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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
Year on year, very little difference
Total sample – KPI scores
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
Year on year, very little difference
Total sample – KPI scores
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?
Total sample – KPI scores
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
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%
Dissatisfied (rated 1 or 2) Neutral (rated 3) Satisfied (rated 4 or 5)
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
Areas of focus – suggested improvements
Repairs suggested improvements
Improve timescales to deal with repairs /
enquiries
Improve communication
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
Suggest the following actions:
Clearly communicate timescales to residents /
adhere to these
Be clear about repair issues / residents
understanding
Areas of focus – suggested improvements
Housing suggested improvements
Improve communication
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
Suggest the following actions:
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