Presented by Raven Housing Trust Customer Satisfaction Research April 2013 Emma Hopkins

Presented by

Raven Housing TrustCustomer Satisfaction Research

April 2013Emma Hopkins

• 10:00 -10:05 Recap of key areas of focus & previous actions

• 10:05 – 10:25 Survey results

• 10:25 – 10:45 Group discussion (break out into 4 groups)

• 10:45 – 11:00 Feedback from each group & next steps

Agenda

Overview

Overview from previous presentation

Younger (16-34) residents felt less valued

/ less satisfied

Significant differences by area, mainly higher in

the South

Lower satisfaction for Housing services

• Communication issues

Repairs timescales and communication

continued to be an issue

Lower satisfaction for cleaning

• Communication and lack of time for cleaners mentioned

as the key reasons

Lower scores for cleaning, value for

money and grounds maintenance

Further investigations to address these key

areas included appending property

variables to the data:

Property type tenancy length

year the property was built

housing benefit

A question to analyse happiness of

residents was also added in January

2013

“Thinking overall about your life at the moment, how happy would you say you are on a

scale of 1-5 where 5 is very happy

and 1 is not at all happy?”

Suggested improvements were

also analysed for each service

These will be highlighted within the presentation

Continual investigations for the

following:

Repair being right first time / first call resolution

Time taken to complete the

work

Grounds maintenance

Rent / VFM

Actions taken as a result

Very little difference was evident between the profiles

• Although results indicated that younger residents continued to be less satisfied, regardless of property variables

Results from a similar survey conducted in the South has confirmed that younger residents are less satisfied than their older counterparts

Actions taken as a result

Results

Total Sample

Sheltered

Target

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Repa

irs a

nd M

aint

enan

ceCl

eani

ng -

Win

dow

sGr

ound

s mai

nten

ance

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

6%

5%

8%

9%

15%

7%

15%

10%

5%

3%

3%

5%

10%

8%

13%

8%

89%

92%

79%

89%

88%

86%

95%

75%

90%

85%

72%

90%

81%

91%

Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)

Total sample – KPI scores

Upward trend

Upward trend

Downward trend

Downward trend

Almost static

Downward trend

Downward trend

Industry average 79%

* STAR benchmarking service, Summary of findings 2011/12, January 2013

Industry average 81%

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Repa

irs a

nd M

aint

enan

ceCl

eani

ng -

Win

dow

sGr

ound

s mai

nten

ance

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0.062

0.082

0.0890000000000001

0.154

0.065

0.148

0.104

0.051

0.029

0.046

0.097

0.0830000000000001

0.134

0.0840000000000001

89%

79%

89%

88%

86%

95%

75%

90%

85%

72%

90%

81%

91%


Year on year, very little difference


Cleaning – lowest score for central patches

Repairs dissatisfaction drivers were poor quality, communication and ongoing issues such as

communicate when contractors will turn up, take note of problems and listen to residents (13 base)

86% Sept1292% July12

81% May1295% Oct12

74% Dec1296% Feb12

64% Mar1288% Nov11

Highest and lowest scores overtime

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Total Sample

Target

Repa

irs a

nd M

aint

enan

ceCl

eani

ng -

Win

dow

sGr

ound

s mai

nten

ance

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0.062

0.082

0.0890000000000001

0.154

0.065

0.148

0.104

0.051

0.029

0.046

0.097

0.0830000000000001

0.134

0.0840000000000001

89%

79%

89%

88%

86%

95%

75%

90%

85%

72%

90%

81%

91%


Year on year, very little difference


Only 12 respondents dissatisfied, communication issues being the key reasons

Such as coordinating better between contractor, Raven and customers

and understanding customers problems 86% Sept12

92% July12

81% May1295% Oct12

74% Dec1296% Feb12

64% Mar1288% Nov11

72% Sept1293% Apr12

65% Sept1281% Mar/May12

69% Nov1294% Dec11

Highest and lowest scores overtime

VFM - Only 69% in November 12

Y1 only 1 month of data (sample of 27), higher score. Y2 higher proportions of respondents saying neither –

is this driven by a proportion not receiving GM?


32%

31%

34%

Upward trend visible

Total

Sept 11 - Sept 12

Oct 12 - March 13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

20%

20%

19%

29%

29%

28%

51%

51%

53%

Detractors (rated 0-6) Passives (rated 7-8) Promoters (rated 9-10)

NPS score

Only 24% in April 12, one of the

highest detractor months (32%)

Detractor drivers (April 12)

included general dissatisfaction and would not

recommend

Customers don’t like their way of working, no follow up,

slow, prefer the Council

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

Repa

irs a

nd M

aint

enan

ceCl

eani

ng -

Win

dow

s

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

7%

6%

6%

9%

9%

7%

7%

11%

7%

15%

17%

14%

5%

6%

5%

3%

3%

2%

3%

5%

5%

7%

11%

10%

89%

88%

89%

88%

89%

91%

90%

84%

88%

78%

73%

76%


Total sample – KPI scores by Area

Overall satisfaction with Raven

(43% vs. 50% north)

Communal cleaning

(28% vs. 44% north, 43% south)

Central scored significantly lower than other areas

(those scoring 5/5)

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

North

Central

South

Hous

ing

Serv

ices

Grou

nds m

aint

enan

ceVa

lue

for m

oney

for r

ent

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

4%

8%

7%

15%

13%

17%

7%

11%

12%

8%

9%

7%

11%

16%

13%

10%

10%

6%

87%

83%

85%

74%

72%

70%

82%

79%

83%


Total sample – KPI scores by Area

Housing services

(33% vs. 41% north and south)

Value for money for your rent

(27% vs. 36% north)

Central scored significantly lower than other areas

(those scoring 5/5)

Patch analysis

Patch A - Tattenham Corner, Epsom, Nork

Patch B - Banstead, Hooley, Woodmansterne

Patch C - Preston, Tadworth

Patch D - Merstham, Tandridge, Caterham

Patch E - Merstham, Redhill North

Patch F - Redhill Central and South

Patch T - Rivers Estate, Tannery, Caberfeigh

Patch G - South Park, Reigate Mole Valley

Patch H - Woodhatch, Reigate, Salfords, Horley

Patch J - Horley, Crawley

Targ

etNo

rth

Cent

ral

Sout

h72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 82% 84% 86% 88% 90% 92%

79%

89%

89%

88%

86%

90%

88%

91%

90%

90%

89%

Patch analysis – Overall satisfaction with Raven Overall satisfaction score 89%Industry average 85% *

* STAR benchmarking service, Summary of findings 2011/12, January 2013

Patch analysis – D (central)

Consideration to be taken due to small sample sizes

•Poor quality cleaning (5) such as they don’t do a good job, they leave smears / marks, it still looks dirty

•Can’t remember (6)

Satisfaction with window cleaning (67% vs. 80% patch C/T)

•Generally dissatisfied (5) and on going problems (3) were the key drivers, such as they don’t do as they say they would and repairs are still outstanding

Satisfaction with housing services (79% vs. 89% patch C)

•Anti-social behaviour issues (19) such as drug dealers, drinking and unruly neighbours

Satisfaction with neighbourhood (74% vs. 94% patch B, industry average 82%)

•Base only 19

•Poor quality work such as they don’t cut the grass / it is overgrown

•Paving slabs are coming up and cars can now park on the grass

Satisfaction with grounds maintenance (63% vs. 78% patch C/T)

•No other profiling differences were evident

Demographically, a higher proportion of 16-34’s were interviewed in this patch linking lower satisfaction among this age group

(42% cleaning , 27% housing, 26% overall)

Happiness (70% vs. 83% patch C)

Key drivers of dissatisfaction

• Poor quality service delivery / lack of service (i.e. it was not done)• Repairs of poor quality, incomplete• Cleaning of poor quality, areas left dirty• Housing indicating ongoing problems and general dissatisfaction, such

as they could do more, provide a service, tackle anti-social behaviour• Communication issues

• They don’t keep you informed, listen to you, call back

Drivers for dissatisfaction with services

• Property not worth the rent being charged when compared to other larger properties / privately rented, mostly south patches

• Repairs issues - continued problems / not yet resolved• Neighbourhood issues, anti-social behaviour / untidy neighbourhood,

mostly central patches

Drivers for dissatisfaction for VFM

Areas of focus

Areas of focus – suggested improvements

Cleaning

Perception is that it is not carried out often enough

Improve communication

Suggest the following actions:

Communicate when windows are cleaned

When communal areas cleaned

How much time should be spent on cleaning

Carry out spot checks on quality of work

Highlight wet areas for health and safety reasons


Repairs suggested improvements

Improve timescales to deal with repairs /

enquiries


Improve staff knowledge

Other suggestions provided by

residents

Introduce incentives for those who pay full rent / keep property area tidy

Raven to do what they say they will do

Raven to listen to tenants

Introduce resident meetings / contact with

housing officers


Clearly communicate timescales to residents /

adhere to these

Be clear about repair issues / residents

understanding


Housing suggested improvements


Home improvements / maintenance

Improve timescales to deal with repairs /

enquiries

Other suggestions provided by

residents (similar to repairs)Place tenants in

appropriate areas

Reduce rent

Follow up inspections

Provide litter bins

Review anti-social behaviour


Introduce inspections following repairs /

neighbourhood issues

Provide clear direction regarding

modernisation / repairs

Summary

Summary

Central patches tended to be less satisfied, although a higher proportion were young residents, especially for housing services (23% vs 16% North)

On the whole, younger residents were less satisfied, however, we need to be mindful of the small samples of dissatisfaction across each service

Common dissatisfaction trends were clearly visible and have continued to be over the months

Improve communication Improve service delivery Improve neighbourhood / ASB

Downward trend for cleaning, grounds maintenance and VFM

North and south residents tended to be more satisfied than central patches

Upward trend visible for

Overall satisfaction Repairs satisfaction NPS

Discussion

1. What do you feel are the key areas to be addressed in the organisation to help improve satisfaction?

2. What else could impact on scores?

3. What actions can be taken to improve satisfaction at present?

4. Who should be responsible for ensuring changes are made?

Team discussion / workshop groups

Documents

Presented by Raven Housing Trust Customer Satisfaction Research April 2013 Emma Hopkins