair in last 12 mths. | % Base 338

6.5 Last completed repair

74 1 2

89

1 93

89

87

81

84

22

69 3 2 2 24

65 4 3 3 26

64 5 2 2 27

57 5 5 1 32

59 4 5 3 29

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

very poor

fairly poor

neither

fairly good

very good





Benchmark

62 7 5 4 22

23


% good

Sample size

Being told when

workers w

ould call

Time taken before

work started

Speed with w

hich work

was com

pleted

Attitude of w

orkers

Overall quality of

repair work

Keeping dirt and mess

to a minim

um

Overall 88 88 91 96 91 93

Taff Kitchen Team 22 95 90 100 95 86 96

Taff Electrical Team 12 100 100 100 100 100 100

SMK 56 80 85 93 93 91 88

Peter O'Neill 105 92 95 91 97 92 95

The repair being done ‘right first tim

e’

84

86

100

86

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

6.7 Last completed repair - by contractor

Significantly lower than average (95% confidence*)

Significantly higher than average (95% confidence*)

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

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

24

Yes84

No10

Can'tremember

/ NR6 Yes

79

No13

Can'tremember

/ NR9

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 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.

7. Customer service

% Base 487

2008

2011 7.1 Contacted in last 12 months

“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.”

25

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

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.

26

74 75

85

70

80

90

100

2005 2008 2011

7. Customer service

%

agree 2011

% agree 2008

− Staff were polite 97 96

confidence (95%)

+/- 1.7

− Staff were helpful 95 88 +/- 2.1

− Dealt with promptly 90 81 +/- 3.0

− Staff were able to deal with query

88 80 +/- 3.1

− Easy to get hold of the right person

88 79 +/- 3.2

− Dealt with in a reasonable amount of time

85 72 +/- 3.5

− Satisfied with final outcome

85 75 +/- 3.5

− Got back to me when they said they would

81 68 +/- 4.0

7.2 Customer service - last contact

70 2 1 27

67 3 2 1 28

4 6 2 32

62 4 4 3 26

56 5 6 2 32

58 8 4 4 27

strongly disagree

tend to disagree

neither

tend to agree

strongly agree





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

Benchmark

59 7 5 4 26 72

86

75

51 8 7 5 30

7.3 Satisfied with outcome

75

81

58

27

7. Customer service

0.2

64

20

2 3 8 30.4

65

17

3 29 4

Voicemail 1 2 3 4+ Can't remember NR

7.4 Number of people passed to

Contact in last 12 mths | % Base 407

strongly disagree

tend to disagree

neither

tend to agree

strongly agree




%

agree 2011

% agree 2008

confidence (95%)

− Welcoming reception area

97 96 +/- 1.6

− Office conveniently located

94 91 +/- 2.2

− Satisfied with opening hours

94 91 +/- 2.2

7.5 Taff’s offices

63 34

54 40 4 2

60 34 4 <1 2


<1 3

2008

2011

*

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

28

Yes10

No83

Can'tremember

/ NR7

7. Customer service

% Base 487

7.6 Made complaint in last 12 months

7.7 Satisfaction with complaints

% satisfied

2011 confidence

(95%)

− How complaint was handled

67 +/- 13.1

very dissatisfied

fairly dissatisfied

neither

fairly satisfied

very satisfied

35 33 10 12 10

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

29

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).

8. Communication & information

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.

30

7986

94

70

80

90

100

2005 2008 2011

8. Communication and information

8.2 Communication

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

very dissatisfied

fairly dissatisfied

neither

fairly satisfied

very satisfied




%

satisfied 2011

% satisfied

2008 confidence

(95%)

− We listen to your views and act upon them

84 75 +/- 3.4

− Given opportunity to take part in decision making

81 69 +/- 3.7 45 35 15 1 3


68

Benchmark

46 38 10 5 2

%

good 2011

% good 2008

− Being kept informed about things that affect you as a tenant

94 86

confidence (95%)

+/- 2.1

8.1 Information

very poor

fairly poor

neither

fairly good

very good




57


37 4 2 <1

83

Excludes non respondents | % Base 473 Benchmark

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).

31


%

agree 2011

% agree 2008

confidence (95%)

− Letters are easy to understand

96 94 +/- 1.8

− Satisfied with communication in language of choice

95 95 +/- 2.0

− Understand tenancy agreement

94 92 +/- 2.1

− Rent statement is easy to understand

93 89 +/- 2.3

− Handbook is useful 90 88 +/- 2.7

− Newsletter is informative 89 85 +/- 2.8

− Clear service charge information

84 - +/- 3.7

− Website is informative 74 68 +/- 5.0

8.3 Written information

61 2 2 36

67 4 28

55 4 2 39

57 4 2 36

49 8 <1 42

47 9 <1 42

strongly disagree

tend to disagree

neither

tend to agree

strongly agree



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

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

48 9 5 2 36

37 22 3 <1 38

<1

1

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%).

32


8.4 Happy to use

− Telephone

− In writing

− Visit to the office

− Newsletter

− Visit to your home by staff

− Email

− Text/SMS

− Open meetings

− Social networking e.g. Twitter, Facebook

64

63

43

29

25

22

15

9

5

More than one answer allowed | % Base 487

8.5Methods of internet access

− From a home computer

− Don't access the internet / NR

− From your mobile phone

− Library

− From friends/family's computer

− At work

− Other

− Community facility

48

34

14

14

12

8

4

2


33

With internet

54

Without internet

6 No40

NR1


% Base 487

8.6 Have home computer

7

78

7 7 7

Not interested Can't afford it Don't know how to Computer/ phone linetechnical problems

Other

8.7 Why computer is without internet

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

34

Yes33

No65

NR3

Yes36

No59

NR5

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.

9. Anti-social behaviour

9.1 Experienced ASB in last 12 months

2008

2011

% Base 487

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.

35

9. Anti-social behaviour

9.3 Last ASB report

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

very dissatisfied

fairly dissatisfied

neither

fairly satisfied

very satisfied




%

satisfied 2011

% satisfied

2008 confidence

(95%)

− Speed dealt with 71 52 +/- 10.1

− Being kept informed 68 51 +/- 10.4

− Advice provided by staff 67 69 +/- 10.5

− Response overall 59 51 +/- 10.9

− Final outcome 48 - +/- 11.0

36 32 15 6 10

33 33 9 9 15

33 26 17 10 14


61

48

41

50

Benchmark

17 30 18 15 20

42 30 9 14 5

33

52

8

26

3 2

32

43

16

29

61

Did not report it Taff Local Council Police Someone else NR

9.2 ASB reported to:

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

45

“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.”

36

Yes12

No80

Prefer not to say

NR8

Yes4

No91

Prefer not to say

NR3

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. Financial and other services

10.1 Used doorstep money lender in last 2 years?

% Base 487

2008

2011

37

10. Additional services

5 5

1 7

1 4

1 2

1 2

6

5

4

3

3

2

2

1

1

1

− No response

− Overdraft with bank

− Credit card not paid off

− Family/friends

− Catalogues

− Loan from bank/building society

− Licensed finance company such as Provident

− Store card not paid off

− Moneyline Cymru loan

− Other private individuals

− Student loan

− Pawnbrokers

− Credit union loan

− Interest free loan from store

− Loan from unlicensed money lender

10.2 Current credit or borrowings


61

52

35

30

23

20

− Taff Tenant Support Service

− Housing benefit surgery

− Taff Welfare Benefits Advice Service

− Credit Union

− None of these

− Moneyline Cymru

10.3 Aware of following services?


38

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 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 tenants’ 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 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.

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?”

39

11. Future priorities

11.1 Future priorities

49.9

24.1

21.5

20.1

5.2

-0.6

-11.2

-23.5

-28.9

-50.7

− 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

− Do more to support our local community

− 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

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

7th

8th

9th

10th

Less of a priority More of a priority

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

5th

40


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:

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

♦ 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)

41


11.2 Future priorities - detailed response % priority rankings

Provide more services online, for

example rent statem

ents

Improved system

for making repair

appointments

Use text m

essaging to remind/confirm

appointm

ents

Provide more activities for children and

young people to do

Help tenants get online w

ith computer

training and accessing the internet

Make it easier to get help w

ith money/

benefits

Help w

ith reducing energy bills

Better information on w

hen im

provements such as kitchens and

bathrooms w

ill be done

Do m

ore to support our local com

munity

Help w

ith 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

Priority 2.5 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

Bottom third Middle third Top third

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

42

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

35.0

30.1

24.1

13.7

− Riverside 123

− Disability 163

− Average 348

− Canton 109

11.4 Improved repairs appointments

33.3

21.4

14.6

7.5

-12.0

− Children in household 120

− Average 348

− No children 226

− Repairs in last 12 mths 80

25 − Aged 60-64

43


11.5 Help with money/benefits

34.6

20.1

8.1

− Grangetown 101

− Average 348

− Riverside 123

11.6 Do more to support community

36.0

5.1

− Aged 60-64 25

− Average 348

11.7 Use text messaging for appointment reminders

0.0

-23.5

-68.0

348 − Average

25 − Aged 60-64

87 − Aged 35-44

11.8 Help tenants get online

-22.0

-28.9

-38.7

348 − Average

101 − Grangetown

123 − Riverside

44

Appendix A. Methodology & data analysis

Questionnaire The questionnaire was based on the most recent version of the National Housing Federation’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 Wilcoxon-Mann-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 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%.

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)

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

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.

45

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:

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.

In this case, we know how A relates to F, B to G, etc, but we have no information about how A relates to any item other than F, or B to any item other than G, etc.

If the order of the pairings is altered and replicated, the following arrangement can be reached:

A — F

B — G

C — H

D — I

E — J

B — F

C — G

D — H

E — I

A — J

A — F

B — G

C — H

D — I

E — J

46

Appendix B. Example questionnaire

47


47


47


47


48


48


48


48


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 h n, cysylltwch gyda ni ar y rhif ffôn isod.

English

Arabic

Gujurati

Welsh

Bengali

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. page 2

49


49


49


49


Female

Male

Q1) Are you? tick one only

16 - 24

25 - 34

35 - 44

45 - 54

55 - 59

Q2) Which age group do you belong to?

60 - 64

65 - 74

75 - 84

85 years and over

tick one only

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.

About you and your household

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)

Mixed

White & Black Caribbean

White & Black African

White & Asian

Any other Mixed background (tick and write in)

Asian or Asian British

Indian

Pakistani

Bangladeshi

Chinese

Any other Asian 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

50


50


50


50


Yes

No

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

English

Welsh

Arabic

Bengali

Cantonese

Gujarati

Hindi

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

Mandarin

Polish

Punjabi

Somali

Urdu

Other (write in)

tick one only

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?

tick one only

Yes

No

go to Q7

go to Q8

Don’t know go to Q8

Yes No

a. Has it been specially adapted for this person?

b. Does anyone in the household use a wheelchair?

Q7) Thinking about your home: tick all that apply

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

Very dissatisfied

tick one only

Your home and neighbourhood

page 4

51


51


51


51


Q9) Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the following? tick one per row

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

tick one per row

Very satisfied


Fairly dissatisfied

Very 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)

Very satisfied


Fairly dissatisfied

Very 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)

page 5

52


52


52


52


Yes

No

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

None

One

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

Two

Three or more

tick one only

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

Definitely

Possibly

No

Don’t know

tick one only

Knowing about your experience when contacting us helps us to improve the service we provide

Q16) Have you contacted us within the last 12 months?

Yes

No

go to Q17

go to Q19

Can’t remember go to Q19

tick one only

Strongly agree

Tend to agree Neither

Tend to disagree

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

tick one per row Q15) Please tell us if you agree or disagree with the following statements:

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

tick all that apply

Contact with us

page 6

53


53


53


53


Strongly

agree Tend to agree Neither

Tend to disagree

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

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

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

Very satisfied


Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

No opinion

tick one only

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

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

Yes

No

go to Q20

go to Q21


tick one only

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

Voicemail

1 person

2 people

3 people

More than 3 people

Can’t remember

tick one only

page 7

54


54


54


54


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

Very satisfied


Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

No opinion

tick one only

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

Yes

No

go to Q23

go to Q26


tick one only

Q23) Which contractor completed your last repair?

Taff Kitchen Team

Taff Electrical Team

SMK

Peter O’Neill

GKR

Heatforce

Other (write in)

Don’t know / can’t remember

tick one only

Information about repairs and maintenance helps us improve the service we provide

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

tick one only

Very good

Fairly good Neither

Fairly poor

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’

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

tick one per row

Yes

No

Can’t remember

Repairs and maintenance

page 8

55


55


55


55


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

Very satisfied


Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

No opinion

tick one only

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

Strongly agree

Tend to agree Neither

Tend to disagree

Strongly disagree

No opinion

tick one only

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

No opinion

tick one only

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

Very satisfied


Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

No opinion

tick one only

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

Very satisfied


Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

No opinion

tick one only

Communication and information

page 9

56


56


56


56


Strongly

agree Tend to agree Neither

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

Don’t access the internet

From a home computer

From your mobile phone

From friends/family’s computer

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

At work

Library

Community facility

Other (write in)

tick all that apply

Q32) Do you have a home computer? tick one only

No

Yes (with internet access)

go to Q34

go to Q34

Yes (without internet access) go to Q33

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 (write in)

page 10

57


57


57


57


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

Q37) Who did you report this to?

Did not report it go to Q39

Taff go to Q38

Local Council go to Q39

Police go to Q39

Someone else (write in) go to Q39

tick all that apply

Email

Social networking (e.g. Twitter, Facebook)

Telephone

Text/SMS

In writing

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

Visit to the office

Visit to your home by staff

Open meetings

Newsletter

tick all that apply

Very

satisfied Fairly

satisfied Neither Fairly

dissatisfied Very

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

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

tick one per row

page 11

58


58


58


58


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.

Right! Apples Oranges

Bananas Plums

Pears Apples

Apples Oranges

Bananas Plums

Pears Apples

Wrong!

In this example:

What I got wrong:• I put more than one cross in a row • I missed out a row

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

What more would you like us to do?

This side is much more

important

I feel the same about both

sides

This side is much more important

tick all that apply Q39) Did you know about the following services?

It is important to use that our tenants can get the help and support they might need

Other services

Taff Tenant Support Service

Housing Benefit surgery

Taff Welfare Benefits Advice Service

Moneyline Cymru

Credit Union

page 12

59


59


59


59


This side is much more

important

I feel the same about both

sides

This side is much more important

Help with training and jobs Help tenants get online with

computer training and accessing the internet

Provide more activities for children and young people to do

Do more to support our local community

Help with reducing energy bills

Use text messaging to remind/confirm appointments

Improved system for making repair appointments

Make it easier to get help with money/benefits

Better information on when improvements such as kitchens

and bathrooms will be done

Provide more services online, for example rent statements


Help with training and jobs






Help tenants get online with computer training and accessing the internet


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



Help tenants get online with computer training and accessing

the internet


Better information on when improvements such as kitchens

and bathrooms will be done



Help with training and jobs



Remember to fill in every row with a single cross!

Q40) For each row, which is most important to you?

page 13

60


60


60


60


No religion

Christian (all denominations)

Buddhist

Hindu

Jewish

Q42) What is your religion?

Muslim

Sikh

Any other religion (write in)

Prefer not to say

tick one only

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.

Heterosexual

Gay man

Lesbian

Q41) How would you describe your sexual orientation

Bisexual

Other

Prefer not to say

tick one only

Yes

No

Prefer not to say

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

tick one only

Yes

No

Don’t know

Q44) Does your household currently receive housing benefit (either paid to you, or directly to Taff)?

tick one only

Background information

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

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

Moneyline Cymru loan Licensed finance company such as Provident Loan from unlicensed money lender

Catalogues

Pawnbrokers

Family/friends

Other private individuals

tick all that apply

page 14

61


61


61


61


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

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.

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 £250!

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

Any other comments

page 15

62


62


62


62


63

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 non-respondents were excluded and/or question routing applied.

64

Taff Tenant Survey 2011 - Data summary

Frequency % overall % valid

Q1 Are you? Base: 487 1: Female 277 56.9 2: Male 193 39.6

N/R 17 3.5

Q2 Which age group do you belong to? Base: 487 3: 16-24 18 3.7 4: 25-34 59 12.1 5: 35-44 109 22.4 6: 45-54 127 26.1 7: 55-59 42 8.6 8: 60-64 40 8.2 9: 65-74 54 11.1 10: 75-84 27 5.5 11: 85+ 4 0.8

N/R 7 1.4

Q3 Which of these groups do you consider you belong to? Base: 487 12: Welsh/English/Scottish/Northern Irish/British 342 70.2 13: Irish 1 0.2 14: Gypsy or Traveller 0 0.0 15: Any other White background 7 1.4 16: White & Black Caribbean 13 2.7 17: White & Black African 6 1.2 18: White & Asian 6 1.2 19: Any other Mixed background 5 1.0 20: Indian 3 0.6 21: Pakistani 8 1.6 22: Bangladeshi 10 2.1 23: Chinese 2 0.4 24: Any other Asian background 5 1.0 25: Caribbean 4 0.8 26: African Somali 27 5.5 27: African (not Somali) 13 2.7 28: Any other Black background 5 1.0 29: Arab 17 3.5 30: Any other ethnic group 2 0.4

N/R 11 2.3

Q4 Do you have any children aged under 16 in your household? Base: 487 31: Yes 148 30.4 32: No 325 66.7

N/R 14 2.9

Q5 What is the main language spoken in your home? Base: 487 33: English 393 80.7 34: Welsh 7 1.4 35: Arabic 10 2.1 36: Bengali 7 1.4 37: Cantonese 2 0.4 38: Gujarati 1 0.2 39: Hindi 0 0.0 40: Mandarin 0 0.0

65



41: Polish 2 0.4 42: Punjabi 0 0.0 43: Somali 23 4.7 44: Urdu 6 1.2 45: Other 13 2.7

N/R 23 4.7

Q6 Does anyone in your household have any long-term illness, health problems or disability? Base: 487

46: Yes 241 49.5 47: No 231 47.4 48: Don't know 2 0.4

N/R 13 2.7

Q7a Has your home been specially adapted for this person? Base: 241 49: Yes 70 14.4 29.0 50: No 152 31.2 63.1

N/R 265 54.4 7.9

Q7b Does anyone in your household use a wheelchair? Base: 241 51: Yes 25 5.1 10.4 52: No 167 34.3 69.3

N/R 295 60.6 20.3

Q8 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service we provide? Base: 487 53: Very satisfied 244 50.1 51.6 54: Fairly satisfied 186 38.2 39.3 55: Neither 20 4.1 4.2 56: Fairly dissatisfied 17 3.5 3.6 57: Very dissatisfied 6 1.2 1.3

N/R 14 2.9

Q9a The overall quality of your home Base: 487 58: Very satisfied 218 44.8 46.1 59: Fairly satisfied 197 40.5 41.6 60: Neither 23 4.7 4.9 61: Fairly dissatisfied 24 4.9 5.1 62: Very dissatisfied 11 2.3 2.3 63: No opinion 2 0.4

N/R 12 2.5

Q9b The general condition of this property Base: 487 64: Very satisfied 206 42.3 43.9 65: Fairly satisfied 208 42.7 44.3 66: Neither 18 3.7 3.8 67: Fairly dissatisfied 27 5.5 5.8 68: Very dissatisfied 10.0 2.1 69: No opinion 2 0.4

N/R 16 3.3

66



Q9c This neighbourhood as a place to live Base: 487 70: Very satisfied 166 34.1 35.5 71: Fairly satisfied 207 42.5 44.3 72: Neither 39 8.0 8.4 73: Fairly dissatisfied 28 5.7 6.0 74: Very dissatisfied 27 5.5 5.8 75: No opinion 4 0.8

N/R 16 3.3

Q9d Your rent as value for money Base: 487 76: Very satisfied 189 38.8 41.0 77: Fairly satisfied 198 40.7 43.0 78: Neither 35 7.2 7.6 79: Fairly dissatisfied 30 6.2 6.5 80: Very dissatisfied 9 1.8 2.0 81: No opinion 9 1.8

N/R 17 3.5

Q9e Your service charge as value for money (if you pay one) Base: 487 82: Very satisfied 81 16.6 27.6 83: Fairly satisfied 110 22.6 37.5 84: Neither 53 10.9 18.1 85: Fairly dissatisfied 24 4.9 8.2 86: Very dissatisfied 25 5.1 8.5 87: No opinion 90 18.5

N/R 104 21.4

Q10a Kitchen Base: 487 88: Very satisfied 223 45.8 47.3 89: Fairly satisfied 157 32.2 33.3 90: Neither 16 3.3 3.4 91: Fairly dissatisfied 45 9.2 9.6 92: Very dissatisfied 30 6.2 6.4 93: No opinion 2 0.4

N/R 14 2.9

Q10b Shower or Bathroom Base: 487 94: Very satisfied 227 46.6 48.1 95: Fairly satisfied 159 32.6 33.7 96: Neither 21 4.3 4.4 97: Fairly dissatisfied 40 8.2 8.5 98: Very dissatisfied 25 5.1 5.3 99: No opinion 2 0.4

N/R 13 2.7

Q10c Windows Base: 487 100: Very satisfied 198 40.7 42.3 101: Fairly satisfied 158 32.4 33.8 102: Neither 30 6.2 6.4 103: Fairly dissatisfied 61 12.5 13.0 104: Very dissatisfied 21 4.3 4.5 105: No opinion 0 0.0

67



N/R 19 3.9

Q10d Running costs of heating / hot water Base: 487 106: Very satisfied 158 32.4 34.2 107: Fairly satisfied 178 36.6 38.5 108: Neither 45 9.2 9.7 109: Fairly dissatisfied 53 10.9 11.5 110: Very dissatisfied 28 5.7 6.1 111: No opinion 6 1.2

N/R 19 3.9

Q10e Locks and Security Base: 487 112: Very satisfied 226 46.4 47.8 113: Fairly satisfied 185 38.0 39.1 114: Neither 17 3.5 3.6 115: Fairly dissatisfied 34 7.0 7.2 116: Very dissatisfied 11 2.3 2.3 117: No opinion 2 0.4

N/R 12 2.5

Q10f Fire protection Base: 487 118: Very satisfied 251 51.5 54.1 119: Fairly satisfied 164 33.7 35.3 120: Neither 26 5.3 5.6 121: Fairly dissatisfied 14 2.9 3.0 122: Very dissatisfied 9 1.8 1.9 123: No opinion 7 1.4

N/R 16 3.3

Q10g Soundproofing Base: 487 124: Very satisfied 126 25.9 27.3 125: Fairly satisfied 157 32.2 34.0 126: Neither 58 11.9 12.6 127: Fairly dissatisfied 67 13.8 14.5 128: Very dissatisfied 54 11.1 11.7 129: No opinion 8 1.6

N/R 17 3.5

Q10h Storage space Base: 487 130: Very satisfied 140 28.7 29.9 131: Fairly satisfied 182 37.4 38.9 132: Neither 52 10.7 11.1 133: Fairly dissatisfied 51 10.5 10.9 134: Very dissatisfied 43 8.8 9.2 135: No opinion 3 0.6

N/R 16 3.3

Q10i Freedom from dampness Base: 487 136: Very satisfied 200 41.1 42.9 137: Fairly satisfied 153 31.4 32.8 138: Neither 33 6.8 7.1

68



139: Fairly dissatisfied 45 9.2 9.7 140: Very dissatisfied 35 7.2 7.5 141: No opinion 5 1.0

N/R 16 3.3

Q10j Paving / Garden (if applicable) Base: 487 142: Very satisfied 123 25.3 31.5 143: Fairly satisfied 150 30.8 38.5 144: Neither 41 8.4 10.5 145: Fairly dissatisfied 41 8.4 10.5 146: Very dissatisfied 35 7.2 9.0 147: No opinion 45 9.2

N/R 52 10.7

Q10k Fencing (if applicable) Base: 487 148: Very satisfied 120 24.6 34.2 149: Fairly satisfied 121 24.8 34.5 150: Neither 49 10.1 14.0 151: Fairly dissatisfied 32 6.6 9.1 152: Very dissatisfied 29 6.0 8.3 153: No opinion 57 11.7

N/R 79 16.2

Q10l Communal areas (if applicable) Base: 487 154: Very satisfied 85 17.5 32.0 155: Fairly satisfied 96 19.7 36.1 156: Neither 52 10.7 19.5 157: Fairly dissatisfied 19 3.9 7.1 158: Very dissatisfied 14 2.9 5.3 159: No opinion 95 19.5

N/R 126 25.9

Q11 How many vehicles does your household regularly park at or near your property? Base: 487

160: None 214 43.9 161: One 204 41.9 162: Two 32 6.6 163: Three or more 26 5.3

N/R 11 2.3

Q12 Do you have insurance for the contents of your home? Base: 487 164: Yes 136 27.9 165: No 335 68.8

N/R 16 3.3

Q13 Do you think you will still be living in this neighbourhood in 5 years time? Base: 487 166: Definitely 190 39.0 167: Possibly 149 30.6 168: No 42 8.6 169: Don't know 96 19.7

69



N/R 10 2.1

Q14 What do you like about your neighbourhood? Base: 487 170: The neighbours 212 43.5 171: It is safe 196 40.2 172: It is quiet 192 39.4 173: It is attractive 111 22.8 174: There is not much trouble 251 51.5 175: Good children's play areas 95 19.5 176: Near to shops 360 73.9 177: Local schools 160 32.9 178: Close to work 84 17.2 179: Close to family 175 35.9 180: Sense of community 97 19.9

N/R 14 2.9

Q15a Taff's office is conveniently located Base: 487 181: Strongly agree 254 52.2 53.8 182: Tend to agree 188 38.6 39.8 183: Neither 20 4.1 4.2 184: Tend to disagree 10 2.1 2.1 185: Strongly disagree 0 0.0 0.0 186: No opinion 5 1.0

N/R 10 2.1

Q15b The reception area at Taff's office is welcoming Base: 487 187: Strongly agree 294 60.4 63.4 188: Tend to agree 156 32.0 33.6 189: Neither 13 2.7 2.8 190: Tend to disagree 1 0.2 0.2 191: Strongly disagree 0 0.0 0.0 192: No opinion 11 2.3

N/R 12 2.5

Q15c I am satisfied with the current opening hours of 9-5 Monday to Friday Base: 487 193: Strongly agree 278 57.1 59.5 194: Tend to agree 159 32.6 34.0 195: Neither 17 3.5 3.6 196: Tend to disagree 10 2.1 2.1 197: Strongly disagree 3 0.6 0.6 198: No opinion 10 2.1

N/R 10 2.1

Q16 Have you contacted us within the last 12 months? Base: 487 199: Yes 407 83.6 200: No 50 10.3 201: Can't remember 21 4.3

N/R 9 1.8

Q17 How many people were you passed to before your query was dealt with? Base: 407 202: Voicemail 1 0.2 0.2 203: 1 person 259 53.2 63.6

70



204: 2 people 82 16.8 20.1 205: 3 people 7 1.4 1.7 206: More than 3 people 10 2.1 2.5 207: Can't remember 34 7.0 8.4

N/R 94 19.3 3.4

Q18a I was dealt with promptly Base: 407 208: Strongly agree 230 47.2 57.6 209: Tend to agree 127 26.1 31.8 210: Neither 14 2.9 3.5 211: Tend to disagree 22 4.5 5.5 212: Strongly disagree 6 1.2 1.5 213: No opinion 3 0.6

N/R 85 17.5 1.2

Q18b It was easy to get hold of the right person Base: 407 214: Strongly agree 222 45.6 55.6 215: Tend to agree 127 26.1 31.8 216: Neither 21 4.3 5.3 217: Tend to disagree 22 4.5 5.5 218: Strongly disagree 7 1.4 1.8 219: No opinion 2 0.4

N/R 86 17.7 1.5

Q18c The staff who dealt with me were polite Base: 407 220: Strongly agree 280 57.5 69.7 221: Tend to agree 109 22.4 27.1 222: Neither 9 1.8 2.2 223: Tend to disagree 1 0.2 0.2 224: Strongly disagree 3 0.6 0.7 225: No opinion 0 0.0

N/R 85 17.5 1.2

Q18d The staff who dealt with me were helpful Base: 407 226: Strongly agree 269 55.2 67.1 227: Tend to agree 112 23.0 27.9 228: Neither 12 2.5 3.0 229: Tend to disagree 6 1.2 1.5 230: Strongly disagree 2 0.4 0.5 231: No opinion 0 0.0

N/R 86 17.7 1.5

Q18e The staff were able to deal with my query Base: 407 232: Strongly agree 247 50.7 62.2 233: Tend to agree 104 21.4 26.2 234: Neither 17 3.5 4.3 235: Tend to disagree 17 3.5 4.3 236: Strongly disagree 12 2.5 3.0 237: No opinion 0 0.0

N/R 90 18.5 2.5

71



Q18f My query was dealt with in a reasonable amount of time Base: 407 238: Strongly agree 229 47.0 58.3 239: Tend to agree 105 21.6 26.7 240: Neither 30 6.2 7.6 241: Tend to disagree 14 2.9 3.6 242: Strongly disagree 15 3.1 3.8 243: No opinion 3 0.6

N/R 91 18.7 2.7

Q18g If someone needed to get back to me, they made contact when they said they would Base: 407

244: Strongly agree 194 39.8 50.8 245: Tend to agree 114 23.4 29.8 246: Neither 29 6.0 7.6 247: Tend to disagree 26 5.3 6.8 248: Strongly disagree 19 3.9 5.0 249: No opinion 10 2.1

N/R 95 19.5 3.7

Q18h Overall, I was satisfied with the final outcome of my query Base: 407 250: Strongly agree 236 48.5 59.3 251: Tend to agree 102 20.9 25.6 252: Neither 26 5.3 6.5 253: Tend to disagree 18 3.7 4.5 254: Strongly disagree 16 3.3 4.0 255: No opinion 3 0.6

N/R 86 17.7 1.5

Q19 Have you made a complaint to us in the last 12 months about the service you have received? Base: 487

256: Yes 50 10.3 257: No 403 82.8 258: Can't remember 14 2.9

N/R 20 4.1

Q20 Generally, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way we handled your complaint? Base: 50

259: Very satisfied 17 3.5 34.7 260: Fairly satisfied 16 3.3 32.7 261: Neither 5 1.0 10.2 262: Fairly dissatisfied 6 1.2 12.2 263: Very dissatisfied 5 1.0 10.2 264: No opinion 1 0.2

N/R 437 89.7 0.0

Q21 Generally, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way we deal with repairs and maintenance? Base: 487

265: Very satisfied 220 45.2 47.3 266: Fairly satisfied 197 40.5 42.4 267: Neither 17 3.5 3.7 268: Fairly dissatisfied 11 2.3 2.4 269: Very dissatisfied 20 4.1 4.3

72



270: No opinion 9 1.8

N/R 13 2.7

Q22 Have you had any repairs completed in the last 12 months? Base: 487 271: Yes 338 69.4 272: No 119 24.4 273: Can't remember 20 4.1

N/R 10 2.1

Q23 Which contractor completed your last repair? Base: 338 274: Taff Kitchen Team 22 4.5 6.5 275: Taff Electrical Team 12 2.5 3.6 276: SMK 56 11.5 16.6 277: Peter O'Neill 105 21.6 31.1 278: GKR 18 3.7 5.3 279: Heatforce 13 2.7 3.8 280: Other 9 1.8 2.7 281: Don't know/can't remember 41 8.4 12.1

N/R 211 43.3 18.3

Q24a Being told when contractors would call (e.g. appointment time) Base: 338 282: Very good 194 39.8 58.6 283: Fairly good 97 19.9 29.3 284: Neither 14 2.9 4.2 285: Fairly poor 15 3.1 4.5 286: Very poor 11 2.3 3.3 287: No opinion 0 0.0

N/R 156 32.0 2.1

Q24b Time taken before work started Base: 338 288: Very good 178 36.6 56.7 289: Fairly good 99 20.3 31.5 290: Neither 16 3.3 5.1 291: Fairly poor 17 3.5 5.4 292: Very poor 4 0.8 1.3 293: No opinion 6 1.2

N/R 167 34.3 5.3

Q24c Speed with which work was completed Base: 338 294: Very good 210 43.1 64.6 295: Fairly good 85 17.5 26.2 296: Neither 13 2.7 4.0 297: Fairly poor 9 1.8 2.8 298: Very poor 8 1.6 2.5 299: No opinion 1 0.2

N/R 161 33.1 3.6

Q24d Attitude of workers Base: 338 300: Very good 240 49.3 73.8 301: Fairly good 72 14.8 22.2 302: Neither 7 1.4 2.2

73



303: Fairly poor 4 0.8 1.2 304: Very poor 2 0.4 0.6 305: No opinion 2 0.4

N/R 160 32.9 3.3

Q24e Overall quality of repair work Base: 338 306: Very good 208 42.7 63.6 307: Fairly good 88 18.1 26.9 308: Neither 16 3.3 4.9 309: Fairly poor 8 1.6 2.4 310: Very poor 7 1.4 2.1 311: No opinion 2 0.4

N/R 158 32.4 2.7

Q24f Keeping dirt and mess to a minimum Base: 338 312: Very good 226 46.4 68.9 313: Fairly good 78 16.0 23.8 314: Neither 10 2.1 3.0 315: Fairly poor 8 1.6 2.4 316: Very poor 6 1.2 1.8 317: No opinion 2 0.4

N/R 157 32.2 2.4

Q24g The repair being done 'right first time' Base: 338 318: Very good 202 41.5 61.6 319: Fairly good 73 15.0 22.3 320: Neither 22 4.5 6.7 321: Fairly poor 17 3.5 5.2 322: Very poor 14 2.9 4.3 323: No opinion 3 0.6

N/R 156 32.0 2.1

Q25 Did you have to follow up with us about your last repair? Base: 338 324: Yes 71 14.6 21.0 325: No 244 50.1 72.2 326: Can't remember 10 2.1 3.0

N/R 162 33.3 3.8

Q26 Generally, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way we dealt with your last completed repair? Base: 487


N/R 17 3.5

Q27 It would be helpful is offered appointments for repairs at evenings and weekends Base: 487

333: Strongly agree 171 35.1 38.3

74



334: Tend to agree 174 35.7 39.0 335: Neither 62 12.7 13.9 336: Tend to disagree 32 6.6 7.2 337: Strongly disagree 7 1.4 1.6 338: No opinion 33 6.8

N/R 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

339: Very good 270 55.4 57.1 340: Fairly good 175 35.9 37.0 341: Neither 18 3.7 3.8 342: Fairly poor 8 1.6 1.7 343: Very poor 2 0.4 0.4 344: No opinion 9 1.8

N/R 5 1.0

Q29 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that we listen to your views and act upon them? Base: 487

345: Very satisfied 207 42.5 45.5 346: Fairly satisfied 174 35.7 38.2 347: Neither 45 9.2 9.9 348: Fairly dissatisfied 21 4.3 4.6 349: Very dissatisfied 8 1.6 1.8 350: No opinion 24.0 4.9

N/R 8 1.6

Q30 How satisfied or dissatisfied are you that we give you the opportunity to take part in decision making? Base: 487


N/R 10 2.1

Q31a The tenants' newsletter is informative Base: 487 357: Strongly agree 215 44.1 47.1 358: Tend to agree 192 39.4 42.1 359: Neither 43 8.8 9.4 360: Tend to disagree 4 0.8 0.9 361: Strongly disagree 2 0.4 0.4 362: No opinion 23 4.7

N/R 8 1.6

Q31b The tenants' handbook is useful Base: 487 363: Strongly agree 217 44.6 48.7 364: Tend to agree 186 38.2 41.7 365: Neither 37 7.6 8.3 366: Tend to disagree 3 0.6 0.7 367: Strongly disagree 3 0.6 0.7

75



368: No opinion 28 5.7

N/R 13 2.7

Q31c The website is informative Base: 487 369: Strongly agree 107 22.0 36.5 370: Tend to agree 111 22.8 37.9 371: Neither 65 13.3 22.2 372: Tend to disagree 9 1.8 3.1 373: Strongly disagree 1 0.2 0.3 374: No opinion 134 27.5

N/R 60 12.3

Q31d I understand my tenancy agreement Base: 487 375: Strongly agree 258 53.0 55.2 376: Tend to agree 182 37.4 39.0 377: Neither 17 3.5 3.6 378: Tend to disagree 10 2.1 2.1 379: Strongly disagree 0 0.0 0.0 380: No opinion 8 1.6

N/R 12 2.5

Q31e Letters from us are easy to understand Base: 487 381: Strongly agree 285 58.5 60.5 382: Tend to agree 167 34.3 35.5 383: Neither 10 2.1 2.1 384: Tend to disagree 8 1.6 1.7 385: Strongly disagree 1 0.2 0.2 386: No opinion 7 1.4

N/R 9 1.8

Q31f The rent statement is easy to understand Base: 487 387: Strongly agree 271 55.6 57.3 388: Tend to agree 169 34.7 35.7 389: Neither 21 4.3 4.4 390: Tend to disagree 8 1.6 1.7 391: Strongly disagree 4 0.8 0.8 392: No opinion 7 1.4

N/R 7 1.4

Q31g Information about the service charge is clear Base: 487 393: Strongly agree 185 38.0 48.4 394: Tend to agree 136 27.9 35.6 395: Neither 36 7.4 9.4 396: Tend to disagree 18 3.7 4.7 397: Strongly disagree 7 1.4 1.8 398: No opinion 62 12.7

N/R 43 8.8

Q31h I am satisfied with Taff's ability to communicate with me in my language of choice Base: 487

399: Strongly agree 297 61.0 66.9

76



400: Tend to agree 125 25.7 28.2 401: Neither 17 3.5 3.8 402: Tend to disagree 3 0.6 0.7 403: Strongly disagree 2 0.4 0.5 404: No opinion 25 5.1

N/R 18 3.7

Q32 Do you have a home computer? Base: 487 405: No 194 39.8 406: Yes (with internet access) 261 53.6 407: Yes (without internet access) 27 5.5

N/R 5 1.0

Q33 Why is your home computer not connected to the internet? Base: 27 408: Not interested 2 0.4 7.4 409: Can't afford it 21 4.3 77.8 410: Don't know how 2 0.4 7.4 411: Computer/phone line technical problems 2 0.4 7.4 412: Other 2 0.4 7.4

N/R 460 94.5 0.0

Q34 Do you regularly use the internet in any of the following ways? Base: 487 413: Don't access the internet 115 23.6 414: From a home computer 233 47.8 415: From friends/family's computer 58 11.9 416: From your mobile phone 70 14.4 417: At work 41 8.4 418: Library 67 13.8 419: Community facility 9 1.8 420: Other 18 3.7

N/R 51 10.5

Q35 Which of the following methods of being kept informed and getting in touch with us are you happy to use? Base: 487

421: Email 109 22.4 422: Social networking (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) 25 5.1 423: Telephone 311 63.9 424: Text/SMS 74 15.2 425: In writing 307 63.0 426: Visit to the office 210 43.1 427: Visit to your home by staff 120 24.6 428: Open meetings 43 8.8 429: Newsletter 139 28.5

N/R 5 1.0

Q36 Have you had any problems with ASB or neighbour nuisance at or near your home in the last 12 months? Base: 487

430: Yes 159 32.6 431: No 316 64.9

N/R 12 2.5

77



Q37 Who did you report this to? Base: 159 432: Did not report it 53 10.9 33.3 433: Taff 83 17.0 52.2 434: Local Council 13 2.7 8.2 435: Police 41 8.4 25.8 436: Someone else 5 1.0 3.1

N/R 331 68.0 1.9

Q38a Advice provided by staff Base: 83 437: Very satisfied 26 5.3 33.3 438: Fairly satisfied 26 5.3 33.3 439: Neither 7 1.4 9.0 440: Fairly dissatisfied 12 2.5 15.4 441: Very dissatisfied 7 1.4 9.0

N/R 409 84.0 6.0

Q38b Being kept informed Base: 83 442: Very satisfied 28 5.7 35.9 443: Fairly satisfied 25 5.1 32.1 444: Neither 12 2.5 15.4 445: Fairly dissatisfied 8 1.6 10.3 446: Very dissatisfied 5 1.0 6.4

N/R 409 84.0 6.0

Q38c Speed with which your report was dealt with Base: 83 447: Very satisfied 32 6.6 41.6 448: Fairly satisfied 23 4.7 29.9 449: Neither 7 1.4 9.1 450: Fairly dissatisfied 11 2.3 14.3 451: Very dissatisfied 4 0.8 5.2

N/R 410 84.2 7.2

Q38d Our response overall Base: 83 452: Very satisfied 26 5.3 33.3 453: Fairly satisfied 20 4.1 25.6 454: Neither 13 2.7 16.7 455: Fairly dissatisfied 11 2.3 14.1 456: Very dissatisfied 8 1.6 10.3

N/R 409 84.0 6.0

Q38e The final outcome of your report Base: 83 457: Very satisfied 24 4.9 30.4 458: Fairly satisfied 14 2.9 17.7 459: Neither 13 2.7 16.5 460: Fairly dissatisfied 16 3.3 20.3 461: Very dissatisfied 12 2.5 15.2

N/R 408 83.8 4.8

Q39 Did you know about the following services? Base: 487 462: Taff Tenant Support Service 295 60.6 463: Housing benefit surgery 255 52.4

78



464: Taff Welfare Benefits Advice Service 169 34.7 465: Moneyline Cymru 96 19.7 466: Credit Union 144 29.6

N/R 113 23.2

Q40 Taff are working hard to provide you with the best possible service, please tell us what more you would like us to do? (348 respondents)

Weighted score

Average rank Rank

a. Provide more services online, for example rent statements -50.7 7.5 10.0b. Improved system for making repair appointments 21.5 4.8 3.0c. Use text messaging to remind/confirm appointments -23.5 6.4 8.0d. Provide more activities for children and young people to do -0.6 5.5 6.0e. Help tenants get online with computer training and accessing the internet -28.9 6.7 9.0f. Make it easier to get help with money/benefits 20.1 4.7 4.0g. Help with reducing energy bills 49.9 3.5 1.0

h.Better information on when improvements such as kitchens and bathrooms will be done 24.1 4.5 2.0

i. Do more to support our local community 5.2 5.3 5.0j. Help with training and jobs -11.2 6.0 7.0

Q40a Provide more services online, for example rent statements Base:348Priority 1 - HIGHEST 3 0.6 0.9Priority 1.5 (Tie) 1 0.2 0.3Priority 2 3 0.6 0.9Priority 2.5 (Tie) 0 0.0 0.0Priority 3 5 1.0 1.4Priority 3.5 (Tie) 3 0.6 0.9Priority 4 16 3.3 4.6Priority 4.5 (Tie) 5 1.0 1.4Priority 5 26 5.3 7.5Priority 5.5 (Tie) 6 1.2 1.7Priority 6 36 7.4 10.3Priority 6.5 (Tie) 10 2.1 2.9Priority 7 37 7.6 10.6Priority 7.5 (Tie) 7 1.4 2.0Priority 8 42 8.6 12.1Priority 8.5 (Tie) 13 2.7 3.7Priority 9 50 10.3 14.4Priority 9.5 (Tie) 10 2.1 2.9Priority 10 - LOWEST 75 15.4 21.6

N/R 139 28.5

Q40b Improved system for making repair appointments Base:348Priority 1 - HIGHEST 40 8.2 11.5Priority 1.5 (Tie) 7 1.4 2.0Priority 2 49 10.1 14.1Priority 2.5 (Tie) 5 1.0 1.4Priority 3 38 7.8 10.9Priority 3.5 (Tie) 6 1.2 1.7Priority 4 21 4.3 6.0Priority 4.5 (Tie) 7 1.4 2.0Priority 5 36 7.4 10.3Priority 5.5 (Tie) 4 0.8 1.1Priority 6 28 5.7 8.0Priority 6.5 (Tie) 8 1.6 2.3Priority 7 25 5.1 7.2

79



Priority 7.5 (Tie) 9 1.8 2.6Priority 8 19 3.9 5.5Priority 8.5 (Tie) 7 1.4 2.0Priority 9 19 3.9 5.5Priority 9.5 (Tie) 3 0.6 0.9Priority 10 - LOWEST 17 3.5 4.9

N/R 139 28.5

Q40c Use text messaging to remind/confirm appointments Base:348Priority 1 - HIGHEST 11 2.3 3.2Priority 1.5 (Tie) 0 0.0 0.0Priority 2 17 3.5 4.9Priority 2.5 (Tie) 1 0.2 0.3Priority 3 24 4.9 6.9Priority 3.5 (Tie) 5 1.0 1.4Priority 4 27 5.5 7.8Priority 4.5 (Tie) 8 1.6 2.3Priority 5 28 5.7 8.0Priority 5.5 (Tie) 5 1.0 1.4Priority 6 27 5.5 7.8Priority 6.5 (Tie) 11 2.3 3.2Priority 7 38 7.8 10.9Priority 7.5 (Tie) 10 2.1 2.9Priority 8 41 8.4 11.8Priority 8.5 (Tie) 11 2.3 3.2Priority 9 40 8.2 11.5Priority 9.5 (Tie) 5 1.0 1.4Priority 10 - LOWEST 39 8.0 11.2

N/R 139 28.5

Q40d Provide more activities for children and young people to do Base:348Priority 1 - HIGHEST 40 8.2 11.5Priority 1.5 (Tie) 5 1.0 1.4Priority 2 26 5.3 7.5Priority 2.5 (Tie) 5 1.0 1.4Priority 3 31 6.4 8.9Priority 3.5 (Tie) 8 1.6 2.3Priority 4 25 5.1 7.2Priority 4.5 (Tie) 4 0.8 1.1Priority 5 26 5.3 7.5Priority 5.5 (Tie) 2 0.4 0.6Priority 6 25 5.1 7.2Priority 6.5 (Tie) 6 1.2 1.7Priority 7 24 4.9 6.9Priority 7.5 (Tie) 11 2.3 3.2Priority 8 36 7.4 10.3Priority 8.5 (Tie) 10 2.1 2.9Priority 9 29 6.0 8.3Priority 9.5 (Tie) 3 0.6 0.9Priority 10 - LOWEST 32 6.6 9.2

N/R 139 28.5

Q40e Help tenants get online with computer training and accessing the internet Base:348Priority 1 - HIGHEST 12 2.5 3.4

80



Priority 1.5 (Tie) 3 0.6 0.9Priority 2 6 1.2 1.7Priority 2.5 (Tie) 4 0.8 1.1Priority 3 19 3.9 5.5Priority 3.5 (Tie) 9 1.8 2.6Priority 4 19 3.9 5.5Priority 4.5 (Tie) 4 0.8 1.1Priority 5 28 5.7 8.0Priority 5.5 (Tie) 3 0.6 0.9Priority 6 41 8.4 11.8Priority 6.5 (Tie) 7 1.4 2.0Priority 7 42 8.6 12.1Priority 7.5 (Tie) 5 1.0 1.4Priority 8 36 7.4 10.3Priority 8.5 (Tie) 10 2.1 2.9Priority 9 52 10.7 14.9Priority 9.5 (Tie) 7 1.4 2.0Priority 10 - LOWEST 41 8.4 11.8

N/R 139 28.5

Q40f Make it easier to get help with money/benefits Base:348Priority 1 - HIGHEST 41 8.4 11.8Priority 1.5 (Tie) 1 0.2 0.3Priority 2 45 9.2 12.9Priority 2.5 (Tie) 4 0.8 1.1Priority 3 37 7.6 10.6Priority 3.5 (Tie) 12 2.5 3.4Priority 4 37 7.6 10.6Priority 4.5 (Tie) 5 1.0 1.4Priority 5 32 6.6 9.2Priority 5.5 (Tie) 7 1.4 2.0Priority 6 31 6.4 8.9Priority 6.5 (Tie) 10 2.1 2.9Priority 7 20 4.1 5.7Priority 7.5 (Tie) 7 1.4 2.0Priority 8 17 3.5 4.9Priority 8.5 (Tie) 3 0.6 0.9Priority 9 8 1.6 2.3Priority 9.5 (Tie) 5 1.0 1.4Priority 10 - LOWEST 26 5.3 7.5

N/R 139 28.5

Q40g Help with reducing energy bills Base:348Priority 1 - HIGHEST 79 16.2 22.7Priority 1.5 (Tie) 12 2.5 3.4Priority 2 63 12.9 18.1Priority 2.5 (Tie) 9 1.8 2.6Priority 3 34 7.0 9.8Priority 3.5 (Tie) 5 1.0 1.4Priority 4 38 7.8 10.9Priority 4.5 (Tie) 8 1.6 2.3Priority 5 32 6.6 9.2Priority 5.5 (Tie) 6 1.2 1.7Priority 6 17 3.5 4.9Priority 6.5 (Tie) 4 0.8 1.1

81



Priority 7 13 2.7 3.7Priority 7.5 (Tie) 4 0.8 1.1Priority 8 7 1.4 2.0Priority 8.5 (Tie) 1 0.2 0.3Priority 9 7 1.4 2.0Priority 9.5 (Tie) 1 0.2 0.3Priority 10 - LOWEST 8 1.6 2.3

N/R 139 28.5

Q40h Better information on when improvements such as kitchens and bathrooms will be done Base:348Priority 1 - HIGHEST 46 9.4 13.2Priority 1.5 (Tie) 8 1.6 2.3Priority 2 48 9.9 13.8Priority 2.5 (Tie) 7 1.4 2.0Priority 3 39 8.0 11.2Priority 3.5 (Tie) 8 1.6 2.3Priority 4 41 8.4 11.8Priority 4.5 (Tie) 3 0.6 0.9Priority 5 17 3.5 4.9Priority 5.5 (Tie) 7 1.4 2.0Priority 6 23 4.7 6.6Priority 6.5 (Tie) 5 1.0 1.4Priority 7 23 4.7 6.6Priority 7.5 (Tie) 8 1.6 2.3Priority 8 28 5.7 8.0Priority 8.5 (Tie) 4 0.8 1.1Priority 9 25 5.1 7.2Priority 9.5 (Tie) 2 0.4 0.6Priority 10 - LOWEST 6 1.2 1.7

N/R 139 28.5

Q40i Do more to support our local community Base:348Priority 1 - HIGHEST 21 4.3 6.0Priority 1.5 (Tie) 7 1.4 2.0Priority 2 21 4.3 6.0Priority 2.5 (Tie) 6 1.2 1.7Priority 3 37 7.6 10.6Priority 3.5 (Tie) 3 0.6 0.9Priority 4 34 7.0 9.8Priority 4.5 (Tie) 12 2.5 3.4Priority 5 40 8.2 11.5Priority 5.5 (Tie) 7 1.4 2.0Priority 6 44 9.0 12.6Priority 6.5 (Tie) 9 1.8 2.6Priority 7 27 5.5 7.8Priority 7.5 (Tie) 5 1.0 1.4Priority 8 29 6.0 8.3Priority 8.5 (Tie) 4 0.8 1.1Priority 9 16 3.3 4.6Priority 9.5 (Tie) 4 0.8 1.1Priority 10 - LOWEST 22 4.5 6.3

N/R 139 28.5

82



Q40j Help with training and jobs Base:348Priority 1 - HIGHEST 26 5.3 7.5Priority 1.5 (Tie) 2 0.4 0.6Priority 2 24 4.9 6.9Priority 2.5 (Tie) 7 1.4 2.0Priority 3 23 4.7 6.6Priority 3.5 (Tie) 5 1.0 1.4Priority 4 20 4.1 5.7Priority 4.5 (Tie) 12 2.5 3.4Priority 5 23 4.7 6.6Priority 5.5 (Tie) 5 1.0 1.4Priority 6 29 6.0 8.3Priority 6.5 (Tie) 10 2.1 2.9Priority 7 26 5.3 7.5Priority 7.5 (Tie) 14 2.9 4.0Priority 8 23 4.7 6.6Priority 8.5 (Tie) 9 1.8 2.6Priority 9 39 8.0 11.2Priority 9.5 (Tie) 6 1.2 1.7Priority 10 - LOWEST 45 9.2 12.9

N/R 139 28.5

Q41 How would you describe your sexual orientation? Base: 487 467: Heterosexual 321 65.9 468: Gay man 8 1.6 469: Lesbian 4 0.8 470: Bisexual 4 0.8 471: Other 24 4.9 472: Prefer not to say 52 10.7

N/R 74 15.2

Q42 What is your religion? Base: 487 473: No religion 117 24.0 474: Christian (all denominations) 212 43.5 475: Buddhist 2 0.4 476: Hindu 2 0.4 477: Jewish 1 0.2 478: Muslim 89 18.3 479: Sikh 1 0.2 480: Any other religion 13 2.7 481: Prefer not to say 23 4.7

N/R 27 5.5

Q43 In the last 2 years, have you borrowed money off a doorstep money lender? Base: 487 482: Yes 18 3.7 483: No 441 90.6 484: Prefer not to say 11 2.3

N/R 17 3.5

Q44 Does your household currently receive housing benefit (either paid to you, or directly to Taff)? Base: 487

485: Yes 369 75.8

83



486: No 93 19.1 487: Don't know 7 1.4

N/R 18 3.7

Q45 Do you have any of the following types of credit or borrowings at the moment? Base: 487 488: Overdraft with bank 83 17.0 489: Interest free loan from store 6 1.2 490: Credit card not paid off 68 14.0 491: Store card not paid off 17 3.5 492: Loan from bank/building society 31 6.4 493: Student loan 10 2.1 494: Credit union loan 7 1.4 495: Moneyline Cymru loan 15 3.1 496: Licensed finance company such as Provident 25 5.1 497: Loan from unlicensed money lender 5 1.0 498: Catalogues 58 11.9 499: Pawnbrokers 9 1.8 500: Family/friends 59 12.1 501: Other private individuals 15 3.1

N/R 267 54.8

D1 Area Base: 487 502: Canton 158 32.4 503: Fairwater 14 2.9 504: Grangetown 138 28.3 506: Riverside 169 34.7

N/R 8 1.6

D2 Property type Base: 487 507: Flat 241 49.5 508: House 238 48.9

N/R 8 1.6

D3 Bedrooms Base: 487 509: Bedsit 6 1.2 510: One bed 192 39.4 511: Two bed 122 25.1 512: Three bed 96 19.7 513: Four bed 50 10.3 514: Five bed+ 13 2.7

N/R 8 1.6

84

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.

Documents

Taff Survey 2011 Report