Presented by Raven Housing Trust Customer Satisfaction Research May 2014 Emma Hopkins

Presentation of results for 2014 (April 2013 – March 2014) Research audit overview Questions Agenda

Overview

Recap from previous presentation Upward trend visible for repairs satisfaction Older residents tended to be more satisfied Customers in the South were more satisfied, particularly Patch J and G Little change in satisfaction for: Cleaning (communal and window) Value for money Neighbourhood Downward trend in satisfaction for Housing services Grounds maintenance Quality of work and communication were key trends for dissatisfaction Younger residents tended to be less satisfied, although samples of dissatisfaction was small across each service Central patches tended to be less satisfied, although higher proportions were younger residents Key areas of focus were to remain the same Improve service delivery Improve communication Improve timescales

2013/14 Results

Methodology Reporting is carried out each month Data tables, key drivers and change in scores are identified Aspireview tables are also produced Housing surveys are conducted among a random sample of Raven’s total customer base 100 per month Reduced to 50 during Winter months (November to February) A sample of residents who receive the particular service are interviewed 50 Cleaning (will include GM questions going forward)100 Repairs Telephone calls are conducted among residents every month

Overall sample achieved vs. Raven demographic profile No weight of data required due to sample almost mirroring Raven demographic profile

Overall sample achieved vs. Raven demographic profile No weight of data required due to sample almost mirroring Raven demographic profile

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction Very little change in satisfaction year on year Below target Above target Below target Above target

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction Very little change in satisfaction year on year Below target Above target Below target Above target An uplift in satisfaction scores evident in last few months: February 14, 82% WC / 92% CC March 14, 86% WC / 92% CC An uplift in satisfaction scores evident in last few months: February 14, 82% WC / 92% CC March 14, 86% WC / 92% CC

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction Very little change in satisfaction year on year Below target Above target * STAR benchmarking service, Summary of findings 2012/13, March 2014 Below target Above target Industry upper quartile: 89% General needs 94% Housing for older people Industry upper quartile: 89% General needs 94% Housing for older people Industry upper quartile 85%

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction Very little change in satisfaction year on year Below target Above target Below target Above target ‘Ongoing problems’ was the key driver (base 20, 30%), more specifically, the repair has not yet been completed

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction Very little change in satisfaction year on year Below target Above target Below target Above target ‘Poor quality cleaning’ was the key negative driver (base 54, 9%), specific mentions included “not thorough enough’ or “not frequent enough”

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction Very little change in satisfaction year on year Below target Above target Below target Above target Low score continues

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction Very little change in satisfaction year on year Below target Above target Below target Above target ‘Have not seen any workers’ was the reason (base 60, 13%)

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction Below target Very little change in satisfaction year on year Below target

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction Below target Very little change in satisfaction year on year Below target ‘Communication issues’ (base 48, 5%) and ‘Poor timescales to deal with enquiries’ (base 36, 4%) were the key negative drivers. Specific mentions included “Raven not getting back in touch”, “Having little or no contact with the Housing Manager” or “Taking too long for repairs and other issues to be done” ‘Communication issues’ (base 48, 5%) and ‘Poor timescales to deal with enquiries’ (base 36, 4%) were the key negative drivers. Specific mentions included “Raven not getting back in touch”, “Having little or no contact with the Housing Manager” or “Taking too long for repairs and other issues to be done”

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction Below target Very little change in satisfaction year on year Below target Low score continues

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction Below target Very little change in satisfaction year on year Below target ‘I don’t receive any’ was the key reason mentioned (base 72, 36%) This question was revised in February 2014 and asked to people living in flats only and who were more likely to have received the service (previously all residents were asked this question) Satisfaction was 91% in March 14 This question was revised in February 2014 and asked to people living in flats only and who were more likely to have received the service (previously all residents were asked this question) Satisfaction was 91% in March 14

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction Below target Very little change in satisfaction year on year * STAR benchmarking service, Summary of findings 2012/13, March 2014 Below target Industry upper quartile 86% Increased to 86% in December 2013

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction Very little change in satisfaction year on year Value for money satisfaction 87% - 55 years+ 76% % % - properties % - properties % - happy 64% - unhappy 85% - property suits their needs 72% - does not

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction Very little change in satisfaction year on year Value for money satisfaction ‘Expensive’ was the key driver (base 74, 33%) 87% - 55 years+ 76% % % - properties % - properties % - happy 64% - unhappy 85% - property suits their needs 72% - does not

Total sample – KPI scores – Satisfaction 85% July 13 91% March 14 85% July 13 91% March 14 Highest and lowest scores for % Nov 13 96% Dec 13 87% Nov 13 96% Dec 13 74% Jan % May 13 74% Jan % May 13 48% June 13 86% March 14 48% June 13 86% March 14 70% May 13 88% Dec 13/Feb 14 70% May 13 88% Dec 13/Feb 14 57% Aug 13 74% Oct 13 57% Aug 13 74% Oct 13 73% June 13 86% Oct/Dec 13 73% June 13 86% Oct/Dec 13

Total sample – KPI scores by Area Overall satisfaction with Raven (43% vs. 54% south) Repairs satisfaction (60% vs. 67% south) Communal cleaning (35% vs. 50% south) Window cleaning (19% vs. 37% south) Central scored significantly lower than other areas (those scoring 5/5) ‘Higher percentage of 16-34’s in Central

Total sample – KPI scores by Area Overall satisfaction with Raven (43% vs. 54% south) Repairs satisfaction (60% vs. 67% south) Communal cleaning (35% vs. 50% south) Window cleaning (19% vs. 37% south) Central scored significantly lower than other areas (those scoring 5/5) ‘Poor quality repairs’ was the key driver in Central (39%, base 10 vs. 17% in North (4) and South(3)) ‘Higher percentage of 16-34’s in Central

Total sample – KPI scores by Area Overall satisfaction with Raven (43% vs. 54% south) Repairs satisfaction (60% vs. 67% south) Communal cleaning (35% vs. 50% south) Window cleaning (19% vs. 37% south) Central scored significantly lower than other areas (those scoring 5/5) ‘Poor quality cleaning’ was the key negative driver across all areas Central – 12% (31) North – 8% (14) South – 5% (9) ‘Poor quality cleaning’ was the key negative driver across all areas Central – 12% (31) North – 8% (14) South – 5% (9) ‘Higher percentage of 16-34’s in Central

Total sample – KPI scores by Area Overall satisfaction with Raven (43% vs. 54% south) Repairs satisfaction (60% vs. 67% south) Communal cleaning (35% vs. 50% south) Window cleaning (19% vs. 37% south) Central scored significantly lower than other areas (those scoring 5/5) ‘Have not seen any workers’ was the key mention driver across all areas Central – 19% (38) North – 12% (16) South – 5% (6) ‘Have not seen any workers’ was the key mention driver across all areas Central – 19% (38) North – 12% (16) South – 5% (6) ‘Higher percentage of 16-34’s in Central

Total sample – KPI scores by Area Housing services (33% vs. 43% north and south) Grounds maintenance (25% vs. 32% south) Value for money (30% vs. 36% north and south) Central scored lower than other areas (those scoring 5/5) ‘Higher percentage of 16-34’s in Central

Total sample – KPI scores by Area Housing services (33% vs. 43% north and south) Grounds maintenance (25% vs. 32% south) Value for money (30% vs. 36% north and south) Central scored lower than other areas (those scoring 5/5) ‘General dissatisfaction’ was the key negative driver across all areas Central – 8% (24) North – 6% (20) South – 5% (16), ‘Ongoing issues was also mention by 5% in the South ‘General dissatisfaction’ was the key negative driver across all areas Central – 8% (24) North – 6% (20) South – 5% (16), ‘Ongoing issues was also mention by 5% in the South ‘Higher percentage of 16-34’s in Central

Total sample – KPI scores by Area Housing services (33% vs. 43% north and south) Grounds maintenance (25% vs. 32% south) Value for money (30% vs. 36% north and south) Central scored lower than other areas (those scoring 5/5) ‘General dissatisfaction’ was the key negative driver across all areas Central – 8% (24) North – 6% (20) South – 5% (16), ‘Ongoing issues was also mention by 5% in the South ‘General dissatisfaction’ was the key negative driver across all areas Central – 8% (24) North – 6% (20) South – 5% (16), ‘Ongoing issues was also mention by 5% in the South The key theme visible was a low opinion of Raven, such as lack of care for residents i.e. only caring about money, no support, poor quality homes ‘Higher percentage of 16-34’s in Central

Total sample – KPI scores by Area Housing services (33% vs. 43% north and south) Grounds maintenance (25% vs. 32% south) Value for money (30% vs. 36% north and south) Central scored lower than other areas (those scoring 5/5) ‘General dissatisfaction’ was the key negative driver across all areas Central – 8% (24) North – 6% (20) South – 5% (16), ‘Ongoing issues was also mention by 5% in the South ‘General dissatisfaction’ was the key negative driver across all areas Central – 8% (24) North – 6% (20) South – 5% (16), ‘Ongoing issues was also mention by 5% in the South Such as outstanding repairs or poor quality and repeat visits required ‘Higher percentage of 16-34’s in Central

Total sample – KPI scores by Area Housing services (33% vs. 43% north and south) Grounds maintenance (25% vs. 32% south) Value for money (30% vs. 36% north and south) Central scored lower than other areas (those scoring 5/5) ‘Poor quality work’ was the key driver of dissatisfaction across all areas Central – 56% (18) North – 41% (16) South – 52% (11) ‘Poor quality work’ was the key driver of dissatisfaction across all areas Central – 56% (18) North – 41% (16) South – 52% (11) ‘Higher percentage of 16-34’s in Central

Total sample – KPI scores by Area Housing services (33% vs. 43% north and south) Grounds maintenance (25% vs. 32% south) Value for money (30% vs. 36% north and south) Central scored lower than other areas (those scoring 5/5) ‘Expensive’ was the key driver of dissatisfaction across all areas Central – 62% (26) North – 66% (23) South – 74% (20) ‘Expensive’ was the key driver of dissatisfaction across all areas Central – 62% (26) North – 66% (23) South – 74% (20) ‘Higher percentage of 16-34’s in Central

Patch analysis – Overall satisfaction with Raven Overall satisfaction score 87% Industry upper quartile 89% * * STAR benchmarking service, Summary of findings 2012/13, March 2014

Patch analysis – D (central) Consideration to be taken due to small sample sizes Poor quality cleaning (8) such as they rush the job, they aren’t frequent enough, they’re unreliable Satisfaction with communal cleaning (62% vs. 96% patch G) Poor quality cleaning (5) such as they never look clean, they look dirty Can’t remember last cleaning / any cleaning (3) Satisfaction with window cleaning (62% vs. 93% patch J) Anti-social behaviour issues (11) such as disruptive neighbours, noise issues and drug dealers Litter problems (4) Satisfaction with neighbourhood (76% vs. 95% patch B/H, industry upper quartile 87%) 24% were aged 16-34’s (20% average ) Higher proportion of central were waiting to move into another property (16% vs. 10% north and south) Happiness (68% vs. 78 patch H) Demographic differences

Satisfaction by key groups 16-34’s (80% vs. 91% 55+) Happiness (92% vs. 70% unhappy) Property suits current needs (90% vs. 76% does not) Overall satisfaction with Raven 16-34’s (86% vs. 95% 55+) Happiness (94% vs. 87% unhappy) Property suits current needs (93% vs. 85% does not) Repairs satisfaction Happiness (86% vs. 76% unhappy) Property suits current needs (86% vs. 79% does not) Communal Cleaning 16-34’s (68% vs. 84% 55+) Tenancy 10+ years (80% vs. 68% 1-3 years) Property suits current needs (81% vs. 69% does not) Window Cleaning Correlation between satisfaction and age/happiness

Satisfaction by key groups 16-34’s (75% vs. 86% 55+) Flat (74% vs. 86% Bungalow) Happiness (86% vs. 57% unhappy) Satisfaction with Housing Management Services 16-34’s (78% vs. 88% 55+) Flat (78% vs. 90% Bungalow) Happiness (83% vs. 64% unhappy) Value for money Happiness (72% vs. 60% unhappy) Property suits current needs (92% vs. 76% does not) Grounds maintenance Correlation between satisfaction and age/happiness

Net Promoter Score 31%32% NPS score 16-34’s (18% vs. 44% 55+) Differences between key groups Happiness (44% vs. -3% unhappy) Property suits current needs (38% vs. 7% does not) Residents waiting to move (19% vs. 35% not waiting) Benchmark 26%

Net Promoter Score 31%32% NPS score NPS was lowest in July 13 – 23% (27% Detractors) NPS was highest in Aug 13 – 42% Benchmark 26%

Net Promoter Score 31%32% NPS score NPS was lowest in July 13 – 23% (27% Detractors) NPS was highest in Aug 13 – 42% ‘Ongoing issues’ (base 92, 18%) was the key driver among detractors including specific mentions of outstanding repairs issues and communication ‘Poor standard of work’ (base 10, 16%) was the key driver this month

Net Promoter Score 31%32% NPS score Correlation between NPS score and value for money in 2014: -40% NPS (dissatisfied / 43% NPS satisfied) Correlation between NPS score and value for money in 2014: -40% NPS (dissatisfied / 43% NPS satisfied) Benchmark 26%

Key drivers of dissatisfaction - overview Poor quality service delivery / lack of service (i.e. it was not done) Repairs of poor quality, incomplete Cleaning of poor quality, not thorough Housing indicating ongoing problems, such as timescales to deal with issues Grounds maintenance not provided, albeit resident perception 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 properties / privately rented, generally expensive Repairs issues - continued problems / not yet resolved Drivers for dissatisfaction for VFM

Staff satisfaction analysis

Staff satisfaction – repairs survey only

Key themes of dissatisfaction were ‘lack of knowledge and providing incorrect information’ and resident having to ‘call back multiple times’

Staff satisfaction – housing survey only

Key themes of dissatisfaction were ‘Communication issues and timescales to deal with enquiries’

Workmen satisfaction – repairs Problem persists (base 25, 36%) Problem persists (base 25, 36%) Key themes of dissatisfaction were: Poor quality work (base 22, 32%) Poor quality work (base 22, 32%) Inadequate repair work carried out (base 22, 32%) Inadequate repair work carried out (base 22, 32%)

Workmen satisfaction – window cleaning

Workmen satisfaction – communal cleaning

Areas of focus

Areas of focus and suggested improvements Cleaning More frequent cleaning is required More effort and thorough cleaning required (Communal) Suggest the following actions: Review frequency of cleaning – suggestions for fortnightly Publicise cleaning schedule more visually which may increase awareness Review products and equipment used for cleaning

Areas of focus and suggested improvements Repairs suggested improvements Improve communication Improve timescales to deal with repairs / enquiries Home improvements / maintenance Other suggestions provided by residents Raven to listen to tenants Better / more qualified workmen More quality checks on works carried out Longer opening hours / more availability Suggest the following actions: Clearly communicate timescales to residents / adhere to these Ensure high standard of workmen and implement strict quality checks

Areas of focus and suggested improvements Housing suggested improvements Improve communication Home improvements / maintenance Improve timescales to deal with repairs / enquiries Other suggestions provided by residents Fixed/lower rent ratesMore staffMore personal serviceBetter quality workmen More focus on the elderly Suggest the following actions: Introduce inspections / quality checks following service delivery Review repairs workmen to deliver high quality and prompt service

Summary

North and South residents tended to be more satisfied than Central patches Slight increase since last year Repairs satisfactionNPS High satisfaction across each service Although grounds maintenance and cleaning remain lower, we have seen positive uplifts in recent months KPI satisfaction scores and drivers remain similar to last year

Summary Central patches tended to be less satisfied, although a higher proportion were young residents Cleaning 49% vs. 27% SouthHousing 43% vs. 22% SouthRepairs 41% vs. 27% 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 delivery

Research Audit

The purpose of this audit was to review the existing research program, and develop a plan for the financial year which is supported across the organisation A total of nine interviews carried out with a wide range of colleagues; – Amy Cheswick, Head of Housing – Arben Sallaku, Contracts Manager – Sue Lea, Communications – Nigel Newman, Director of Operations – Dave Poat, Head of Responsive Repairs – Joanne Silner, Head of Customer Services – Natasha Bonnick, Involvement – Jonathan Higgs, Chief Executive – Sian Dawe, Business Performance Analyst Background 1

Customer research is supported and monthly data is utilised and required by the majority across the business – Key questions have been highlighted for monthly reporting at different levels i.e. Board, SMT, etc to streamline processes Quarterly data on all supporting questions is required More frequent communication with Explain was also supported – Quarterly conference calls would be useful to allow time to discuss ongoing findings and raise queries and implement changes Six-monthly presentations on specific aspects rather than general picture suggested – Information circulated in advance with key questions for attendees to come prepared to discuss – Develop SMART objectives – For each objective determine level of responsibility needed to sign off the action and follow up Key findings 5

A number of comments were made in relation to specific questionnaires, i.e: Repairs - particularly interested in ‘First Call Response’ and a need to understand where responsibility lies: When dissatisfied with repairs timescale or right first time – probe to determine technical, behavioural or resource issue What would we uncover if we did research part way through works, particularly long term repairs? Housing - suggestions for additional questions – moneywise, Quid’s In, recruitment for ‘Sounding Board’, future interaction, etc Cleaning & GM - Include GM questions all year round and either avoid term ‘grounds maintenance’ or provide detail regarding meaning ASB - Create a more sensitive opening paragraph focusing on confidentiality Complaints – verify what information can be gathered from internal records to streamline the questions Specific questionnaire amends 11

All questionnaires have been reviewed following the audit: – Repairs – this survey has been developed the most. Key changes are; Reduction in questions/length to allow more time to delve into key areas Revised ‘code frames’ to determine whether response if referring to people/process Wording change to RFT question – Housing – Code frames amended (as per repairs), some questions removed and others added – Cleaning and GM – GM questions all year round, further explanation re grounds maintenance and code frames amended Reporting format is still being discussed and agreed, but moving forward presentations/sessions will focus on action planning to drive change Next steps