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

10:00 -10:05Recap of key areas of focus & previous actions 10:05 – 10:25Survey results 10:25 – 10:45Group discussion (break out into 4 groups) 10:45 – 11:00Feedback 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 – KPI scores Upward trend Downward trend Almost static Downward trend Industry average 79% * STAR benchmarking service, Summary of findings 2011/12, January 2013 Industry average 81%

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% Sept12 92% July12 86% Sept12 92% July12 81% May12 95% Oct12 81% May12 95% Oct12 74% Dec12 96% Feb12 74% Dec12 96% Feb12 64% Mar12 88% Nov11 64% Mar12 88% Nov11 Highest and lowest scores overtime

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 86% Sept12 92% July12 81% May12 95% Oct12 81% May12 95% Oct12 74% Dec12 96% Feb12 74% Dec12 96% Feb12 64% Mar12 88% Nov11 64% Mar12 88% Nov11 72% Sept12 93% Apr12 72% Sept12 93% Apr12 65% Sept12 81% Mar/May12 65% Sept12 81% Mar/May12 69% Nov12 94% Dec11 69% Nov12 94% 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 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

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)

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 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 ’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 rentFollow up inspectionsProvide litter bins Review anti-social behaviour Suggest the following actions: Introduce inspections following repairs / neighbourhood issues Provide clear direction regarding modernisation / repairs

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 communicationImprove service deliveryImprove 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 satisfactionRepairs satisfactionNPS

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