What are resident survey questions?
Resident survey questions ask people who live in a building or community about their experience, needs and priorities. A useful survey helps a housing provider, council, property team or community organization decide what to improve and explain what happens next.
This page provides 20 adaptable examples covering community priorities, housing experience, communication and access. It also explains how to reach a wider range of residents, read comments alongside ratings and compare results responsibly.
Begin with a clear purpose. A building-maintenance survey, a neighborhood priorities consultation and a recurring resident-experience study are different instruments. Choose the relevant questions rather than combining every topic into one long questionnaire.
Define whose experience you need to understand
Decide whether the response represents an individual resident, a household or another defined unit. If a household can submit only one response, explain who should answer and what that answer represents. If several household members can respond, avoid interpreting the number of responses as the number of households.
Specify the area, eligibility, collection period and intended use. Identify who might be missed by the invitation method, language, timing or response channel. Posting an online link may gather useful views, but it does not automatically create a representative sample of all residents.
Decide separately whether answers should be anonymous, confidential but identifiable, or explicitly part of a service request. A resident may reasonably want to criticize a service without linking that criticism to a personal record.
20 resident survey questions to adapt
The examples below are planning aids, not a validated instrument. Test the language and response options with suitable residents. Keep the same meaning across languages and provide “not applicable,” “unsure” or a way to skip where needed.
Community experience and priorities
Scroll horizontally to see all columns →
| Example question | Suggested response format |
|---|---|
| Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with [area] as a place to live? | Very dissatisfied / Somewhat dissatisfied / Neither / Somewhat satisfied / Very satisfied; separate unable to judge |
| Which three issues in [area] would you most like the team to address? | Relevant issue list with up to three choices and an additional-response option |
| What is one thing you value about living in [area]? | Optional open text |
| What is one change that would make living here better for you? | Optional open text |
| How easy or difficult is it for you to reach [specific local service]? | Very difficult through very easy; separate do not use / unable to judge |
Housing, building and shared-space experience
Scroll horizontally to see all columns →
| Example question | Suggested response format |
|---|---|
| How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the condition of [specific shared space]? | Clearly labelled satisfaction scale; separate have not used it |
| Have you reported a maintenance issue during the past [period]? | Yes / No / Unsure; route follow-up only to relevant respondents |
| Thinking about your most recent reported issue, was it resolved? | Yes / Partly / No / Unsure |
| How clear was the information about what would happen next? | Not at all through completely clear; separate no information received |
| What, if anything, would improve the maintenance-reporting experience? | Optional open text; ask respondents not to include private details |
Communication and participation
Scroll horizontally to see all columns →
| Example question | Suggested response format |
|---|---|
| During [period], did you receive information about [specific change or service]? | Yes / No / Unsure |
| How easy was that information to understand? | Very difficult through very easy; only for those who received it |
| How would you prefer to receive routine updates? | Relevant channels; allow more than one where feasible |
| How easy or difficult is it to share a concern or suggestion with [team]? | Very difficult through very easy; separate have not tried |
| What would make it easier for you to take part in community discussions? | Optional open text or suitable options |
Access, belonging and follow-up
Scroll horizontally to see all columns →
| Example question | Suggested response format |
|---|---|
| Do you know how to find information about [specific service or support]? | Yes / No / Unsure |
| What, if anything, makes it difficult to use [specific service]? | Optional open text or relevant barrier options |
| To what extent do you feel your views are considered in decisions about [specific topic]? | Not at all through a great deal; separate unable to judge |
| Is there anything important about your experience that these questions missed? | Optional open text |
| Would you like information about how the survey findings will be shared? | Yes / No; offer a separate contact form if the survey is anonymous |
Keep questions about a repair or complaint tied to a specific period or recent experience. Someone who never used a service cannot rate the handling of their request. Routing prevents irrelevant answers from becoming misleading satisfaction scores.
For urgent requests, provide the appropriate service channel directly. Explain whether the survey is monitored for individual follow-up. Do not let a feedback form imply that it replaces an emergency or maintenance-response process.
Ask neutral questions that lead to a decision
Replace “How much do you appreciate our improved service?” with a neutral question about the specific experience. Separate the speed of a response from whether the problem was resolved; these are different things.
Use clear single-choice options without overlap, explain the reference period and avoid unfamiliar organizational language. Ask only for demographic or location detail that serves a justified analysis. A very precise location combined with a comment can reveal someone even if their name is absent.
Use survey design for questionnaire structure and stakeholder survey questions when the audience extends beyond residents.
Hear beyond the people who readily respond
Reading all submitted comments is useful, but it cannot reveal the views of people who were never reached or did not respond. Address those gaps in the collection plan.
- Review whether the invitation reaches the relevant buildings, areas or resident groups.
- Provide appropriate languages and accessible formats.
- Consider suitable paper, telephone, assisted or in-person options alongside online collection.
- Record the collection mode and apply a consistent process for authorized imports and duplicates.
- Explain the purpose and return plan so people understand why their response matters.
Changing the mode can affect responses, so retain that context. Assistance should help someone participate without coaching the answer. If intermediaries collect responses, clarify their role and access.
AAPOR's survey-research guidance explains the importance of design, coverage and appropriate collection methods. A high response count alone does not resolve selection or nonresponse bias.
Worked example: a community average can hide a useful question
Fictional example. A housing provider surveys two buildings. Building A returns 80 responses, of which 48 report satisfaction with maintenance. Building B returns 20, of which 16 report satisfaction. Assume the same question, period and eligible response definition.
Scroll horizontally to see all columns →
| Group | Satisfied responses | Usable responses | Share satisfied |
|---|---|---|---|
| Building A | 48 | 80 | 60% |
| Building B | 16 | 20 | 80% |
| Combined responding group | 64 | 100 | 64% |
The combined responding-group rate is 64%, not the simple average of the two percentages, which would be 70%. This still describes respondents. Without the invitation and sampling context, it should not be presented as the satisfaction level of every resident.
Suppose Building A's comments frequently mention uncertainty about repair timing. Review the actual accounts and any appropriate service records before deciding what to change. A comment about communication does not prove the repair itself was slow, and a few comments cannot describe all nonrespondents.
If weighting or population estimates are needed, use a defensible method suited to the design. Do not apply a generic margin of error to an unrestricted opt-in survey as though it were a simple random sample.
Read comments alongside the relevant ratings
Define themes such as communication, resolution, access or shared-space condition with examples and boundaries. A response can mention more than one issue. Review contradictory and uncertain accounts rather than assigning every comment to one convenient positive or negative category.
For large volumes, Sopact's approach supports applying human-owned definitions across eligible responses and examining the resulting themes alongside ratings, periods and appropriate group context. Revising a definition should lead to a reviewable revised analysis, not an undocumented mixture of old and new coding.
The practical benefit is less repeated coding and manual joining. It does not make every classification correct or make the sample representative. The qualitative and quantitative analysis guide includes a workflow visual and an illustrative comparison of analysis effort.
For multilingual feedback, retain the original text and the language context. Review uncertain translations and culturally specific wording with suitable expertise. Do not assume that automatic translation removes all interpretation differences.
Compare rounds without requiring every resident to be identified
Choose between two legitimate designs. A repeated cross-sectional survey asks a relevant sample or responding group each round. A panel follows the same people under appropriate arrangements. They support different claims.
Scroll horizontally to see all columns →
| Design | Useful question | What to retain |
|---|---|---|
| Repeated anonymous or group-level survey | How do reported experiences differ across rounds? | Recruitment, composition, wording, mode and response coverage |
| Appropriately identified panel | How did the same observed residents' answers change? | Matching method, permissions, attrition, corrections and residence changes |
| Identified service follow-up | Was a particular issue followed through? | Explicit purpose, authorization, owner and appropriate access |
Moving residents and new arrivals matter to a community's experience. A panel that follows only people who remain is not automatically a better picture of the whole neighborhood. State who each result includes.
Read survey analysis for interpretation and mixed-mode collection for managing different response channels.
Use a shared core across properties or areas
Agree a few common measures where comparisons are needed, then let local teams ask questions that help them act. Define the unit, period, eligibility, wording, scale and missing-value treatment. Record local changes and decide whether they affect comparability.
A property-specific maintenance question may not apply to a neighborhood consultation. Avoid forcing it into every survey merely to fill the same dashboard. Shared definitions should make useful comparisons possible while leaving genuine differences visible.
Separate listening from individual service records
Explain who can access responses, how findings will be reported and whether follow-up is possible. If an anonymous respondent requests contact, use a separate process where needed to preserve the promised design.
Review small groups and quotations for disclosure risk. Reporting a rare circumstance, precise location and recognizable wording together may identify someone. Share the level of detail appropriate to the audience and purpose.
Product access controls need to be checked across search, summaries, exports and reporting as well as the original form. AI summaries should not become an automatic basis for tenancy, service eligibility or other consequential individual decisions.
Show residents what happened after they answered
Prepare a short return that explains who responded, the main findings, important limitations and the actions being taken. Give each action an owner and a review date. Where a request cannot be met, explain the reason in plain language.
For the fictional maintenance example, the team might publish clearer updates about repair status and review the relevant communication feedback in the next round. It should not promise that the change will improve satisfaction before evidence exists.
The report-writing guide and report examples can help structure a clear public return with appropriate evidence and limits.
Evaluate the whole resident-feedback workflow
Survey platforms vary in their support for panels, text analysis, contextual fields and follow-up. Sopact's connected approach brings recurring collection, relevant context, analysis and review together so the team can manage the process with less repeated assembly.
Test a realistic cycle with multiple collection modes, a corrected import, local questions, multilingual comments and both anonymous and identified purposes. Check which results staff can reproduce, how they inspect source accounts and how restricted information is kept from inappropriate outputs.
Compare the work involved in configuration, reconciliation, coding, translation review, reporting and follow-through. A form that is quick to launch may still leave substantial work afterward. Continue through the Customer Experience course for a practical feedback-program structure, adapting it to resident relationships and the responsibilities of your setting.
Watch: connect collection and evidence review
This introduction covers the broader workflow. Apply it with the anonymity, coverage and reporting decisions appropriate to residents.
Frequently asked questions
What should a resident survey ask?
Ask about the experiences and priorities the team can use: relevant services, shared spaces, communication, access and desired improvements. Select questions for the specific building or community purpose.
Should resident surveys be anonymous?
They can be. Choose anonymity when it fits the purpose and promises made to residents. Use identified collection only when justified, clearly explained and appropriately protected.
How can we hear residents who rarely respond?
Review coverage, languages, accessibility, timing and collection channels. Reading submitted comments is valuable, but it does not reveal the views of people who were not reached or did not answer.
Can we compare results between buildings?
Yes, when definitions, periods, eligibility and methods support comparison. Show group sizes, missingness and relevant differences; do not treat incompatible measures as equivalent.
Do repeat surveys need the same residents?
Only for claims about within-person change. Repeated group-level surveys can track reported community patterns, with changes in respondent composition and collection methods clearly described.
